Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 September 30

< September 29	October 1 >

September 30

Category:Future aircraft carriers

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Merge; re-creation as a subdivision permitted if there is agreement outside of formal CfD or DRV processes to do so. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:07, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Future aircraft carriers to Category:Planned aircraft carriers

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge. I'm not sure of the subtleties of the distinction between these two categories but think that Category:Future aircraft carriers is rather WP:CRYSTALBALL-ish. Bellhalla (talk) 23:13, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:25, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep "Planned" appears to be craft that were planned at one point, but never built; "Future" is for craft that have enough of a design plan to merit a standalone article without any WP:CRYSTAL issues. The difference is worth separating. Alansohn (talk) 18:28, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- At the other discussion (listed below) there was a suggestion to have a separate category named something like Category:Abandoned aircraft carrier projects. If no-longer-active aircraft carrier projects, like German aircraft carrier I (1915), were moved there and articles like USS Gerald R. Ford (CVN-78) (whose construction is well underway) were retained in Category:Planned aircraft carriers (or Category:Proposed aircraft carriers, depending on the outcome of the renaming discussion), would that work for you? — Bellhalla (talk) 13:56, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There is a related discussion here to rename Category:Planned aircraft carriers into Category:Proposed aircraft carriers. — Bellhalla (talk) 13:48, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Let's get these into one category and then decide if we need subcategories that have objective inclusion criteria. If so, they can be created. If the proposed target is moved, then this would simply be merged into the renamed target. To be clear, any future carrier was (or is) a proposed carrier. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:57, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Converts to Eastern Orthodox Christianity

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Rename Category:Converts to Eastern Orthodox Christianity to Category:Converts to Eastern Orthodoxy. --Xdamr^talk 22:11, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Converts to Eastern Orthodox Christianity to Category:Converts to Eastern Orthodoxy

Nominator's rationale: Rename. To match the subcategories, which use "Eastern Orthodoxy". Both terms redirect to Orthodox Church. "Eastern Orthodoxy" wins a google-hit battle 199,000 to 29,700. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:53, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:People repressed for educating African Americans

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete. --Xdamr^talk 22:09, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Category has only one page in it and is itself an orphan, not included in any other category (its parent category, "Victims of American political repression", was deleted earlier in September 2009). It is conceivable that there are other articles that could be usefully placed in this category, but in its current state the category is not useful. Orlady (talk) 20:21, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Johnbod (talk) 00:21, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Monk episodes of season 1

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Merge:

--Xdamr^talk 22:13, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Monk episodes of season 1 to Category:Monk episodes

Nominator's rationale: :Upmerge all to parent category. Even if an article existed for each episode, I'm not sure it is necessary to sub-categorize them by season. The fact that there are only a few articles for episodes for each season, there is absolutley no reason not to have them categorized under the parent only. Wolfer68 (talk) 18:47, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominating:

Category:Monk episodes of season 2

Category:Monk episodes of season 3

Category:Monk episodes of season 4

Category:Monk episodes of season 5

Category:Monk episodes of season 6

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Escort carrier categories

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Rename all per nom. --Xdamr^talk 22:14, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming:

Nominator's rationale: Based on this discussion at WP:SHIPS (with corresponding notice at WP:MARITIME), the consensus seems to be that escort carrier ship class categories be identified as "escort carriers" (and not "escort aircraft carriers" or just plain "aircraft carriers"). For most of these (all but one), the new names will match the main article of its corresponding category. As for the Imperial Japanese Army category, the only aircraft carriers they operated were escort carriers, so it seems best to rename to reflect this. — Bellhalla (talk) 17:47, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support renames to match title of parent articles. Alansohn (talk) 18:29, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:List of Capital MetroRail stations

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Rename Category:List of Capital MetroRail stations to Category:Capital MetroRail stations. --Xdamr^talk 22:15, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:List of Capital MetroRail stations to Category:Capital MetroRail stations

Nominator's rationale: Rename. These are not lists of stations but articles on individual stations so "List of" is superfluous. Tassedethe (talk) 15:52, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename for reason stated by nominator. -- BRG (talk) 18:09, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Parish Churches in Hertfordshire

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Administrative close since category has already been deleted under G7. Debresser (talk) 21:00, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Created by me in error Tagishsimon (talk) 15:35, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:WPSL Seasons

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Rename. Jafeluv (talk) 23:00, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:WPSL Seasons to Category:Women's Premier Soccer League seasons

Nominator's rationale: Rename. To expand abbreviation to match article Women's Premier Soccer League and to correct capitalization.. Tassedethe (talk) 13:53, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support Mayumashu (talk) 01:03, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nominator, and per guideline to avoid abbreviations. Debresser (talk) 20:55, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rename to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 18:30, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:NPSL Seasons

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Rename. Jafeluv (talk) 23:00, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:NPSL Seasons to Category:National Premier Soccer League seasons

Nominator's rationale: Rename. To expand abbreviation to match article National Premier Soccer League and to correct capitalization. Tassedethe (talk) 13:50, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support Mayumashu (talk) 01:03, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nominator, and per guideine to avoid abbreviations. Debresser (talk) 20:54, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rename to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 18:30, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:PDL Seasons

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Rename. Jafeluv (talk) 23:02, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:PDL Seasons to Category:USL Premier Development League seasons

Nominator's rationale: Rename. To expand abbreviation to match article USL Premier Development League and to correct capitalization. Tassedethe (talk) 13:49, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support Mayumashu (talk) 01:03, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Djln--Djln (talk) 16:53, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nominator, and per guideline to avoid abbreviations. Debresser (talk) 20:54, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rename to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 18:31, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Sindhi

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Merge; after-close clean-up will be appropriate. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:49, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Sindhi to Category:Sindh

Nominator's rationale: Merge. Sindhi is a disambiguation page, the correct article is Sindh. Several articles here need to be recategorized as Category:People from Sindh or Category:Sindhi people. Tassedethe (talk) 11:57, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge by hand if possible. Why do we have both Category:People from Sindh or Category:Sindhi people anyway? It's not too late to add them. Johnbod (talk) 00:14, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:European Student Organizations

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete. --Xdamr^talk 22:08, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Not sure what this category is trying to achieve. It might to be about student organizations that are members of the European Student Organization, but I can't find evidence of such an organization. It might be trying to be Category:European student organizations but Category:Student organizations is not subdivided by continent, it is barely subdivided in any standard way. The categorization of this category doesn't help either. In summary, delete. Tassedethe (talk) 11:16, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All are political, & I've added the only one that was not in the Category:Student political organizations tree. Johnbod (talk) 00:18, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Parkour

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Rename/merge as nominated. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:10, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Parkour Organisations to Category:Parkour organisations

Propose merging Category:Parkour Incorporations to Category:Parkour organisations

Nominator's rationale: First to correct capitalization. Second is a specific type of name used in Victoria, Australia, so should be standardized. This cat only contains a single article (as does the parent) so it is overcategorization as well. Tassedethe (talk) 11:04, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support. The rename could have been just nominated for speedy, and the incorporations category doesn't seem to warrant a separate subcategory. Jafeluv (talk) 18:39, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Parthenon Sculptures Reunification Organizations

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete (in closing, will merge to Category:Art and cultural repatriation as suggested). Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:51, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Overcategorization with little likelihood of growth, per WP:OVERCAT. Tassedethe (talk) 10:46, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Category:Art and cultural repatriation. Johnbod (talk) 02:46, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:USAF Organizations in Korea

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was:

Relisted at 2009 OCT 19 CfD. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:54, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:USAF Organizations in Korea to Category:Military units and formations of the United States in the Korean War

Nominator's rationale: Merge. Large overlap of two categories, and the title "USAF Organizations in Korea" is ill-defined. The other option is to rename it to Category:Military units and formations of the United States Air Force in the Korean War and categorize articles appropriately. Tassedethe (talk) 10:42, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

do not merge. Rename. Whether or not USAF articles should be in both categories depends on arcane arguments about various sub-categorizing schemes. Hmains (talk) 05:36, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep both (possibly with rename). There were US forces in Korea both during the war and ever since the armistice (which may be a valid distinction). No doubt some are army formations and some Air Force. This is a clear case for a tree of categories. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:22, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The only parent that relates to this discussion with subcategories is Category:Groups of the United States Air Force and it has no similar categories. The category as currently named implies that these units are actually located there and that is not the case. Some were there in the past and in some cases for short periods of time for a specific crisis. So this appears to be OCAT and somewhat ambiguous without any criteria for being included. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:28, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Tamil Community Organizations

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Merge both to Category:Tamil organisations. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:47, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Tamil Community Organizations to Category:Tamil organizations

Nominator's rationale: Merge. Parent cat only has 2 members so no need to split further. Tassedethe (talk) 10:34, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Since both India and Sri Lanka use British English spellkng, surely these should be merged/renamed to Category:Tamil organisations. Grutness...wha? 00:33, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Jhelum Cricketers

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete. --Xdamr^talk 22:07, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. The sole member of this category Azeem Hafeez is a cricketer from the place Jhelum not a team called Jhelum. As such it is overcategorisation. Standard categorization is by nationality and by team. Tassedethe (talk) 08:48, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Places historically in Berkshire

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Listify. It is clear that this information is in fact encyclopedic and should exist in a way to aid article navigation. Categories are not the solution due to the complexity of presenting this information in a way that educates. While a list exists, it does not come close to covering all of the articles included in the category. So these need to be added to the list. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:00, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. For the same reasons as Category:Places formerly in Lancashire (CFD 2009 September 8). Over-categorisation dealt with more comprehensively in the article List of Berkshire boundary changes which deals with all boundary changes (not just one) and can be properly referenced. MRSC (talk) 08:44, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a well populated category, established for a long time. The key reason for the category is to aid readers who come across references to places in the historic county. If you read a book or other material (published before 1974) which refers to, say, Abingdon, Berkshire, you may well want an easy way of finding articles on places in the county as it then existed. It's a useful finding aid for material about the historic county of Berkshire. The article List of Berkshire boundary changes, just created today by the nominator, is not adequate for that purpose. Mhockey (talk) 12:48, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But these categories do not contain a list places that were in the county at that time, they merely contain settlements in a parcel of land that has been transferred. They also hide complexity, by suggesting a century of changes occurred at a single stroke. They do not deal accurately with towns or parishes that were split between counties and later united in a single county, and ignoring most of them in favour of 1974 changes. If someone comes to the Abingdon article they will find text that tells them the history of boundary changes affecting it and when it occurred, with links to the relevant articles and references. The categories are confusing, anachronistic and inaccurate. MRSC (talk) 13:21, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Categories are finding aids. They are not meant to be accurate lists. "If someone comes to the Abingdon article.." begs the question of whether a category is a helpful way of finding the article. It's putting the issue the wrong way round - the content of an article can determine a category, but cannot be a reason for not categorising. As for the other boundary changes, they are trivial compared with the 1974 changes - it is the pre-1974 counties that readers are most likely to find references to. Mhockey (talk) 13:43, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Everything on Wikipedia is supposed to be accurate. Also I wonder where this category is supposed to end. It has Carmel College (Oxfordshire) in it, so why not railway stations? MRSC (talk) 14:21, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Carmel College (Oxfordshire) was never in Berkshire. I have corrected the article - thanks for picking that up. (And incidentally, the error would have been rather more difficult to detect if it were not for the category!). As for railway stations, the category is for places. Railway stations are not categorised as places.Mhockey (talk)

This is why lists are better for this, we can back it up with references. MRSC (talk) 17:37, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep per Mhockey, very good points. I'm not convinced the Lancashire category should have been deleted, but I missed the discussion at the time. Jeni ^(talk) 15:06, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per Mhockey. Unless I've missed something, the category looks factual and accurate to me. It does not assert that all the places listed were transferred in 1974, so I see nothing "confusing, anachronistic and inaccurate" about it. It will not "hide complexity" so long as the article about each place correctly states what year it was transferred from Berkshire. Last week I created the Caversfield article and was delighted to find that the parish used to be an exclave of Bucks. I looked for a "Places formerly in Buckinghamshire" category to which to add it, but realised such a category would very small and not very notable. By contrast "Places formerly in Berkshire" is large, notable and useful. Please let's keep it. Motacilla (talk) 23:23, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The Lancashire category was deleted, though (on second thoughts) it might usefully have been used as a parent category for subcats on places in the districts of Merseyside and Greater Manchester, north of the Mersey, and in Furness and Cartmel - now Cumbria (as long as the inclusion of articles was prohibited, except perhaps the main articles on districts). The rationale for this category is that most of west Berkshire was transferred to Oxfordshire in 1974, but I suspect this is only one or two districts. I think that the argumetns, just expressed in favour of a Lancashire category might apply here. However I would not like to see any village having two categories - an Oxford shire one and a former Berkshire one. WE might have domething similar for Worcesterhire, but in that case villages would have to be categorised as changes have taken place on several occasions. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:33, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the Lancashire category might have been useful, although it might also have included articles on, say, Warrington and Widnes. It was nominated for deletion because it had only one article and was not itself categorised - and also because there was said to be no national framework for such categories (debatable - there were several at the time, most of which have subsequently been emptied and deleted). All in all, not a good precedent. I created Category:Places formerly in Cheshire (without knowing about the Lancashire CFD debate) -I was curious about what had happened to Cheshire, and I thought the category would have been useful to others so minded, but it was emptied and deleted outside the CFD process, apparently on the basis of the Lancashire CFD debate. Mhockey (talk) 10:06, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If people have been deleting with no discussion, perhaps its time we started recreating some of these categories. Jeni ^(talk) 15:14, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Categories of this type ("places formerly part of x") are not appropriate for the reasons described by MRSC. Being a former part of another area is not defining for a location. A list article would be preferable. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:26, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It would be a massive job to link every article in the category to a list (the present list would also need to be considerably expanded). What's the point? Mhockey (talk) 10:06, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is a massive job to add every place that has formerly been part of another entity to a category. This isn't the sort of thing we categorise. The end result is every place in north west London categorised as in "Places formerly in Middlesex" "Place formerly in the County of London". Why not "Places formerly in the Ossulstone Hundred" or "Places formerly in the Kensington Division" or "Places formerly in Uxbridge Rural District". MRSC (talk) 15:33, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I don't think "amount of work" is relevant, since whether it's a category system or a list system the same large amount of work is required. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:33, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to consider WP:CLN, e.g.

"Many users prefer to browse Wikipedia through its lists, while others prefer to navigate by category; and lists are more obvious to beginners, who may not discover the category system right away. Therefore, the "category camp" should not delete or dismantle Wikipedia's lists, and the "list camp" shouldn't tear down Wikipedia's category system—doing so wastes valuable resources. Instead, each should be used to update the other."

Mhockey (talk) 15:48, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CLN if anything highlights why these particular categories are a bad idea:

The entries in categories can't be edited, such as adding references or annotations to them, and the user must go to the article to see these.
There is no provision for referencing, to verify a topic meets a category's criteria of inclusion
The category namespace is not included by default in searches using Wikipedia's search box. Searches of the category namespace do not actually search the categories, only the category pages.
Categories give no context for any specific entry, nor any elaboration; only the name of the article is given. That is, listings cannot be annotated (with descriptions nor comments), nor referenced.

More here: Wikipedia:CLN#Disadvantages_of_categories. MRSC (talk) 17:33, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CLN is a balanced piece of guidance, which fairly lists the pros and cons of both lists and categories (but I'm not going to list them all here). It also urges us to respect the views of those who prefer one or the other. Mhockey (talk) 22:14, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Believe me Mhockey, I have "considered" CLN and have a good grasp of what it says. There is an editor who is a heavy CfD contributor who advanced his own interpretation of CLN for weeks on end in numerous discussions, even though a number of editors tried to point out that it didn't actually say what was being attributed to it. For that reason, I just have to laugh when any other user brings up CLN with a hint of suggestion that I or other CfD participants may not have considered it before. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:27, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete As said by User:Good Olfactory, "Categories of this type ... are not appropriate" for our encyclopedia for the reasons described by MRSC. The sheer amount of articles that could be encompassed by this would render navigation through it ineffective (not just towns or villages, but suburbs, wards, districts, unpopulated moorland, then perhaps buildings, roads etc etc). Futhermore the category assumes that boundaries were static and only changed in 1974, which is untrue; will we have "places formerly in Hexhamshire" and "places formerly in County of the City of Coventry"? - I think not. All changes to county boundaries can be described adequately in prose (where it counts) as should be the case per our convention WP:UCC and project guideline WP:UKCITIES. --Jza84 | Talk 10:37, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why does it assume that boundaries were static and only changed in 1974? The relevance of 1974 is that there is a lot of published material which refers to places as being in the pre-1974 counties, or is organised by those counties (e.g. the Victoria County History). The same simply does not apply to places once in Hexhamshire or Coventry, and such categories would not aid navigation as this one does. Mhockey (talk) 15:48, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why? --Jza84 | Talk 16:25, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you mean "why does this article aid navigation?", I can only repeat what I said above: "The key reason for the category is to aid readers who come across references to places in the historic county. If you read a book or other material (published before 1974) which refers to, say, Abingdon, Berkshire, you may well want an easy way of finding articles on places in the county as it then existed. It's a useful finding aid for material about the historic county of Berkshire."

If you mean "why is the VCH organised by pre-1974 county?", I assume it's because the series was started well before 1974. Mhockey (talk) 16:37, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But these categories don't provide an "easy way of finding articles on places in the county as it then existed". They deal with only parcels of land from a variety of time periods that have been exchanged. You would need a gazetteer to provide the service you claim this categories does. MRSC (talk) 17:28, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

... and I was asking why to "The same simply does not apply to places once in Hexhamshire or Coventry, and such categories would not aid navigation as this one does."? So, again, why? --Jza84 | Talk 17:35, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I thought I had made that point several times. You have to focus on the texts that users commonly read, and therefore will find references which they want to follow up. Very few people read pre-1572 texts about places in Hexhamshire. Plenty of people read pre-1974 texts about places in Berkshire - and post 1974 texts such as the VCH which are organised by the old county boundaries. This not an argument about nostalgia for old counties, it is about the best way of providing practical finding aids for users. Some people find lists useful, but please don't knock the users who find categories useful.

We also have a Category:People from Berkshire (before 1974) - one of a class recently expanded. It would seem very odd to have such a category without a category of the places that they came from. Mhockey (talk) 20:16, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No it's not clear. WP:UCC makes it clear than modern counties are the boundaries most familliar to users. VCH are just one text, not a tablet of gold, so to speak. We just don't need this categorisation, it's unencyclopedic, surely. --Jza84 | Talk 20:47, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody's disputing that modern counties are the boundaries most familiar to users, or suggesting that we dispense with categories which refer to current counties. WP does not limit itself to things most familiar to users. For users interested in the history of the county, the category is useful, so are the List of Berkshire boundary changes and Category:People from Berkshire (before 1974).Mhockey (talk) 22:14, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - what's the point? A map would be a much better way of showing what was where. Its impossible to fully populate these categories. Parrot of Doom 18:50, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For the most part the border changes would show as barely more than a discolouration of the county's borders. And how would a map link to the village articles concerned? Bazj (talk) 19:50, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A thought came to me that for these categories to be accurate and verifiable they would need to be of the form:

This is hopelessly too granular, but the only way to have any meaningful scope or accuracy. MRSC (talk) 11:27, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: I cannot agree enough with Mhockey. All places in the 'historically in Berkshire' category are also in the Oxfordshire towns/villages categories, so I don't see the problem with having both. Categories are finding aids. UK boundary changes can be very confusing, particularly to people living outside the UK. I think a category for anywhere that's ever been in Berkshire but is no longer in Berkshire is useful and will prevent people reading older references from wondering if they've really found the right place. I do not think specifying, in a category, exactly when places transferred or where to is necessary. This information should be in the individual articles. The category does not imply a transfer at one point in time, and if you think it does, a few words at the top can clarify this point. I think you should always put yourself in the place of someone coming to Wikipedia who knows little about the site or about the subject they are researching when trying to decide how to categorise. I think it should also be remembered that places may be categorised in 'History of Berkshire' because they are part of the history of that county, not part of the history of Oxfordshire or anywhere else (although it is part of 'History in Oxfordshire', etc). The 'historically in Berkshire' category makes it clear why this is so. BTW, the List of Berkshire boundary changes article is not comprehensive as claimed by the original author. Verica Atrebatum (talk) 16:14, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We do not categorise each locality by former territories, for obvious reasons. On UK articles we have codified in WP:UCC that we should only mention changes to county boundaries in the text of articles. This convention should be followed and was the basis for the deletion of the other categories in this class. MRSC (talk) 17:10, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep : I think you're misinterpreting WP:UCC, it doesn't say that we should only mention changes to county boundaries in the text of articles. Its main thrust is that historical county affiliations should not be presented as if they are currently in force. Categories clearly stating "historically in" or "formerly in" clearly don't cross that line. Categories are the easiest and quickest way for a user to cross reference county border adjustments. Bazj (talk) 19:50, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:NZ Art Guild Artists

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete. --Xdamr^talk 22:06, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Small category for not very notable organization. Only one artist in category. The only artist linked on the NZ Art Guild page, Sophia Elise, has been deleted as as an A7 non-notable. Tassedethe (talk) 08:38, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Johnbod (talk) 17:34, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Elektra Artists

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Merge. Jafeluv (talk) 23:03, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Elektra Artists to Category:Elektra Records artists

Nominator's rationale: Merge. The company is Elektra Records, Elektra goes to a disambiguation page. Tassedethe (talk) 08:26, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. 'record company artists' is the traditional exception to "artists" only being visual artists (or "recording artists") here, but the full name is needed. Johnbod (talk) 00:11, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Johnbod.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:40, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nominator. Debresser (talk) 20:49, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Merge to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 18:33, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:BCCI Corporate Teams

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Rename. Jafeluv (talk) 11:39, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:BCCI Corporate Teams to Category:BCCI Corporate Trophy teams

Nominator's rationale: Rename. To correct the capitalization and to match with the main article BCCI Corporate Trophy. Tassedethe (talk) 08:16, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nominator. Debresser (talk) 20:44, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Foreign Ministers of the German Democratic Republic

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Rename. Jafeluv (talk) 11:38, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Foreign Ministers of the German Democratic Republic to Category:Foreign Ministers of East Germany

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Per naming conventions for categories, which states that "the name of the country should appear as it does in the name of the article about that country". The article is at East Germany and the main category is Category:East Germany, with all subcategories also using "East Germany". A similar rename was recently made here. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:08, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename for stated reason. -- BRG (talk) 18:12, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Afro-Cuban jazz musicians

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Rename. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 14:09, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Afro-Cuban jazz musicians to Category:Cuban jazz (genre) musicians

Category:Afro-Cuban jazz clarinetists to Category:Cuban jazz (genre) clarinetists

Category:Afro-Cuban jazz double-bassists to Category:Cuban jazz (genre) double-bassists

Category:Afro-Cuban jazz drummers to Category:Cuban jazz (genre) drummers

Category:Afro-Cuban jazz guitarists to Category:Cuban jazz (genre) guitarists

Category:Afro-Cuban jazz percussionists to Category:Cuban jazz (genre) percussionists

Category:Afro-Cuban jazz pianists to Category:Cuban jazz (genre) pianists

Category:Afro-Cuban jazz saxophonists to Category:Cuban jazz (genre) saxophonists

Category:Afro-Cuban jazz singers to Category:Cuban jazz (genre) singers

Category:Afro-Cuban jazz trombonists to Category:Cuban jazz (genre) trombonists

Category:Afro-Cuban jazz trumpeters to Category:Cuban jazz (genre) trumpeters

Category:Afro-Cuban jazz composers to Category:Cuban jazz (genre) composers

Category:Afro-Cuban jazz ensembles to Category:Cuban jazz (genre) ensembles

Category:Afro-Cuban jazz bandleaders to Category:Cuban jazz (genre) bandleaders

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Add disambiguation and shorten "Afro-Cuban jazz" to "Cuban jazz". These are not jazz musicians of Afro-Cuban ethnicity; they are musicians that play Cuban jazz, which is a genre. (Afro-Cuban jazz redirects to Cuban jazz.) I suggest adopting the same method as was used for Category:African jazz (genre) musicians and Category:Brazilian jazz (genre) musicians. And if anyone knows why we have "drummers" and "percussionists" separate, I'd like to know. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:09, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support rename. A drummer is some one who sits behind and bashes a "drum kit" while a percussionist will play instruments that are hit, which includes marimbas, xylophones, and of course, possibly, a drum kit. The WP article Percussion instrument and I are in agreement. There is a significant difference in jazz and classical music, not so pop. --Richhoncho (talk) 19:21, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks—good to know. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:03, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. The main article is at Cuban jazz, and usually it's a good idea to name categories consistently with the corresponding articles. This is a case where the categories need disambiguating while the article name doesn't. Also note that the categories related to the Cuban nationality are at "Cuban jazz X", for example Category:Cuban jazz musicians (meaning jazz musicians from Cuba, not musicians who play Cuban jazz) and Category:Cuban jazz composers. Jafeluv (talk) 12:05, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Myanmar again

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Rename. Jafeluv (talk) 23:04, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Currencies of Myanmar to Category:Currencies of Burma

Propose renaming Category:Banknotes of Myanmar to Category:Banknotes of Burma

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Per naming conventions for categories, which states that "the name of the country should appear as it does in the name of the article about that country". The article is at Burma, the main category is Category:Burma, and all of its subcategories use "Burma". Intent of the change is to promote consistency, not to push any agenda. Similar renames have been done a number of times recently: 1, 2, 3. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:51, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nominator. Debresser (talk) 20:43, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:People by high school in the United States

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Keep. --Xdamr^talk 22:05, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: I don't think we need cats for high school alumni, but what about others? Should discussion suggest there isn't a need, then I'll nominate the sub-cats later Mayumashu (talk) 03:03, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

comment What is the difference between these U.S. categories and those for other countries, such as the United Kingdom Category:People by school in England? Hmains (talk) 03:54, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - these (US ones) were all discussed ad nauseam at cfd and drv in 2008. Occuli (talk) 11:02, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
probably keep, but it would be nice if we could just listify. The 2008 nomination was mine; I still believe this is OCAT. It would be nice if we could agree to just create lists for these, but I don't think it's going to happen because of parochial interests. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:07, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Thanks to User:Occuli for the links. I went to the discussion page for the page I ve nominated here and saw no record of a prior nomination, but it s its sub-cat pages that were nominated, so that there was no record sort of makes sense. The discussion last year showed most in favour of keep, so I am prepared to withdraw this nomination. (And I m assuming the distinction between 'prep' and non-prep HSs in U.S. in a clear one) Mayumashu (talk) 23:24, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if only for a quiet life. Johnbod (talk) 00:20, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not defining for all schools, but given that we agree that there are schools where attendance is defining, an appropriate parent category is justified. Alansohn (talk) 19:00, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Great American God-Out

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Administrative close: misplaced nomination. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:24, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The event was not of note. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dreamen (talk • contribs) 02:32, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Great American God-Out is not a category, dude. It is what we call an article. Someone want to close this nomination and point User:Dreamen to the right place? ^{Carlaude:Talk} 03:37, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.