Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Category:Lists of Australian Mayors and Lord Mayors

The following discussion comes from Categories for deletion. This is an archive of the discussion only; please do not edit this page. -Kbdank71 18:43, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Category:Lists_of_Australian_Mayors_and_Lord_Mayors
From the category's talk page:



Summary after 2 weeks &mdash; no support for deletion, but no consensus on Keep vs. Move => move to /resolved as a Keep.
 * 0 Delete: no support
 * 3 Keep: Wincoote; Cyberjunkie; Instantnood one anonymous vote left out of the tally
 * 2 Move: Gene Nygaard; Kbdank71


 * Since Docu's vote didn't count, and Cyberjunkie's did, the proposal was to rename, not to delete. That proposal was clearly unresolved.  Deleting was never proposed, nor argued.  Gene Nygaard 06:38, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Rename to Category:Lists of Australian mayors: a shorter name. Possibly merge back into Category:Lists of mayors-- User:Docu
 * Keep Accurate and harmless. Such things should be categorised on a national basis. Wincoote 15:50, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * KEEP: The idea of categorising is to group specifically related articles, so that a user may navigate with more purpose. This category achieves such. And, as I have already stated, the category title is in keeping with the articles and other categories. Besides, to have nominated this category and not it's Canadian counterpart seems biased. -- Cyberjunkie
 * It's mainly a nomination for renaming (with possible deletion -- there are fewer entities) and the Canadian category is already labelled that way. -- User:Docu
 * The Canadian category is named so because Canadian cities do not have Lord Mayors, and is, for that reason, appropriately named.


 * Rename All lord mayors are mayors.  There's nothing imperative about maintaining a distinction in the titles of these categories (or articles such as "List of ..." which include both mayors which are and are not lord mayors).  Make the distinction in the bodies of the articles, and introductionary text of the categories.  Gene Nygaard 14:50, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * That's like saying all prime ministers are ministers or whatever. The distinction is genuine and it matters to those who are interested in such things. Wincoote 19:49, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Whether the distinction is "genuine" or not, it has no relevance to our classification.
 * Your "prime minister" example is a bunch of malarky! That is a horse of a different color entirely.  Countries have many ministers in addition to prime ministers.  No Australian city has a lord mayor and a non-lord mayor at the same time.
 * The distinctions in the included articles are all chronological; plain mayors up to some date, lord mayors thereafter.
 * There are only 10 cities with lord mayors, and only half of them are in this category. No other cities are in this category.
 * The distinction is made quite clearly in the five articles which are in these categories, with two tables broken by the year of changeover if both are included in that article (at least one doesn't have any that are not lord mayors).
 * If this category were split into two categories, each of the articles currently here would likely fit into both categories, even though at least one currently lists people in only one of them.
 * To quote Lord Mayor: "The Lord Mayor is the mayor ..."
 * You can also put an explanation in the introductory text of the category page. Gene Nygaard 20:11, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * I still think it would be better to have it in the name of the category. The name is clearly phrased and accurate. It is hard to grasp why anyone could be against it so passionately. Wincoote 20:49, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * The distinction is, while not apparent at present, a necessary and genuine one. As the category grows - and it will - Lord Mayor will become distinguishing feature: In Australia, the title of Lord Mayor is generally (has only ever been) conferred on the head of the council in control of the CBD of a city. All others in the metropolitan-area are titled Mayors only.
 * The fact that there is a distinction in the titles of categorised articles should be reason enough for the category.
 * Seeing as though the Mayor is the chief, of course s/he doesn't serve with another - although, for some reason of which I know not of, the date on the Adelaide indicate that two Lord Mayors served concurrently.--Cyberjunkie 13:20, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * It's a useless distinction. It offers no advantages as a finding aid.
 * In fact, it needlessly makes finding something more difficult.
 * Perhaps an apt analogy is Category:State supreme court judges in the U.S. which quite properly has that name despite the facts that:
 * in many states these are called "justices"
 * in the state of New York the Supreme Courts are minor trial courts. What is included in this category is Category:New York Court of Appeals judges and you can see the introductory text of the state supreme court judges category to see how a brief explanation on the text of the category page can deal with this minor difficulty.  -- Gene Nygaard 14:43, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Rename. I agree with the precedent Gene pointed out.  -Kbdank71 15:19, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep In Australia, the Lord Mayor, whilst serving the same (generally) duties as a Mayor, is elected by an entirely different process. While a Lord Mayor is directly elected the constituents, a Mayor is elected by his/her fellow Councillors. For this reason, it is important that Mayors and Lord Mayors are not defined as the same thing. --Anon
 * Keep, as per Anon. Split if the category grows. &mdash; Instantnood 11:23, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)