Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 June 19



Category:Accounting in the People's Republic of China

 * The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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.

The result of the debate was delete, empty  --Kbdank71 17:28, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

accounting in the people's republic of china
 * Delete - This +category is empty and we already have Category:Accounting in China. PianoKeys 22:29, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Reverse merge, I think - Category:Economy of the People's Republic of China is the parent category, which suggests to me that the "PRC" version should be used here for consistency; however, thereafter we have super-parents of and  and no immediately obvious reason (to me, at least) as to why some categories use one form not the other.  Bencherlite 23:19, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - There is a Category:Economy of China but the question is why do we have and  when both are the same place ?? PianoKeys 09:30, 20 June 2007 (UTC)


 * China and People's Republic of China are not the same place.-choster 21:38, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.

University of Manchester

 * The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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.

The result of the debate was delete. Conscious 15:31, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


 * victoria university of manchester


 * university of manchester institute of science and technology


 * Nominator's rationale:


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Aviation in the Palestinian territories

 * The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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.

The result of the debate was keep. Conscious 15:31, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * aviation in the palestinian territories


 * Nominator's rationale:


 * keepThese are part of a systematic multi-national classification by country on aviation.--Peter cohen 23:27, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong keep This nomination is a clear example of a user not understanding the structure and strengths of the category system. Haddiscoe 14:16, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep That's not a lot of articles, but it's enough. Yechiel Man 08:36, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong keep per Haddiscoe. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:05, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per Peter. Carlossuarez46 20:42, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:UALR Trojans men's basketball coaches

 * The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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.

The result of the debate was rename. Conscious 15:31, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Propose renaming Category:UALR Trojans men's basketball coaches to Category:Arkansas-Little Rock Trojans men's basketball coaches


 * Nominator's rationale:


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Re-Constriction Records

 * The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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.

The result of the debate was delete. Conscious 15:31, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * re-constriction records


 * Nominator's rationale:


 * Delete per nom. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:24, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Mythological languages

 * The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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.

The result of the debate was delete  --Kbdank71 17:27, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


 * mythological languages


 * Nominator's rationale:
 * I have readded the articles that originally appeared with the category; I initiall just removed it from the articles because I felt it did not apply; then I realized it was an issue of a cateogry designed to be POV and the category should be deleted. --Storm Rider (talk) 04:46, 20 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete No category is really needed for only two members Reformed Egyptian, Adamic language, but if we're to have one, this POV title will not do.Proabivouac 19:28, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete or Rename per reasons of Proabivouac. This apparently was created to resolve the presence of those two articles in Category:Religious language. If such a separate category is to exist for these languages, it needs a NPOV name. The concept of Reformed Egyptian has only existed for ~175 years, so it's not really old enough or diffused in culture enough to be classified as "mythological". Creator of category seems to have a different meaning of "myth" in mind, which is POV. Creator has a recent history of creating highly POV edits in articles relating to the Latter Day Saint movement. –SESmith 23:38, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. A completely unnecessary, heavily POV category created solely for the purpose of sticking LDS beliefs in it.  If there were a category along these lines there would have to be other members and, as Proabivouac said, the title would have to be different since this is not NPOV.--Bigtimepeace | talk |  contribs 04:23, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. The category serves no useful purpose. Categories should exist to assist in the sorting and classification of large numbers of articles in order to allow an efficient search to be performed. That does not seem to be the intent in this case. Bochica 04:54, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - Nomination was clouded by WP:COI. Languages which are fabled to exist belong in a category.  LDS or not.  Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 16:03, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete For reasons stated.  The Jade Knight 06:36, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

COMMENT ABOUT WP:COI - ''See Merkey's comment and ensuing discussion below in the "Mormon mythology" section; no need for it to be duplicated here. alanyst /talk/ 19:22, 20 June 2007 (UTC)''
 * Keep Having duly listed myself as a member of (the largest) LDS church I consider this category not only useful, but indeed necessary. I attempted to list the Reformed Egyptian article with the WikiProject Languages only to see it disowned by that project (or at least Merkey on its behalf). If it cannot be classified as a real language, and not as a traditionally ficticious language (since this is contentious), then it stands to not be classified within the Wikipedia languages category hierarchy altogether. And that would be bad. Perhaps another name for it would be a good idea, e.g. Unverified languages? __meco 12:24, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep other languages may also eventually be includable, including the various languages ancient Greek and Roman writers ascribed to various mythological peoples (and partially-human groups, too) they wrote about. Carlossuarez46 20:41, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Mormon mythology

 * The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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.

The result of the debate was delete  --Kbdank71 17:25, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


 * mormon mythology


 * Nominator's rationale:
 * I have gone back and re-added all of the articles Merkey had listed as Mormon mythology. This are points of doctrine that no other Christian church is similarly accused. For example, when you look at Christian mythology, nothing is a point of doctrine, but rather rightly is considered the mythology that may be discussed, but is not any church's doctrine. I apologize for having removed the articles; they should have remained until this vote was over. --Storm Rider (talk) 04:46, 20 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep - Nomination was clouded by WP:COI.  Evidence of Latter Day Saints studies indicate Joseph Smith perpetrated numerous hoaxes and adopted and merged various beliefs of other cultures into his own mythology.  Numerous other categories exist regarding the mythological beliefs of other groups.  It is intellectual arrogance for Christian religions to characterize the beliefs of other cultures as "mythology" given the obvious fairly tale and book of fables nature of the Bible and Book of Mormon, the latter of which is unsubstanciated and in fact refuted by modern science and archeaology as a hoax.  LDS beliefs which are not provable or have been refuted as fables or obscure beliefs should be listed in a category as such.  Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 19:40, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Unnecessary POV. Isn't there already a category for LDS beliefs?Proabivouac 19:47, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Redundant with other LDS categories. Friday (talk) 19:51, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep; would fit as a subcategory of Category:Christian mythology would it not?-choster 21:51, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment No it would actually not fit under that category as it is currently populated. When you look at Christian mythology articles you see articles that have nothing to do with doctrine; they are not significant areas of belief. Rather they are topics that are discussed obliquely. This category is designed to be wholly different and is meant to engender disrespect as a religion and a belief system. The two cateogories have nothing currently in common. --Storm Rider (talk) 18:46, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * All CfDs imply a cleanup is in order, and a keep consensus does not necessarily mean the category as constituted is in impeccable condition.-23:18, 22 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment - The category is currently unpopulated (in which case it is a candidate for speedy delete); I am not sure if this is due to vandalism, proper category changing or what. Whever one's view of the Bible, all of it has existed for over 1900 years.  The LDS scriptures have existed for under 200 years.  Some events recorded in the Bible can be related to provable history or archaeology.  As far as I am aware none of those of the book of Mormon can be.  They are thus in a differnet category.  The word myth in its technical sense is not perjorative, but as commony used it is.  The use of the word "myth" is thus a POV on the content.  Jeffrey Vernon Merkey appears to be the creator of the category.  It is for him to find a non-POV title for his category to be renamed to, if he wants it kept.  Let me make it clear that I have no time for the LDS beliefs, but WP requires us to have a WP:NPOV.  I therefore say Delete or Rename.  Certainly do not keep it unchanged.  Peterkingiron 22:33, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. The reason this cat is unpopulated is because the nominator has removed it from all the articles it was attached to (see above), so it's clearly not a speedy del candidate on this basis. This is not the way to go about it, as it makes it rather difficult for others to assess how it is being used. These should be restored; once the discussion is concluded then they may be removed (if that is the consensus outcome).--cjllw ʘ  TALK 03:03, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per POV reasons above. Stories and beliefs that have existed for less than 200 years cannot be truly classified as "mythological" in the academic sense, and so it appears that the creator of the category has another meaning of "myth" in mind, and misunderstands the meaning of "mythological" in this context. Creator of category has history of creating POV-skewed edits in articles relating to Latter Day Saint movement. I would support a Rename, but adequate categories for Latter Day Saint doctrines and beliefs already exist. –SESmith 23:34, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Obviously it's POV as has been mentioned, but it's also completely unnecessary.  There are categories for Mormonism and associated beliefs already.--Bigtimepeace | talk |  contribs 04:29, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Another pointless waste of editor's time discussing another useless category. Bochica 04:56, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * (weak) Keep. Leaving aside for the moment concerns re any suspect motivation in the category's creation- this is not actually an anomalous categorisation, since we have had for quite some time many other articles and categories on other religions' mythologies. Also it should be noted that the sense in which wikipedia uses the term mythology is not the one necessarily implying falsehood or doubtfulness, but rather as "a traditional story or narrative that embodies the belief or beliefs of a group of people", to quote the prominent notice at and many of its subcats. This sense is also carried through in the mythology & mythology and religion articles. There has been considerable prior discussion on whether or not the adoption of this sense (the 'technical' or 'academic' sense) is appropriate, given that some folks may be unfamiliar with this usage and instead understand "mythology" as synonymous with "fictitious" - see for eg at Category talk:Christian mythology. However, to date this usage has not been overturned as necessarily POV or ambiguous (if it had, we should properly be nominating all the other "[religion] mythology" cats for deletion as well). Also don't think that something needs to be established for some arbitrary period of time, eg 200yrs, before it can properly be considered as 'mythological in the academic sense' (cf. urban myths, New Ageism). Having said all that, I'll make it only a "weak" keep, since there already is a, and given the LDS-related articles don't seem to be structured accordingly there doesn't seem to be a strong need for the 'mythology' cat (ie, not many articles within that existing structure appear to be specifically concerned with topics that could neutrally and validly be called 'mythology'.   --cjllw  ʘ  TALK 07:23, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. I agree with much of what was said above by cjllw. There are actually plenty of Mormon "urban legends" (often called "faith promoting rumors") which could be classified as "Mormon mythology." An article titled "Mormon mythology" would probably be very interesting reading, if such an article doesn't already exist. However, as a category, and noting the specific articles to which it was attached, I believe that the intent in this case was to use it to classify subjects as "fictitious" based upon a personal point-of-view. What we do not need is yet another minor subclassification of LDS articles that serves no useful purpose. Bochica 13:54, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I agree with your sentiments exactly, Bochica.  A category of "LDS Myths" might be interested if it were useful.  As this category currently stands, it is not.  The Jade Knight 06:43, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * delete there are already other categories that cover all of the articles that are within this category that are more descriptive. This is duplicative, and the intent of the editor in creating the categories was to push a POV. -Visorstuff 13:49, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * delete per reasons given. The Jade Knight 06:48, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

COMMENT ABOUT WP:COI - I do not believe that LDS editors should be allowed to vote here due to the issues of WP:COI. Others may wish to review this and make an appropriate determination. The basis for this is the LDS Churches control over these editors. The LDS Church teaches that its members have no first ammendment rights of expression when it comes to defending the church. LDS Church members are subject to excommunication if they vote for or show any support for any group who essposes views of their teachings which are contrary to official Church Doctrine. Given the LDS church exerts such a powerful form of control over its members and such control violates Wikipedia policies and Wikipedia's spirit of individual contribution, all votes from LDS editors should be considered one vote as a "meat puppet" of church sanctioned votes. This includes the vote of the nominator. The following editors have self-indentified themsevles as LDS:


 * Visorstuff
 * Bochica
 * Storm Rider
 * SESmith

Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 15:49, 20 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Jeff, I've already pointed out several times I am not LDS in any way. Actually I'm an atheist, and have been since I was about 12.  I know very little about Mormonism (I've never even known a Mormon), except that I would never join an LDS church in a million years.  So please don't tag me with the LDS label again, thanks.--Bigtimepeace | talk |  contribs 03:00, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


 * RE: Comment: So following your logic, you should not be allowed to edit articles of Native Americans since you are a memeber of the Utah Native American Church? http://www.utah-nac.org/

--Kebron 17:49, 20 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I am not under threat of excommunication for exercising freedom of speech. LDS people are.   Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 17:57, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * And your proof for such allegations is?--Kebron 18:39, 20 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Fawn Brodie - excommunicated for writing a biography of Joseph Smith. * Simon Southernton - excommunicated for publishing DNA Research on the Book of Mormon.   There are hundreds of others -- just not notable enough to be in Wikipedia.  Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 18:52, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * So your logic is if the church threatens their free speach, we must do the same and not allow them to speak? Two wrongs do not make a right..... sorry.... --Kebron 19:17, 20 June 2007 (UTC)


 * No. My logic is these editors can never vote in an impartial manner.  Kebron, you have been cautioned to not troll me.  Please observe it. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 19:40, 20 June 2007 (UTC)


 * That is proof? After reading Merkey's response it is clear he doesn't understand Mormonism nor the LDS church and its policies.
 * Brodie was excommunicated, apparently for apostasy from the church, and did not appeal it. She stated he had lost her belief in Mormonism years before she wrote the book that denounced Joseph Smith as a prophet. It’s like a Jew saying Moses was a liar and still keeping his standing in the synagogue, or a Catholic saying that peter was a fraud and expecting not to be labeled as a heretic or excommunicated.
 * Southerton was excommunicated according to him for “having an inappropriate relationship with a woman,” not apostasy in 2005. He also claims that his wife and he left the church informally in 1998 found here.
 * I think Merkey misunderstands the church, its culture and policies - for example, he stated that, "These people are smooth. They go trough years of training at the MTC (missionary training center) to develop these tactics [Mormons] go trough years of training at the MTC (missionary training center) to develop these tactics." (removed by him here.
 * In truth, Mormon missionaries are only in the MTC for three weeks - mostly learning how to study the scriptures and create lesson outlines or up to six weeks learning a language.


 * When Merkey says it is a COI for Mormons to write about Mormonism, he is not only excluding himself from editing anything he knows something about, but 95 percent of wikipedia editors from them editing anything they know about.
 * Some of the Mormonism editors are known in the academic and scholarly community for their work on Mormonism. Why remove that expertise?
 * He also states that "LDS Church members are subject to excommunication if they vote for or show any support for any group who espouses views of their teachings which are contrary to official Church Doctrine." This is a complete bastardization of a temple recommend question - which has no bearing on church membership. How Merkey stated it has quite a different connotation than "do you affiliate with any individuals or groups whose teachings are not in harmony with the gospel of Jesus Christ." Incidentally, a lot of temple-going Mormons answer this question "yes." The follow up question is "do you espouse any of those beliefs?" -Visorstuff 19:43, 20 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Tell us what happens if you answer yes. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 20:09, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 6 weeks + 2 years missionary work in the field with more mental conditioning and refresher courses during their servitude as marketing representatives raising money for the church. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 20:08, 20 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm unaware of any Church teaching that its members are to lie, or that they "have no first amendment rights of expression when it comes to defending the church." On the contrary, honesty is the best policy when dealing with critics - as we all know there is a lot we all don't know about a lot of things in this vast world.
 * I'm not so sure that User:Bigtimepeace is LDS.
 * In addition, Storm Rider and I have all argued in favor of including less than flattering things about Mormons and the LDS Church on wikipedia a number of times. Editing here has no bearing on excommunication and church status that I'm aware of.
 * And can someone tell me how Kebron responding to Merkey is trolling? -Visorstuff 19:43, 20 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Kebron is an SCOX account here to troll previously identified and warned to stay away from me. He cannot resist.  The Church excommunicated Brodie for writing No man knows my history.  They then excommunicated Simon Southernton for publishing DNA research which refutes the Book of Mormon.  I appreciate your honesty in admitting the temple questions and the relevance of WP:COI.  This is not something I can decide, but it seems odd any category I create is nominated for deletion by LDS editors.  My first edits to Mountain Meadows Massacre removing the false materials refuted by the Paiutes resulted in an RFC sponsored and signed by LDS editors trying to ban me from that article.  Edits of any kind to LDS articles get reverted, even if they have sources and citations.  As far as I am concerned, when LDS editors act in concert, admins or no given the Church's complete control over their lives, if 3 LDS editors revert it should count as 3RR for the whole lot, not just one.  Can you explain any of this to me?  I understand LDS practices very well -- I live in the Mecca of Mormonism, and I have gone to the LDS Church for 6 years.  There is a fundamental lack of fairness editing LDS articles by detractors or critics of Mormonism.  It needs fixing. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 19:53, 20 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I have repeated before... I DO NOT HAVE AN ACCOUNT ON THIS SCOX BOARD.... NEVER HAD! Each and every time I have asked questions of Mr Merkey, I have been accused of trolling LIKE OTHERS HAVE AS WELL. So anyone who asks Merkey as question is a troll in his mind. So here I am... so many weeks later, and I ask a question or two... I am a troll. --Kebron 15:53, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Merkey, if you do have understanding of the church then you are not showing your understanding very well. You may want to slow down when you edit so that we properly understand.


 * Again, Southerton stated that he was excommunicated for something other than what you say. Southerton states, "I was excommunicated for "having an inappropriate relationship with a woman" when I was a member of the church, married and a priesthood holder." And incidentally it is spelled "Southerton" not "Southernton."


 * Merkey, in addition, have you already forgotten that I was trying to help you find a source for the Cherokee tie-in for the Reformed Egyptian article? It hardly seems that Mormon editors always work in concert. Of course, Mormon or not, editors will revert edits that are unsourced or incorrect, as your Paiute/MMM example (which was removed by Non-LDS editors) was. You seem to think everyone who edits Mormon-related articles is mormon but you. This is far from true. We have many Non-LDS editors who focus on Mormon topics.


 * Most of the long-time Mormon editors on Wikipedia bend over backward to make sure that critical and naturalistic views are inclued. We want to err on the side of neutrality, even if it is not factual.


 * As for the temple recommend question, i was showing that how you positioned the statement is misleading. Not that it was your intent, as it is easy to misunderstand some things. I think it is similar to Ed Decker stating that Mormons believe in "eternal sex" because Mormon culturally believe they get to have spirit children after this life. Who I vote for, or what groups I belong to, or my personal views on anything doesn't affect my church membership. -Visorstuff 20:10, 20 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Visorstuff, I agree that your edits and collaboration have been significantly more neutral than most of the other LDS editors I have encountered editing those articles. Let's try this, you and I can try to collaborate again on some of these articles.  However, the other LDS editors who seem to be on a "jihad" of sorts to remove any materials which are not Church approved need to step back and consider how they may be perceived by other folks and the public.  I am certainly not the best example of an typical Wikipedia Editor.  No matter how hard I try to wear than sheepskin, it fails to hide my 12 inch fangs, 3 inch claws, and my tiger stripes peek out from underneath my sheeps clothing.  Hard as I try, when I attempt to say "baah, baah", it always comes accross as a roar.  :-) .  All that being said, look what page we are on from yet another category nominated for deletion because it was offensive to LDS editors.   The category Cherokee Mythology is offensive to me too, but I do not go around trying to get it deleted, nor do I enlist other Cherokee editors to act in concert with me to do so.  It's an encyclopedic term for disproven religious or cultural beliefs, and is a common encyclopedic category. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 20:24, 20 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Jeff, I'm positive other Mormon editors would like to collaborate with you. Let's just work on toning down the "roar" because it scares other editors into thinking you have a bone to pick with Utahns and Mormons. When you add a category with the statement "Mythological beliefs and stories related to the Latter Day Saint Movement," take a step back and look at the connotation. It makes it sound as though the LDSM believe in Zeus, Venus and Aphrodite. That said, I agree and think "Cherokee religious beliefs" is a much more neutral category, but that is a fight for a different part of Wikipedia. In fact, I'd gladly support a rename of the "Cherokee Mythology" category, as I'm sure Storm Rider would as well.


 * While I do believe your intent was to push a POV with the category creation (which is another discussion), the reason why it is going to be deleted is that it is a duplicative category - see the votes above. As I've stated elsewhere, you can contribute a good deal to Wikipedia, if you learn to work within its culture. I hope you continue to contribute and make a difference here. Hope this is helpful. -Visorstuff 20:41, 20 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Jeffrey Vernon Merkey, asking to remove the rights of others is a very dangerous position to take, and would not improve Wikipedia—it would only encourage POV pushing by people who were in a minority. Imagine if all edits made by Atheists to the "Atheism" article counted towards a single 3RR, where Christians and Muslims got to edit as they pleased?  Or vice versa?  It would only reduce the quality of the articles here.  The Jade Knight 06:48, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. Some of the people opposing this category seem to do so on erroneous grounds. Actually Merkey's own understanding of "mythological" ("It's an encyclopedic term for disproven religious or cultural beliefs, and is a common encyclopedic category.") represents a too narrow understanding of the term, nevertheless, there seems to be other categories in the mythologies hierarchy that refute the assertion that this category would be an anomaly. Also the position that it cannot be considered mythology based on the (short) 200-year time span must be deemed spurious. Whether or not the category's creator (Merkey) or others think that labeling something mythological renders it fictitious, the term has independent meaning for which a precedent seems already to exist refuting it and sanctioning the establishment of such categories. __meco 12:34, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep were the introductory note that is included at Category:Christian mythology included here we would be better served; "mythology" is neither considered true or false. And as for things being part of a religion's canon being termed "mythology" consider how we label Greek and Roman deities, as well as those of non-Western cultures. Carlossuarez46 20:38, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment So it is appropriate to label Mormonism as mythology because we do it to Greek and Roman Gods? How about if we do it to the Virgin Mary? or Jesus Christ? or the Trinity? Is that also acceptable? If it is, then please start at those categories and work down to the minority groups. That would be honest and fair. I think it disingenuous to use "mythology is meant infer true or false"; then why are not all major religions listed as mythology? In a solely academic arena, it would be appropriate, but this is a public encyclopedia and in English the term mythology is most definitely used to infer fairy tales. This is not a fairy tale, but a religion. --Storm Rider (talk) 18:59, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Christianity is a religion as well (several perhaps, depending on whom you ask). The category is not meant as disresprecting any religion, however we do call Graeco-Roman beliefs "mythology" out of habit and terminology based on scholarship in a more prejudicial age. However, we have received that term and I wouldn't mind changing all the beliefs to "beliefs" categories, but there are what Catholics term "pious fictions" which are not sanctioned but are tolerated - much hagiography is pious fiction: you can be a perfectly good member of the Roman Catholic Church and believe that there were never snakes in Ireland despite St. Patrick's deeds.  Other major religions also have categories: e.g., Category:Jewish mythology and Category:Islamic mythology whether what's categorized is canon or just tangential the faith is always a matter of interpretation.  Like in the Jewish mythology we have Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, which appears in Genesis and is therefore common to Judaism, Christianity (including I presume LDS). Without the tree, the whole "fall of man" never happens in the Bible, so in some sense it is an article of faith for those who believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible, yet to label it canon would be POV because numerous Christian (and probably Jewish) denominations do not believe that the Bible is literally true. I think that the analogy - such as you describe here and at my talk page - is partially apt. Much of the non-scriptural aspects of Mary which is now canon in the Roman Catholic Church (such as her perpetual virginity, and her bodily assumption into heaven) is not canon in other Christian denominations, and wasn't canon in Catholicism until comparatively recently. Saint Anne is another candidate for inclusion; she's not mentioned in any canonical gospel, but the RCC (and perhaps others) certainly recognizes her as a saint - but in literalist Bible readers' world she may be fiction because she's not in the Bible. Carlossuarez46 21:47, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Space-grant universities and colleges

 * The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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.

The result of the debate was delete. the wub "?!"  16:32, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * space-grant universities and colleges


 * Nominator's rationale:


 * Delete - Many universities receive many different grants. Categories for all of the grants received by individual universities would be unwieldly.  Lists would be more appropriate.  Dr. Submillimeter 18:42, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - grants are a way of doing business at universities; this is meaningless. --Storm Rider (talk) 05:40, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and per WP:OCAT. Listify if anyone wants to create a list. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:08, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Sea-grant universities and colleges

 * The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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.

The result of the debate was delete. the wub "?!"  16:32, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * sea-grant universities and colleges


 * Nominator's rationale:


 * Delete - Many universities receive many different grants. Categories for all of the grants received by individual universities would be unwieldly.  Lists would be more appropriate.  Dr. Submillimeter 18:43, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - ditto. --Storm Rider (talk) 05:41, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Haddiscoe 14:18, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and per WP:OCAT. Listify if anyone wants to create one. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:07, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Sun-grant universities and colleges

 * The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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.

The result of the debate was delete. the wub "?!"  16:32, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * sun-grant universities and colleges


 * Nominator's rationale:


 * Delete - Many universities receive many different grants. Categories for all of the grants received by individual universities would be unwieldly.  Lists would be more appropriate.  Dr. Submillimeter 18:44, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Cornell is notable because it is the land-grant university of New York among its primary characteristics. Obviously, there's no cooperative extension service with sun-, space-, etc. grants, but I wanted to make sure we won't discarding babies amidst bathwater.-choster 21:58, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Haddiscoe 14:18, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and per WP:OCAT. Listify if anyone wants to create one. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:07, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Famous Kakazai of Pakistan

 * The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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.

The result of the debate was delete. the wub "?!"  16:32, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * famous kakazai of pakistan


 * Nominator's rationale:


 * Delete for now. There is a long list at Kakazai but only 2 have articles, though more clearly could. Category:Pashtun people would be the head cat. Johnbod 17:28, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Rename Category:Kakazai People. There is a long list in the Kakazai, of whom two have articles, and one is in the category.  For the moment, one category will do for the whole tribe, in whatever country.  If it gets too big it can be divided later.   Peterkingiron 22:41, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - a rename would also work as stated above. --Storm Rider (talk) 05:42, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete or at least rename to remove "Famous". Haddiscoe 14:18, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, or at least rename to Category:Kakazai people (note lowercase p). -- Prove It (talk) 03:02, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.

Subcategories of Category:Cemeteries in London

 * The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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.

The result of the debate was Withdrawn in lieu of a broader nomination. This nomination only addressed a portion of the like topic categories. A complete nomination will be made shortly. Vegaswikian 06:31, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * people buried in brompton cemetery


 * people buried in highgate cemetery


 * people buried in kensal green cemetery


 * people buried in west norwood cemetery


 * Nominator's rationale:


 * Strongly disagree - 'Whoooa!' I note that the discussion in the CFD was hidden away in a place where those people who have been categorising these burials for years could be informed about the change. The discussion therefore missed out on the input of those people who have been building up the cross-references. The discussion should be re-opened - Personally I think that listyfying is the wrong approach but this isn't the place to make the case.Ephebi 16:33, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - Note that notices about the older discussion and this current discussion have been posted at Wikipedia Talk:WikiProject London, which seemed like a relevant WikiProject. Also note that the discussion is clearly being re-opened.  Also, if Ephebi would like to explain why listifying is inappropriate, this is a valid place to do so. Dr. Submillimeter 16:37, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * As per CFD Notes for nominators it recommends posting CFDs in the relevant areas - e.g. Category:Cemeteries in London and informing major contributors. None of this happened, I don't see any of the main contributers feedback. Sorry but Project London is someways periferal to this cat. which is focused on biographies. OK, So why should this cat. remain? I contend that where the person is buried is relevant to the person concerned, sometimes even more than where he/she was born. William Tite is a prime example, although any of the gothic revivalists buried with him would work as well. One of the roles of a cemetery is to allow the living to make a connection with the dead - and this comes out in the themes of people who were buried in the Magnificent Seven, London. Some of them have lots of sportsmen, others engineers, others philosophers, etc. The relationship between the famous person's resting place and the public space is also crucial in keeping those public spaces open and not becoming overgrown and neglected like Nunhead Cemetery. So why not listify? Its just not feasible to do this - like the other cemetery cross-referencers, I have a list of several hundred significant burials I'd like to log against one of the cemeteries. The list approach would be incredibly high-maintenance and make for a horribly un-encyclopedic and ureadable entry under the relevant cemetery. The category function does an excellent job of organising and formatting these people, and doesn't interfere with the readability of the articles. I have even wondered whether we should take the lists out of the cemetery descriptions in favour of the cats. to aid in readability. i.e. Brompton Cemetery is getting that way and it only lists a small %age of notable burials. Ephebi 17:15, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - The creators of these categories have all been notified of this discussion. Posting a note in Category:Cemeteries in London is not necessary.  Dr. Submillimeter 18:49, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I !voted keep last time, and see no reason to change. Johnbod 17:30, 19 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom, as I said last time: "where someone is buried is not defining. It's often chosen by someone other than the individual or by circumstance, and unlike birthplace (which also is chosen by others or by circumstances), it doesn't (a) follow someone for their lives, or (b) serve as a shorthand for an assumed upbringing and world outlook." I haven't changed my opinion. Carlossuarez46 17:50, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry but don't see how a) & b) are relevant to the nom. (Implies you don't want any reference at all to burial in a biography? Though the choice of internment and memorial was often made by the individual - the cemeteries are public places for memorialising these people and many, Victorians in particular, made an effort to be memorialised in style. I have several very personalised examples from my 'local'.) Better written biographies already give the burial if you look at DNB etc. While it may not be to your taste the fact that dozens of people turn up for the regular cemetery tours organised by the Friends of the Cemeteries affected by this CFD says that there is interest out there. After death the relationship is with the last resting place, though its a two-way relationship, as the cemetery is also defined by its encumbents Ephebi 18:22, 19 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment - After reflecting on this further, this seems like the type of information that would be more appropriate for lists. Grave markers contain more information than names; they also contain dates of birth and death.  This would be appropriate information to place in a list, but this cannot be placed in a category.  Also, information on why the people are notable can be placed more effectively into lists.  Also, the people who work on Brompton Cemetery and some of these other lists could consider reformatting the lists as tables and subdividing the lists into smaller sections.  (See List of NGC objects for an example.)  Dr. Submillimeter 20:34, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - as a genealogist and cemetery list is invaluable. This is not the proper use of the category. --Storm Rider (talk) 05:45, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong keep - Why are London cemeteries being singled out in this way? Surely, if there is to be a debate, it should include all burial categories for all individual cemetery categories worldwide, and everyone involved should be properly notified. As Ephebi rightly points out these cemeteries were very significant in Victorian England.  Death, burial and the honouring of the dead more generally were far more socially significant in this era than today.  Each (of the Magnificent Seven) tended to be preferred by people notable for different things, rather than merely chosen because it was their local cemetery.  For example Brompton Cemetery has many military and colonial service burials.  For many, if not most, of the people buried in these cemeteries, where and how they were buried, honoured and remembered after death was very important to them.  People buried in these cemeteries usually chose to be buried there.  Can we really say the same about different clubs that footballers have played for, and there are numerous categories for such things.  People also have more control over where they are buried than where they are from, where they went to school and so forth.  I think the best approach would be to keep the categories and also have more limited lists on each cemetery page of the most notable people, or if the lists are long, break them up into smaller sections, as are long lists of alumni for academic institutions.  Edwardx 14:15, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - I do not understand why the original nominator in the previous discussion chose only the London cemetery categories. I am just relisting the nomination because it received strong support previously but because it failed for (major) technical reasons.  However, if the main objection to this nomination is that the entire category tree was not nominated, then I can nominate all such categories for deletion in a later proposal.  Dr. Submillimeter 15:43, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Unjustified selective nomination. Haddiscoe 14:19, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - I am prepared to nominate all categories in Category:Burials for deletion. Would it be appropriate to close this discussion and start a new one?  Dr. Submillimeter 16:15, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * If you want to do the more comprehensive nomination then closing this one would make sense. Is that what you want to do? Vegaswikian 18:07, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - Yes, I am ready to close this one. As explained above, I am just relisting a previous nomination that was rejected on technical grounds, which is why I only listed these four.  However, I am now ready to nominate Category:Burials and all its subcategories.  (Do not expect me to contact every contributor about the new discussion.) Dr. Submillimeter 19:54, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Australian football (soccer) players

 * The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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.

The result of the debate was rename to Category:Australian soccer players  --Kbdank71 17:19, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Propose renaming Category:Australian football (soccer) players to Category:Australian footballers
 * Nominator's rationale:


 * Rename to Category:Australian soccer players. Since Aussies call the sport more universally known as football as soccer, as opposed to either football or football, the proposed change is inappropriate.  With that said, the category is still poorly named, and should be changed.  --fuzzy510 20:15, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Agree with Fuzzy - Australia has Australian rules football, so the inclusion of "soccer" is necessary. The same will apply in the United States, sicne American Football is also not soccer.  This is inconsistent, but necessarily so.  Peterkingiron 22:44, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Rename per Fuzzy. Note that and  follow this pattern for the reason stated. It may also be worth having a look at renaming  and  accordingly. Grutness...wha?  01:50, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Rename - this one is difficult. Football is soccer the world over except in a few countries; it would seem we generally allow self-definition to take precedence in almost all things; should this be different? I think fuzzy has a good point. --Storm Rider (talk) 05:48, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Rename to Category:Australian soccer players; the original proposal ("Australian footballers") would be completely misunderstood in this quadrant of the globe. Sometimes the benefits of consistency are outweighed by entrenched local practice, and this is one such case. Or even, the category could be left as-is, since it is at least explicit.--cjllw ʘ  TALK 07:59, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Rename to Category:Australian soccer players. The original proposal is a non-starter. Haddiscoe 14:20, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll lend my support to the consensus here. I had not considered the unique linguistic problem that applies to Australia re the meaning of "football". Yechiel Man  08:33, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Hardly unique - the US, Canada, New Zealand, and several other countries have other codes usually referred to as "Football". Grutness...wha?  02:02, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Rename to Category:Australian soccer players. Football is Aussie Rules in my town. --Bduke 07:01, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Murdering doctors
<div class="boilerplate vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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.

The result of the debate was no consensus  --Kbdank71 17:17, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


 * murdering doctors
 * Delete, unless of course there is consensus to create Category:Murderers by occupation. -- Prove It (talk) 14:25, 19 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete - Categorization does not need to be an exercise in combinatorics. Dr. Submillimeter 14:26, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - criminals by non-criminal occupation is a pretty worthless scheme. And I have no doubt that if this category stands it will get hijacked full of doctors who perform abortions. Otto4711 14:28, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak keep for now, possible rename. I have some hesitancy about casting this as a "criminals by non-criminal occupation" category. I haven't checked all the entries in this category, but for people such as Harold Shipman their criminality was inextricably linked with their profession. Shipman's modus operandi was unlike that of your common-or-garden murderer: his murders were all carried out as part of his medical practice. The same applies to John Bodkin Adams, and if the category could be expanded to include nurses such as Beverly Allitt, I think that it could make a useful "medical murderers" category. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:50, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Definite keep - "doctors as an occupation have provided more serial killers than any other profession due to the unique nature of the job" is a concept met in each of these books: Sitpond, M. Addicted to murder. The true story of Dr Harold Shipman. London: Virgin; 2000.; Whittle, BC.; Ritchie, J. Prescription for murder. The true story of mass murderer Dr Harold Frederick Shipman. London: Warner; 2000.; Linedecker, CL.; Burt, BA. Nurses who kill. New York: Windsor; 1990.; Hickey, EW. Washington DC: Wadsworth; 1997. Serial murderers and their victims; p. 142. See also the first sentence of this page -- Otto4711's comment: "criminals by non-criminal occupation" is therefore a highly inaccurate summation of the content, since their occupation is inherently linked to their crimes. --  Furthermore, the fact that a page may attract vandalism (eg. adding doctors who abort) is no reason for not having the page - otherwise we would delete George Bush, Jesus and Hitler. The category is informative and encyclopedic.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Malick78 (talk • contribs) 15:03, 19 June 2007
 * Comment - my remark about adding abortionists was not addressing the issue as vandalism but as POV. While being a vandalism target may not be a reason for deletion, being impermissibly POV or a POV magnet has certainly legitimately been raised in any number of previous CFDs. This category is not restricted to "serial killers" so your sources relating to the phenomenon of serial killers by profession aren't strongly relevant, unless you can show that all murdering doctors do so as a result of their profession. Dr. Crippen's medical degree didn't have anything to do with his murder. Robert George Clements, who is in the category, killed his wives, not his patients. If someone wants to make Category:Doctors who are also serial killers or the like then we can argue that. But this isn't that. Otto4711 15:57, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

--Peter cohen 10:39, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete but might be ok with a more restricted version I think the category as-is is too broad. As Otto points out above there are a number of criminals who happened to be doctors but whose crimes had nothing to do with their practice of medicine. Thus as an indexing scheme it seems overly broad.  That being said, I might be willing to consider a category that is specifically for doctors who either killed their patients and/or specifically used their medical knowledge to facilitate their crime.  Dugwiki 17:25, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - trivial intersection. Also, 2 of the 6 category members were never convicted, so this may be subjective criteria as well. --After Midnight 0001 17:28, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep if renamed to Category:Doctors who have murdered patients and trimmed accordingly. That intersection not trivial because an NPOV encyclopedic article about that can surely be written: the access that the murderer gets to his/her victims, the specialized knowledge of what medicines to use, the difficulty of detection, the frailty of the victims that leads to a "natural causes" pronouncement, the difficulty of accusing a "respectable" and wealthy member of society, the incomprehensibility of a man/woman of the healing arts defying his Hippocratic Oath to kill off those who place their lives in his/her trust, etc. really does set these apart. Those aspects, among others, have been the subject of numerous WP:RSes. Carlossuarez46 18:03, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep if renamed to Category:Health workers who have murdered patients amending Carlos' suggestion, as nurses should be included. Johnbod 00:14, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Good improvement; I concur. Carlossuarez46 21:41, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, perhpas as part of a professionals/practitioners antithetical to their profession tree... 70.55.86.40 03:20, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - a criminal is a criminal regardless of occupation. --Storm Rider (talk) 05:50, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Rename and reorganise The key thing is the breach of trust. Johnbod's proposal is a good attempt, but I think social carers who murder people in the residential home where they work would also belong to the same structure. And indeed nannies who kill the babies they are meant to be caring for. (There have been at least a couple of cases where British nannies have been tried in the US). Professionals who have killed those in their care.
 * Comment - that's a bit too broad - do you want police/prison officers there too? If they've killed a suspect/prisoner??Malick78 10:48, 20 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete Excessive intersection. Haddiscoe 14:21, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - I really think that Category:Doctors who have murdered patients is excessive, mainly because it seems too focused on a very specific type of murder/victim relationship. we really do not need categories that go into this much detail, do we?  I would still advocate deletion.  (Also, such a category could potentially attract articles on doctors convicted of malpractice that results in death and doctors who play a role in legally or illegally administering euthanasia.)  Dr. Submillimeter 15:47, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I would be OK with Category:Doctors who have murdered patients idea, since in that case the occupation is relevant. I'm wondering if Jack Kevorkian would be included or not ... is it murder if it's by consent?  -- Prove It (talk) 00:34, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. We don't categorize murderers by occupation. Furthermore, the name is horribly worded. "Murdering" could be adjective or verb. Doczilla 08:40, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment If we don't categorize murderers by occupation, why do we categorize suicides by occupation at Category:Suicides? Here, you will even find 'Doctors who committed suicide'. Is there a lucid and well-thought-out rationale for why suicides can be sorted by occupation and murderers can't? Malick78 09:08, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - No one has yet nominated all of the suicides by occupation categories for deletion. It is not clear that they are useful for organization, either. The fact that they exist does not justify this category.   Dr. Submillimeter 20:29, 22 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment - the notion of repurposing this category for caregivers who kill those in their care (or the more restrictive doctors who kill patients) strikes me as POV pushing. Otto4711 18:15, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Why? If the British Medical Journal can publish an article called Serial homicide by doctors: Shipman in perspective, then why can't we think up a category to include those mentioned? The BMJ must have thought it worthwhile and scholarly, and I would humbly agree with them.Malick78 08:15, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Keep & merge The Shipman enquiry found that Shipman was able to carry on killing because it unthinkable that murder could happen at a doctor's hands. This category obviously shows that he wasn't unique. However, Arnfinn Nesset, Jeffrey R. MacDonald & the lists at William Palmer (murderer) could be merged into this category Ephebi 16:56, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Hip hop record producers
<div class="boilerplate vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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.

The result of the debate was no consensus  --Kbdank71 17:08, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Suggest merging Category:Hip hop record producers to Category:Record producers
 * Nominator's rationale:


 * Merge - agreed; a producer is not limited by a class of music. --Storm Rider (talk) 05:51, 20 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. The only reason this is the only genre sub-category of Category:Record producers is because its the only one that has been created so far. The technical approach and method of producing hip hop is very different from producing other styles of music. I strongly disagree that any producer could produce any style of music, because professionally this is not the case at all. Hip hop production is very specialized which is probably the reason the category was created, to find producers with a similar approach and method, not only because of musical style. I think there is room for broad genre categorization of Category:Record producers as a very useful resource for that reason. Hip hop producers use certain methods while rock producers use different methods than heavy metal and classical producers. It's a fallacious slippery slope argument to say it should be deleted because at some point in the future over-categorization might be an issue. So far there is no over-categorization, so it's not an issue. <span style="color: black; font-family: Arial,Verdana,Sans-serif"> dissolve talk  01:28, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Hip hop production does not support the notion that hip hop music is so radically different in its production process that those who produce it require independent categorization. That article (which by the way cites no sources) states that hip hop production "utilizes drum machines, turntables, synthesizers, hardware and software sequencers, and live instrumentation." None of which is by definition exclusive to hip hop and none of which can't be used to produce non-hip hop music. Record producer makes no differentiation between producers of hip hop and producers of other styles of music. That article states that the role of a record producer is, among other things, "controlling the recording sessions, coaching and guiding the musicians, organizing and scheduling production budget and resources, and supervising the recording, mixing and mastering processes." I find nothing that indicates that any of these functions are exclusive to any genre of music or that the process of producing hip hop involves performing any of these functions in a way that's notably different from any other genre of music. There is no support for the argument offered here to keep the category scheme, and it is reasonable to stop a bad categorization scheme early in its development instead of waiting until it's entrenched. Otto4711 12:42, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Hip hop production is a completely uncited article, while the Record producer article is dubiosly cited by sources that have no bearing in the industry and no inline citations. The quote you point out is exactly the difference though, in general in music production a producer is "controlling the recording sessions, coaching and guiding the musicians, organizing and scheduling production budget and resources, and supervising the recording, mixing and mastering processes", the difference in hip hop production is that the producer is primarily responsible for creating the music using techniques not generally used in other styles of music, primarily manipulating digital samples from vinyl LPs. A huge difference and a paradigm shift. I suppose the broader question is, if you want an encyclopedia where people with expertise and professional experience in a field are contributing to and categorizing articles, or prefer editors who don't have knowledge and expertise doing so. <span style="color: black; font-family: Arial,Verdana,Sans-serif;"> dissolve talk  16:53, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * "Creating the music using techniques not generally used in other styles of music, primarily manipulating digital samples from vinyl LPs" strikes me as another way of saying "supervising the recording, mixing and mastering processes." The fact that different techniques may or may not be used in producing different styles of music does not mean that the people who use those techniques can't and don't use other techniques, that those people can't or don't produce other kinds of music, that people who produce other sorts of music don't or can't use those techniques or that the techniques justify a separate categorization scheme. If the difference between a hip hop producer and a non-hip hop producer boils down to the hip hip producer manipulates samples off vinyl LPs then this category is really Category:Record producers who manipulate samples off vinyl LPs which, were it named that, would be deleted. There is also no way that it can reasonably be asserted that the manipulation of samples is in any way limited to hip hop recordings. As for the notion of people using their own expertise to contribute to or categorize articles, that's exactly the sort of original research that we don't want here. If there are no reliable sources that attest to the notion that there is a "huge difference" and a "paradigm shift" involved in producing hip hop music that makes it so radically different from producing every other kind of music then the category must be removed. Otto4711 18:31, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * My statements are hardly original research; if I were to rewrite one of those shodilly written articles that you cite, I would cite Schloss, Joseph (2004) Making Beats: The Art of Sample-Based Hip Hop. Wesleyan University Press, Richard, Burgess (2005) The Art Of Music Production. Omnibus Press, and Kettlewell, Ben (2002) Electronic Music Pioneers. ArtistPro. to explain the history of music production and the influence of hip hop production over the last 30 years. I defer the decision to those that have the time to admin wikipedia and are more knowledgeable of the procedures and guidelines for categorization than I do. <span style="color: black; font-family: Arial,Verdana,Sans-serif;"> dissolve  talk  19:06, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not suggesting that hip hop producers don't do some things differently from producers of other genres. I'm sure they do. But differences in technique or equipment doesn't change the fact that at the core hip hop producers are still producers. They may spend more time on certain aspects of the production than other producers, may use different techniques or equipment, but they're still producers. The reasons offered for the separate category scheme are nothing but semantic quibbling. Otto4711 22:50, 24 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep, possibly rename the Hip hop genre is one of the few music genres that came of age alongside the internet and MTV. Older established genres have had to re-adapt to new media and, I believe, less prevalent on WP. Agree with Dissolve's insights that other sub-categories like "classical music producers" will follow. Possibly rename to Category:Hip hop music producers as "records" is becoming an archaic term and some hip hop producers may produce music but not complete albums. Benjiboi 09:54, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not seeing what the shortness of the existence of the genre or the rise of the internet or MTV have to do with the category scheme. Can you cite sources that indicate that the production process of hip hop music has been as affected by the rise of MTV and the internet as you indicate, and that the rise of the internet and MTV did not affect the production of other genres of music in similar fashion? Otto4711 12:42, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Hip hop, MTV (music videos et al) and the internet grew up together and became mainstream. The venues for classical music tend to be unique unto the genre and the production methods emulate that genres traditions, same with country music or punk, or gospel all of which have notable music producers who specialize in their fields. Likewise hip-hop was nurtured and spread worldwide thanks to television and now with music producers able to be anywhere in the world and use a laptop to produce music as well as collaborate online with plenty of notable producers worldwide. Sources, if needed, can be found in recent 25th anniversary books and compilation liner notes as well as related articles. I think it's harder to prove "that the rise of the internet and MTV did not affect the production of other genres of music in similar fashion?" as I believe every emerging music genre influences each other and indeed there are many concept albums like "disco country" that purposely cross-pollinate so did hip-hop influence other genres of music or did the rise of the internet and MTV influence other genres of music? I think both did and continue to do so. Benjiboi 19:48, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, but none of this demonstrates in any way that the production of hip hop is so completely distinct from the production of any other genre of music that separate categorization is necessary. A difference that makes no difference is no difference. Otto4711 22:50, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * My apologies, I didn't realize I needed to prove that. I think, for me at least, I look at who is using this information and think would having every music producer in one category be most helpful without subcategories? No. I think subcategories are generally helpful and I would think that just as the music industry is sorted by music genres in radio, award categories and, dare I suggest lifestyles, that subcategories as the the main category grows makes sense and hip hop being as prevalent on WP as it is is fine with it's very own subcategory. :::::To answer part of your question there are very few producers who excel at producing _any_ genre of music and very few that I've heard of who are hired to do so. Country and bluegrass are quite different from hip hop, punk, salsa and reggae. All have their commonalities but very few if any producers are adept to produce quality music across the spectrum. Benjiboi 05:55, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep, per Benjiboi's explanation. – Freechild (BoomCha) 18:58, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Queen (band) record producers
<div class="boilerplate vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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.

The result of the debate was delete  --Kbdank71 17:07, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


 * queen (band) record producers


 * Nominator's rationale:


 * Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 17:50, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - this is senseless over-categorization. --Storm Rider (talk) 05:52, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Casperonline 21:41, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.

We love Wagner! We hate Wagner!
<div class="boilerplate vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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.

The result of the debate was delete, OCAT  --Kbdank71 17:05, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


 * anti-wagnerites

Category:Wagnerites
 * Nominator's rationale:


 * Delete - I would like to go on the record as being Anti-Category:Anti-Wagnerites. This is not a practical way to categorize people.  People will have many personal likes and dislikes, and categories for all of these things are neither useful for practical.  (However, singling out Richard Wagner seems funny.)  Dr. Submillimeter 13:49, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I would support Category: 19th century Anti-Wagnerites, when it was a real issue (and the opposite category). Johnbod 17:33, 19 June 2007 (UTC)


 * KeepThe pro/anti Wagner division was a major feature of 19th century and early twentieth century music. Anton Bruckner, for example, suffered hostility because he was associated with the Wagnerite camp. The pro and anti-debate also extended beyond pure musicians. Nietzsche, for example, belonged at various times to each camp and wrote works on it. Even in philosophical work substantially about other themes, such as Also Sprach Zarathustra, there are several allusions to Wagner. Perhaps there should be a clarification on how the category be used, but into the 20th century Adolf Hitler's identification with Wagner has had an impact on the performance of Wagner's music in Israel.--Peter cohen 22:48, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Rename The "anti-" category is small & focused; all C19. The "pro-" category is large and sprawling, with Phil Spector, many modern singers etc, and of course Adolf Hitler and Bryan Magee. The categories should be renamed to Category: 19th century Anti-Wagnerites,and Category: 19th century Wagnerites.  If not already there, many of the rest of the Wagnerites could go to Category: Wagnerian tenors, Wagner family etc (if these are allowed, which singer ones should be as they are distinct types. Johnbod 00:06, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree that there is an issue how the category is implemented.nI'm not sure whether the cut off occurs exactly at the end of the century. Certainly by the time serialism was established and the Rite of Spring had been premiered, the debate on Wagner was not the major issue in art music but did the Wagner debate continue a few years into the 20th century? --Peter cohen 09:45, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm sure it did, but I think anyone who was not on board by 1900 had rather missed the bus. Johnbod 10:50, 20 June 2007 (UTC)


 * There may also be mileage in a category Wagnerians for writers about him and for performers and producers such as Hans Knappertsbusch, Lauritz Melchior, Karl Ridderbusch and Wieland Wagner whose output was heavilly weighted towards Wagner. --Peter cohen 12:04, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - this is not a way to categorize a person's life; it is meaningless in the scheme of things. It is over-categorization. --Storm Rider (talk) 05:54, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Wagnerites v anti-Wagnerites is the shorthand classification to determine the parties on either side of the War of the Romantics.--Peter cohen 12:04, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete or at least restrict chronologically. Non-defining for modern people. Haddiscoe 14:22, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep- It seems just as important as a person's nationality, religion, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DJMitch (talk • contribs) 13:21, 21 June 2007
 * Delete both per nom and per WP:OCAT. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:13, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * To quote from which: "Please note, however, the distinction between holding an opinion and being an activist, which can be a defining characteristic (see Category:Activists)." - All the people in the "anti-" category could certainly be called activists in the War of the Romantics, and the pro- category should be restricted to these, as outlined above. Johnbod 21:21, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete without prejudice to redoing these as pro- and anti- activists in the war of the romantics; but Wagner was but one rallying point to be pro- or anti-. Having a pro- or anti- about a single issue is problematic enough without putting this fine a point on it, for a probably more notable debate: we have Category:Pro-choice activists and Category:Pro-life activists, we don't further divvy them up on how they feel about teen parental notification, or what they think of stem cell research, etc.... Carlossuarez46 21:47, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The core debate there is pro- and anti- abortion but the standard description is about support for choice or life. The pro- or anti-Wagner description plays exactly the same role in characterising the sides of the War of the Romantics as choice and life do in the abortion debate. --Peter cohen 10:54, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * If these are the terms used, then as renamed/qualified by Johnbod (19th century) so we get rid of Hitler, Phil Spector and others not involved in the War of the Romantics...I still would rather see something like Category:War of the Romantics: Wagnerite and Category:War of the Romantics: Anti-Wagnerite perhaps. Carlossuarez46 00:45, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Nightwish
<div class="boilerplate vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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.

The result of the debate was delete  --Kbdank71 16:59, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


 * nightwish


 * Nominator's rationale:


 * Delete per nom & ample precedent. Carlossuarez46 17:51, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete ditto. --Storm Rider (talk) 05:55, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.

Historically X-American universities and colleges
<div class="boilerplate vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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.

The result of the debate was delete  --Kbdank71 16:57, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


 * historically danish-american universities and colleges


 * historically dutch-american universities and colleges


 * historically german-american universities and colleges


 * historically irish-american universities and colleges


 * historically norwegian-american universities and colleges


 * historically swedish-american universities and colleges


 * Nominator's rationale:


 * Comment - Additionally, note that categories exist for colleges and universities affiliated with churches (e.g. Category:Roman Catholic universities and colleges in the United States, Category:Universities and colleges affiliated with the United Methodist Church). These church affiliation categories are more useful, as church affiliations should be more clear-cut.  Dr. Submillimeter 12:30, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete List material at most. Haddiscoe 12:34, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I note that identical categories for African-American and women are not listed; while I can make an argument as to how they're different, I am not sure that the same could not be said for any of the nominated cats. Carlossuarez46 17:56, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - The terms "historically African-American college" and "women's college" are in use outside of Wikipedia, which is why I hesitate to list them. Dr. Submillimeter 18:38, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed and for that reason there's sufficient distinction to:
 * Delete these. Carlossuarez46 21:48, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - a category without any purpose today. --Storm Rider (talk) 05:57, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete It's hard to trust these categories, which seem rather subjective, and may have too many marginal cases added to them. Casperonline 21:42, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete This would be an interesting categorization if these terms were used by the institutions at hand; however, after reviewing a lot of their websites I cannot find any suitable citations that would distinguish these colleges as their descriptors would. Therefore, these categories are largely original research and need to be eliminated. – Freechild (BoomCha) 18:56, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Former political parties
<div class="boilerplate vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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.

The result of the debate was rename all. the wub "?!"  16:50, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Former political parties in Croatia to Category:Defunct political parties in Croatia
 * Propose renaming Category:Former political parties in Germany to Category:Defunct political parties in Germany
 * Propose renaming Category:Former political parties in the Netherlands to Category:Defunct political parties in the Netherlands
 * Propose renaming Category:Former political parties in Turkey to Category:Defunct political parties in Turkey
 * Nominator's rationale: The term "defunct" is used in the name of the parent category, Category:Defunct political parties. These categories should be renamed accordingly. Dr. Submillimeter 12:03, 19 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Rename per nom, to match the parent category. -- Prove It (talk) 13:43, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Rename per nom, for consistency. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:11, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Historic political parties in Australia
<div class="boilerplate vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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.

The result of the debate was rename all. the wub "?!"  16:51, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Historic political parties in Australia to Category:Defunct political parties in Australia
 * Propose renaming Category:Swedish historical political parties to Category:Defunct political parties in Sweden
 * Propose renaming Category:Historical political parties of the United States to Category:Defunct political parties in the United States
 * Nominator's rationale:


 * Rename all per nom, to match parent category. It's never been clear to me how long ago something had to happen to be considered historical. -- Prove It (talk) 13:47, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Rename all per nom. --Bduke 07:05, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Historic houses in Omaha
<div class="boilerplate vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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.

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated  --Kbdank71 16:56, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Propose renaming Category:Historic houses in Omaha to Category:Houses in Omaha
 * Nominator's rationale:


 * Rename I did not know there was a naming convention when I created the category; make it so. – Freechild (BoomCha) 14:18, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Rename per nom. Carlossuarez46 17:32, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Object - the category as renmed would include every NN modern house there. Yes it is a subjective category, but that cannot be helped.  Inappropriate entries can be removed by editing if necessary.  Peterkingiron 22:49, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - Part of the rationale here is that only houses that could be considered "historical" in some sense of the word (including modern houses that are architecturally important) would have Wikipedia articles anyway. Therefore, using "historical" is redundant just like using "notable" or "famous" is redundant.  Dr. Submillimeter 07:08, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep WP articles should only be for notable buildings, categories should indicate why they are notable.--Red Deathy 07:36, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * That's why words like historic and notable are not needed in categories. Removing non-notable articles is the job of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Haddiscoe 14:23, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Rename per nom, convention in this area, and general principles of good categorisation. Haddiscoe 14:23, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - Note that the parent categories are Category:Houses in Nebraska and Category:Houses in the United States by state. Omaha is one of the few locations where "historic houses" is used.  Dr. Submillimeter 16:36, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Rename per nom and convention. Vegaswikian 18:15, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Rename per nom. Wimstead 19:34, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * It looks like just about all of these houses are listed as Omaha Landmarks by the City of Omaha's Landmarks Heritage Preservation Commission. Some are also listed on the National Register of Historic Places.  Since "historic homes" is a bit vague, but "Omaha Landmarks" is specific, I suggest renaming this category Category:Omaha Landmarks.  That way, other landmarks other than houses could go into this category too.  --Elkman (Elkspeak) 20:49, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I would not be in favor of the route Elkman suggests. It would add a number of locations that are not houses, and in Omaha there are a number of houses that are listed on the NRHP, but not Omaha Landmarks. See Landmarks in Omaha, Nebraska for a comparison. Also, on the talk page for Chicago Landmark, a similar designation, there has been considerable conversation in favor of broadening the list and not leaving it as narrow as only Chicago landmarks. So making Elkman's suggested move would make the list too broad in one sense, and too narrow in another. There are plenty more articles to be written about houses in Omaha, and I am writing them; honestly, I will be discouraged if the houses were to get lost in the shuffle within a larger category. There are several categories of houses by city; let's leave it that way. – Freechild (BoomCha) 21:44, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * But these houses should be in the houses hierarchy just the same as houses in any other part of the world. Heritage register categories are a separate hierarchy. Casperonline 21:45, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with you, and would not be against a separate category for Omaha Landmark - however, that is not Elkman's proposal. Rather, it is to eliminate any category for houses in Omaha altogether - and according to your logic, Casperonline, that should exist because there is a precedent of categories for houses by city around the world. Again, Chicago is a fine example: Category:Houses in Chicago. – Freechild (BoomCha) 21:51, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - It would be possible to keep this category for houses but to also have a Category:Omaha Landmarks and possibly a category for the places that are in the National Register of Historic Places. Dr. Submillimeter 22:27, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The correct form would be Category:Landmarks in Omaha. Wimstead 23:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Response - No, Wimstead, I'm afraid you're wrong. It would be Category:Landmarks in Omaha, Nebraska, and it already exists. What we're talking about is a specific category that recognizes the specific designation granted by the City of Omaha entitled "Omaha Landmark". And Dr. Submillimeter, there is already a Category:Registered Historic Places in Omaha covering the NRHP in Omaha. So the issue Elkman raised really has nothing to do with either of these two categories, but whether everything should be lumped into a larger category that dilutes the effectiveness of an embedded category similar to what Category:Houses in Omaha could be. – Freechild (BoomCha) 23:29, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Rename per sensible convention. Casperonline 21:45, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Rename per nom. Abberley2 01:16, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Rename per convention. Ravenhurst 10:06, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Rename More use could be made of Category:Historic house museums. Æthelwold 15:58, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Æthelwold, doesn't that category title simply mirror the issue addressed in this CfD? – Freechild (BoomCha) 05:29, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment "Historic house museum" is a technical term used by the museum industry.  Hence, the category for historic house museums does not suffer from the same problem as this category.  Dr. Submillimeter 17:40, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Historic houses in Scotland
<div class="boilerplate vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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.

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated  --Kbdank71 16:55, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Propose renaming Category:Historic houses in Scotland to Category:Houses in Scotland
 * Nominator's rationale:


 * Rename per nom. Carlossuarez46 17:32, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Object - the propsoed name is stupid as it would include every NN terraced house, and be much too broad. The category comprises many hisotrically important houses, many of them open to the public as historic monuments.  The boundaries of the category may be vague, but that can be dealt with by editing out inappropriate entries.  Peterkingiron 23:03, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - Part of the rationale here is that only houses that could be considered "historical" in some sense of the word (including modern houses that are architecturally important) would have Wikipedia articles anyway. Therefore, using "historical" is redundant just like using "notable" or "famous" is redundant.  (Also, have you read my comments on how many buildings can be arbitrarily identified as "historic"?  You and I and everyone else probably have different viewpoints on this.)  Dr. Submillimeter 07:10, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge to the "listed houses" category two noms down. One can be pretty confident that the many thousand listed buildings in Scotland include all of these. Johnbod 23:10, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * These categories are part of a global system, which should not be over-ridden by a local quirk like listing. Haddiscoe 14:25, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The "global" system only actually operates for the UK,Canada & USA, and includes the listed buildings categories. Why historic houses in other countries are not included I have no idea. Hw will changing to "houses" help? Johnbod 16:07, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - The category for houses by location is Category:Houses by country. The category for houses in the United States and Canada is Category:Houses in the United States and Category:Houses in Canada. These categories contain 19th century houses just like Category:Historic houses in Scotland.  Categories for most other countries also just begin with "houses".  Why is "historic" needed for the houses in the United Kingdom when only "historic" houses would be listed in Wikipedia anyway and when the term is not needed for all other countries?  Dr. Submillimeter 16:34, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Many other kinds of house may have articles, especially those by notable modern architects, and those that are famous for some recent event. Frank Gehry's Venice Beach House does not have an article yet, but it could well have one, like many British ones by Richard Rogers. I don't think this has been thought through. Johnbod 16:48, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - Well then, how old does a house need to be to be considered "historic"? I have seen the BBC refer to post-WWII brutalist architecture as "historic", and Centre Point, which was built in the 1960s, could also be called "historic" because it was London's first skyscraper.  What is the objective dividing line between "historic" and "modern"?  Dr. Submillimeter 17:10, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Wherever it is Gehry's beach house is on the wrong side of it. Johnbod 00:37, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep WP articles should only be for notable buildings, categories should indicate why they are notable.--Red Deathy 07:37, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * That's why words like historic and notable are not needed in categories. Removing non-notable articles is the job of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Haddiscoe 14:23, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Rename per nom, convention in this area, and general principles of good categorisation. Haddiscoe 14:23, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Rename per nom and convention. Vegaswikian 18:16, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Rename I've been thinking of nominating all of these UK categories for months. "Historic house" is the normal term in the UK for the main sense which makes British houses notable, ie the country houses that are (often) open to the public, but that's probably not a good enough reason not to use the same terminology as is used for the rest of the world. It also makes these categories fit better into the visitor attractions categories, but on the other hand there are so many articles about houses that are not open to the public, that they should really be placed in the local visitor attractions one by one as appropriate. Wimstead 19:37, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Rename per sensible convention. Casperonline 21:45, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Rename per nom. Abberley2 01:18, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Rename per convention. Ravenhurst 10:07, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Rename Johnbod's concerns could be addressed by making more use of Category:Historic house museums. Æthelwold 15:59, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Historic houses in Wales
<div class="boilerplate vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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.

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated  --Kbdank71 16:54, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Propose renaming Category:Historic houses in Wales to Category:Houses in Wales
 * Nominator's rationale:


 * Rename per nom. Carlossuarez46 17:32, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Object - the propsoed name is stupid as it would include every NN terraced house in the valleys, and be much too broad. The category comprises many hisotrically important houses, many of them open to the public as historic monuments.  The boundaries of the category may be vague, but that can be dealt with by editing out inappropriate entries.  Peterkingiron 22:55, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - Part of the rationale here is that only houses that could be considered "historical" in some sense of the word (including modern houses that are architecturally important) would have Wikipedia articles anyway. Therefore, using "historical" is redundant just like using "notable" or "famous" is redundant.  (Also, have you read my comments on how many buildings can be arbitrarily identified as "historic"?  You and I and everyone else probably have different viewpoints on this.)  Dr. Submillimeter 07:11, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep or merge to the listed buildings category, since all of these will be listed. This is a half-thought-out set of nominations that does not seem to have considered wider category schemes, or suitable alternatives. Johnbod 23:16, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - Actually, most other categories identifying people or locations as "historic" were renamed or merged a long time ago. Dr. Submillimeter 07:11, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Just not true; many countries have equivalents, notably the enormous Category:National Register of Historic Places in the US. See also Category:Heritage registers, with Monument historique, the 600-odd articles under Category:Historic districts in the United States and so on. I don't see any of thse being nominated. Johnbod 11:16, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - Category:National Register of Historic Places, Category:Heritage registers, and Category:Historic districts in the United States do not simply use the term "historic" to describe the buildings and locations. Instead, the buildings are listed in historic registers.  "Historic" is a subjective inclusion criterion, but being listed in a historic register is an objective inclusion criterion.  The equivalent Wales category for registered buildings is Category:Listed buildings in Wales.  Category:Historic houses in Wales, however, does not use the registration as an objective inclusion criterion but instead uses subjective judgments about its "historic" value as its inclusion criterion. Dr. Submillimeter 13:40, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * These categories are part of a global system, which should not be over-ridden by a local quirk like listing. Haddiscoe 14:25, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep WP articles should only be for notable buildings, categories should indicate why they are notable.--Red Deathy 07:37, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * That's why words like historic and notable are not needed in categories. Removing non-notable articles is the job of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Haddiscoe 14:23, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Rename per nom, convention in this area, and general principles of good categorisation. Haddiscoe 14:23, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Rename per nom and convention. Vegaswikian 18:17, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Rename See my comments on the Scottish category. Wimstead 19:37, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Rename per sensible convention. Casperonline 21:45, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Rename per nom. Abberley2 01:18, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Rename per convention. Ravenhurst 10:07, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Rename Johnbod's concerns could be addressed by making more use of Category:Historic house museums. Æthelwold 16:00, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Listed historic houses in Scotland
<div class="boilerplate vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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.

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated  --Kbdank71 16:53, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Propose renaming Category:Listed historic houses in Scotland to Category:Listed houses in Scotland
 * Nominator's rationale:


 * Question is "listed" alone unambiguous in Scottish usage? Carlossuarez46 17:31, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Answer Yes, see Listed building; this is a specific legal status. Whether "house" is unambiguous I'm not sure. Buildings build as a single domestic unit may now be offices, or converted into apartments. Or mills or churches may now be lived in. Johnbod 17:36, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the answer. Carlossuarez46 21:39, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. Since these buildings are listed in a Grade or Category based on the country, does the type of structure become a defining characteristic? I wonder if the parent like Category:Category A listed buildings is sufficient?   If not, then maybe a list would be a better choice then having multiple categories by type of building.  Bottom line, do we really need the sub cats? Vegaswikian 19:30, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge with Category:Historic houses in Scotland - This category has only one item in it which will fit well inot that category. Listed buildings is in fact liable to be a very large category, as there are thousands of listed builings.   Peterkingiron 23:02, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep This is part of a large hierarchy; the "historic houses" two up should be merged here. That also is part of a hierarchy, which has only partly been nominated. Really all a set of categories should be addressed together. Johnbod 23:13, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - This hierarchy only exists for the United Kingdom. Otherwise, few buildings are classified as "historic".  Dr. Submillimeter 11:02, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Just not true; many countries have equivalents, notably the enormous Category:National Register of Historic Places in the US. See also Category:Heritage registers, with Monument historique, the 600-odd articles under Category:Historic districts in the United States and so on. I don't see any of thse being nominated. Johnbod 11:16, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - Sorry, I became confused. (For a moment, I thought that this was the discussion on a "historic houses" category). I agree that this is part of a hierarchy under Category:Listed buildings.  However, the word "historic" is redundant and should be removed.  Surely, any building which is listed can already be considered "historic", even if it represents a period from only 30 years ago?  Dr. Submillimeter 12:44, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep WP articles should only be for notable buildings, categories should indicate why they are notable.--Red Deathy 07:37, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * That's why words like historic and notable are not needed in categories. Removing non-notable articles is the job of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Haddiscoe 14:23, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Rename per nom, convention in this area, and general principles of good categorisation. Haddiscoe 14:23, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Rename per nom. Wimstead 19:38, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per Johnbod. Carlossuarez46 21:39, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Rename removing pointless subjective term. Casperonline 21:46, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Rename per nom. Abberley2 01:19, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Rename per nom. Ravenhurst 10:08, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Rename Johnbod's concerns could be addressed by making more use of Category:Historic house museums. Æthelwold 16:00, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.

Historic buildings categories
<div class="boilerplate vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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.

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated  --Kbdank71 16:48, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Suggest merging Category:Historic buildings in Northern Ireland to Category:Buildings and structures in Northern Ireland
 * Suggest merging Category:Historic buildings in Belfast to Category:Buildings and structures in Belfast
 * Suggest merging Category:Historic buildings in County Antrim to Category:Buildings and structures in County Antrim
 * Suggest merging Category:Historic buildings in County Down to Category:Buildings and structures in County Down
 * Suggest merging Category:Historic buildings in County Fermanagh to Category:Buildings and structures in County Fermanagh
 * Suggest merging Category:Historic buildings in County Londonderry to Category:Buildings and structures in County Londonderry
 * Nominator's rationale:


 * Comment This is slightly problematic - some buildings are notable for the historic value, I suppose the example would be the original Holyrood in Sctoland versus the new building - the new building has modern architectuiral merit, and should be known for that, but Historic buildings, as I'd understand it (ones notable for representing some past style or some significant purpose) do seem to be different. I agree perhaps a different tighter name (if one can be thought of) but i think we should maintain something like that distinction.--Red Deathy 11:46, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - Would you like my explanation as to why the Earl's Court tube station is "historic"? For that matter, would you like the explanation of why the house in Ealing that I live in is "historic"?  (The house is over 100 years old.  If it were in Hawaii, Montana, or Arizona, it would be in the National Register of Historic Places.  I am sure it would receive similar treatment in Western Canada and Australia.)  This really depends on the point-of-view of the individual.  Using "listed" or "house museum", however, really does distinguish the "significant" homes from the "ordinary" homes.  Dr. Submillimeter 11:56, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * merge per nom; "historic" is subjective and ambiguous. Carlossuarez46 17:26, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - the propsoed merge category is likely to contain buildings that are notable for reasons other than being historic. The boundaries of the category may be vague, but that can be dealt with by editing out inappropriate entries.  Peterkingiron 23:00, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - It could be argued that buildings built less than 50 years ago are indeed "historic". See, for example, Centre Point, which is "historic" as the first skyscraper in London despite being built in the 1960s.  Dr. Submillimeter 07:15, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep or merge to the listed buildings category, since all of these will be listed. This is a half-thought-out set of nominations that does not seem to have considered wider category schemes, or suitable alternatives. Johnbod 23:16, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - It has been commonplace to merge "historical" categories for people, buildings, and other categories simply because the term "historical" suffers from interpretation problems. These UK categories are an anomaly in that regard.  Dr. Submillimeter 07:15, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Just not true; many countries have equivalents, notably the enormous Category:National Register of Historic Places in the US. See also Category:Heritage registers, with Monument historique, the 600-odd articles under Category:Historic districts in the United States and so on. I don't see any of thse being nominated. Johnbod 11:16, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - Category:National Register of Historic Places, Category:Heritage registers, and Category:Historic districts in the United States do not simply use the term "historic" to describe the buildings and locations. Instead, the buildings are listed in historic registers.  "Historic" is a subjective inclusion criterion, but being listed in a historic register is an objective inclusion criterion.  The equivalent Northern Ireland category for registered buildings is Category:Listed buildings in Northern Ireland.  Category:Historic houses in Wales, however, does not use the registration as an objective inclusion criterion but instead uses subjective judgments about its "historic" value as its inclusion criterion. Dr. Submillimeter 13:41, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep WP articles should only be for notable buildings, categories should indicate why they are notable.--Red Deathy 07:38, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * That's why words like historic and notable are not needed in categories. Removing non-notable articles is the job of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Haddiscoe 14:23, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Rename per nom, convention in this area, and general principles of good categorisation. Haddiscoe 14:23, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge per nom. Vegaswikian 18:20, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge per nom. There are more of these about. Wimstead 20:55, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge per nom, given the clarification that buildings on historic registers go in "Listed" categories or equivalent, which seems to address the only substantive objection. Xtifr tälk 20:37, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge per nom. Casperonline 21:47, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge per nom. Abberley2 01:19, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge all All the articles are about buildings with a claim to be historic. Ravenhurst 10:09, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge per nom. Æthelwold 16:01, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Historic United States Executive Departments
<div class="boilerplate vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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.

The result of the debate was rename to Category:Former United States Executive Departments  --Kbdank71 16:50, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Propose renaming Category:Historic United States Executive Departments to Category:Defunct United States Executive Departments
 * Nominator's rationale:


 * Rename either "Defunct" or "Former" works for me. Carlossuarez46 17:27, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * On further reflection Category:Former United States Executive Departments seems better than defunct ones, also provides consistency to the categories below. Carlossuarez46 17:30, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - "Defunct" seems like it would be more appropriate for an organization, although "former" is still better than "historic". Dr. Submillimeter 08:57, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Historic United States Executive Cabinet positions
<div class="boilerplate vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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.

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated  --Kbdank71 16:49, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Propose renaming Category:Historic United States Executive Cabinet positions to Category:Former United States Executive Cabinet positions
 * Nominator's rationale:


 * Rename per nom. Carlossuarez46 17:27, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Rename per nom. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:14, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Historic Mexican Executive Cabinet positions
<div class="boilerplate vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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.

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated  --Kbdank71 16:46, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Propose renaming Category:Historic Mexican Executive Cabinet positions to Category:Former Mexican Executive Cabinet positions
 * Nominator's rationale:


 * Rename per nom. Carlossuarez46 17:27, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Rename per nom. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:47, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Rename per nom. Ravenhurst 10:09, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Chicago writers
<div class="boilerplate vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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.

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated  --Kbdank71 16:45, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Propose renaming Category:Chicago writers to Category:Writers from Chicago
 * Nominator's rationale:


 * Rename per nom. Haddiscoe 12:35, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge to Category:Illinois writers. Similar to previously deleted categories for footballers by city in England. This is overcategorization. Otto4711 14:29, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, and rename per nom, just as we upmerged Category:New York rappers but kept Category:New York musicians. I would support upmerging a Category:Poets from Chicago, but Category:Writers from Chicago is worth keeping. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:54, 19 June 2007 (UTC)*
 * Rename per nom. TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 15:51, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Rename: Per nom, this would be overcategorization if Chicago wasn't home to so many writers, to avoid congesting Category:Illinois writers it is smart to have subcats if they are going to be significantly populated, makes things easier to navigate. IvoShandor 19:43, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Upmerge or keep (no preference; I just mildly oppose the suggested rename). I just checked Category:American writers by state, and no other state has any by-city subcategories, so upmerging to Category:Illinois writers is not unreasonable.  On the other hand, checking Category:American musicians by state, I find that there are a few by-city subcategories (six or seven, I think), with most being named "City musicians".  That's not an oustanding precedent or anything, but I haven't found anything better, so I would tend to argue to keep the current name if we keep the category.   It's also consistent with all the by-state writers.  I think switching from "Illinois writers" to "Writers from Chicago" as you descend the tree is a bit confusing.  But I'm willing to listen to counterarguments.  Xtifr tälk 11:25, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:United Airlines Flight 93 victims
<div class="boilerplate vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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.

The result of the debate was no consensus  --Kbdank71 16:36, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Suggest merging with Category:Victims of the September 11, 2001 attacks as the latter is not at all oversized, and subcategorizing them by airplane seems not all that useful.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  11:05, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Upmerge per nom. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:55, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, the 9/11 attacks took place in four fronts. This specifically categorizes people who died in Shanksville.
 * Keep Nothing is gained by not subcategorizing. Ravenhurst 10:10, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * strong keep per above. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 15:08, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Chicago baseball players
<div class="boilerplate vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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.

The result of the debate was delete  --Kbdank71 16:35, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Propose renaming Category:Chicago baseball players to Category:Baseball players from Chicago
 * Nominator's rationale:
 * Delete as trivial intersection by location. We already categorize baseball players by the teams that they played for: Category:Major league baseball players by team.  If we have a category for where they are born (which is what the category text currently says) that is unnecessary as place of birth is rarely notable, and if it's for where they're from, it's redundant to the "by team" category structure. Bencherlite 12:35, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Neither birth nor from is redundant with by team. From is essentially where you were raised.  It is no more redundant with by team than birth is. TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 15:53, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment:May I suggest instead making it "Athletes from Chicago", then we can put all athletes in it instead? If you can have actors, etc, should be able to do that, correct?--Kranar drogin 21:23, 19 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete - similar to the previously deleted categories for footballers by British city. Overcategorization. Otto4711 14:31, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom & Otto. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carlossuarez46 (talk • contribs) 17:29, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete: Gotta say I agree here. A category like this really has no use. IvoShandor 19:44, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Cat songs
<div class="boilerplate vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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.

The result of the debate was delete  --Kbdank71 16:26, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


 * cat songs


 * Nominator's rationale:


 * Delete - These are unrelated songs with a shared name, a form of overcategorization. The songs are from different genres and have different themes.  Some of these songs are not even remotely about cats (such as Cat's in the Cradle).  Dr. Submillimeter 08:42, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Haddiscoe 12:36, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. (BTW, I initially thought that this must be a category for the songs of Mr Stevens). -14:59, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Casperonline 21:47, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.

Hip hop record producers by nationality
<div class="boilerplate vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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.

The result of the debate was delete/merge/rename per nomination  --Kbdank71 16:29, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


 * hip hop record producers by nationality

Category:American hip hop producers

Category:Botswanan hip hop producers

Category:South African hip hop producers


 * Nominator's rationale:


 * Just to clarify, that's:
 * Category:American hip hop producers to Category:American record producers,
 * Category:Botswanan hip hop producers to Category:Botswanan record producers and
 * Category:South African hip hop producers to Category:South African record producers, right? Xtifr tälk 20:02, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Correct. Otto4711 04:19, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok, delete the parent and merge/redirect the three subcategories, per nom. It's not quite the same as WP:OCAT but it's definitely a similar issue with similar problems.  Most producers have probably worked in at least a few different (possibly related) genres, while established, experienced producers have probably worked in a few dozens.  Obvious potential for extreme category clutter.  Xtifr tälk 11:18, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete and merge. I'm the editor most resposible for populating Category:Record producers by nationality. I agree that subcategorizing the hip hop category by nationality is a bit redundant. I would think that if an article is in American record producers and in Hip hop record producers, that would get the needed info across well enough. <span style="color: black; font-family: Arial,Verdana,Sans-serif"> dissolve talk  01:05, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Vatican nobility
<div class="boilerplate vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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.

The result of the debate was rename to Category:Vatican City nobility  --Kbdank71 16:24, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Propose renaming Category:Vatican nobility to Category:Vatican City nobility
 * Nominator's rationale: Rename to the more commonly used title for the city state. Vegaswikian 18:28, 20 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Merge to  Category:Vatican noble titles 132.205.44.134 03:40, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 *  Keep Rename per revised nom  changed {part of larger category scheme of "Nobility by nation" What is nom proposing anyway?) Johnbod 00:09, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The nom is to delete. Looks like someone changed the template to remove that fact.  In any case, if this is part of a series, then do we need both this one and Category:Vatican noble titles.  If this one is to be kept, it probably needs to be renamed to Category:Vatican City nobility which is the more common name used in the categories.  Vegaswikian 07:35, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with that rename, but I wish people would look at what schemes a category is in before nominating, or commenting. Suggest changing nom to the rename per above. Johnbod 11:45, 20 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment Nomination was modified at this point. Vegaswikian 18:28, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Rename per (modified) nomination, for consistency with other by-nationality cats. Xtifr tälk 19:57, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.

Geography of the Palestinian territories
<div class="boilerplate vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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.

The result of the debate was no consensus. Conscious 18:04, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Per the discussion on Consistent Palestinian naming standards, my understanding was that the political term Palestinian territories would be used on socio-political issues, that Palestinian National Authority would be used for issues of government, and that issues of geography, which are static regardless of who controls the area this century, would be dealt with according to uncontroversial geographic terms, Gaza Strip and West Bank. Currently these categories are serving as a nonfunctional extra layer above the existent Gaza Strip and West Bank hierarchy, and thus they should be deleted.  Tewfik <sup style="color:#888888;">Talk 01:56, 19 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep existing category names. Tewfik, you are incorrect. Here is what Abnn wrote on May 12, 2007 at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Palestine:


 * Topics related to the general region are to use the term "Palestinian territories", for example:
 * Category:Airlines of Palestine to Category:Airlines in the Palestinian territories
 * Category:Aviation in Palestine to Category:Aviation in the Palestinian territories
 * Category:Sport in Palestine to Category:Sport in the Palestinian territories

So the current category names agree with Abnn's categorization ideas. --Timeshifter 04:30, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Aviation, airlines, and sport were not geographic terms the last time I checked.  Tewfik <sup style="color:#888888;">Talk 01:24, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * My interpretation of Abnn's idea was that categories relating to geography should be titled with either West Bank or Gaza Strip (bullet number 3). However, there was no consensus around the standard naming scheme, so we shouldn't treat it as gospel. nadav (talk) 09:13, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * My interpretation of the discussion is that no consensus was reached and it was suggested that time be allowed to come to a consensus. Then the discussion stopped. --Peter cohen 00:06, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Did you mean to disagree with me? That's exactly what I was trying to say! nadav (talk) 07:47, 23 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom.-- Sef rin gle Talk 04:44, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and established precedent; as pointed out in the previous debates, things that exist in the Gaza Strip and in the West Bank should be in those categories; things that are "Palestinian territory"-wide, like airlines, sport, aviation get that nomenclature. So, applying that rationale, as the nominator did correctly, geography is either in one place {West Bank or Gaza Strip) or another, as are cities, towns, and villages, and buildings and structures. Because we already have those categories; these ought to go. Carlossuarez46 05:07, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Kuratowski&#39;s Ghost 23:02, 19 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment. Container categories such as Category:Palestinian territories and Category:East Jerusalem and Category:Maps of the Palestinian territories are all navigational tools common to many wikipedia topics. When someone wants info on the Palestinian territories as a whole they go to that top level category. Same for maps. Otherwise people have to take a long convoluted path up and down category trees to find highly related categories such as Category:Gaza Strip and Category:West Bank. If those 2 categories are not put under Category:Palestinian territories, then they will have to be put under the much broader Category:Middle East. Look at the huge number of entries in that category. It is silly to force people to wade through that to find stuff. The same is true for airlines, aviation, sport, etc. in the Palestinian territories. People want to know about the Palestinians, and we shouldn't be playing political games with the category names. --Timeshifter 05:41, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * What about upmerging these categories into Category:Palestinian territories? This will, for example, place Category:Cities in the West Bank and Category:Cities in the Gaza Strip directly in Category:Palestinian territories without the need for an extra layer that just ties together two categories without doing much else. nadav (talk) 05:58, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Please have a look at Category:Hawaii. Hawaii is a grouping of islands. This is similar to the land grouping of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip that make up the Palestinian territories. Note the subcategories such as Category:Geography of Hawaii, Category:Sports in Hawaii, Category:Transportation in Hawaii, Category:Airports in Hawaii, Category:Buildings and structures in Hawaii, Category:Settlements in Hawaii, Category:Cities in Hawaii, etc.. And interestingly, some Hawaiians have sovereignty struggles to break free of the USA. Like the Palestinian territories have sovereignty struggles to break free of Israel and the USA. But my point is that there are container categories for almost every topic. --Timeshifter 06:40, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Category:West Bank and Category:Gaza Strip are already included in Category:Palestinian territories, and the cities categories are in those hierarchies, so "yes" in a sense, that is already the way it is.  Tewfik <sup style="color:#888888;">Talk 06:06, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The problem with a pure upmerge as Nadav suggests is that these buildings, cities, etc. are where they are regardless of what governmental structure is ruling them. Putting them in Palestinian Territories categories is wrong for a number of reasons, foremost among them: we don't quite know what the borders of those territories are or will be, pending a final peace treaty (for things like Sports, Airlines, Culture, etc., we don't need to know what they are) - indeed we don't know whether there will be one Palestinian nation or two after events of the past week - we cannot keep moving things around as the Palestinian government(s) control(s) more or less of the territory in the Gaza Strip and/or West Bank - let's just leave them in the defined geographies. Carlossuarez46 17:16, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * From Palestinian territories: "The Palestinian territories is one of a number of designations for those portions of the British Mandate of Palestine captured and militarily occupied by Egypt and Jordan, and later, in the Six-Day War, by Israel. The designation typically refers to the territories governed in varying degrees by the Palestinian Authority or includes all of the West Bank and Gaza Strip." For categorization purposes we are talking about the geographical boundaries, not the political boundaries. The politics of the situation changes, but the geographical area remains the same. In the future, the West Bank, the Gaza Strip, and the Palestinian territories may completely change, including their names. But people know the geographical area. Israeli settlements are categorized under Category:West Bank. So there is no conflict there concerning being categorized under any "Palestinian territories" name. See Category:Israeli settlements. So "if it aint broke, don't fix it." Let us leave the current category names as they are. Also, it is much more convenient to be able to share a link to an overall category rather than sharing 2 links. We still have the 2 links for the subcategories for any of the above topics. But sometimes, I and many others, want to link to the overall category: Category:Cities, towns and villages in the Palestinian territories. For example from wikipedia articles, websites elsewhere, forums, email lists, etc..--Timeshifter 21:32, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't see the logic of Category:Israeli settlements being classified under West Bank. Many of the subcategory Category:Israeli settlements were not West Bank. Dividing it into categories for Israeli settlements in Sinai, Golan and the Palestinian territories with this in turn divided into West Bank and Gaza would be more thorough. --Peter cohen 00:13, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I see what you are saying. I just put Category:Israeli settlements under Sinai and Golan categories too. If people want to later divide it further by creating the specific subcategories that is fine by me. Are there any Israeli settlements left in the Gaza Strip? I thought there were no longer any left there. --Timeshifter 01:49, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * KeepThis classification parallels that for other non-contiguous countries, such as Russia where the Kallinigrad enclave is covered by the Russian categories. At present the position is that there are two separate putative governments in different parts of Palestine, but they both claim to be the legitimate government for the whole country. Civil wars are a frequent phenomenon and classifying areas of, say, Somalia by who happens to be in control of which bit at which time would be ridiculously burdensome. Having sub-categories for each part would allow for the potential of a split becoming more permanent.--Peter cohen 00:06, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Um, Palestine is not a country (except according to a few Arab countries, but the majority of the world doesn't recognize it), it's just a territory. TJ Spyke 05:22, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I think that claim is tendentious. The British government FCO site lists "The Occupied Palestinian Territories" among their coutry profiles . In contrast the UK doesn't recognise an independent North Cyprus and lists information on it under Cyprus. In other words, the classification used in Wikipedia is paralled by that of an official organisation not in the Arab world. I've not gone fishing lots of official sites for one that agrees with me. This was the first I tried. I doubt that many of Belgium, Hungary, Canada, Cuba, Brazil, Peru, Zambia, Senegal, Thailand, India, Australia and East Timor would organise things differently. (List off the top of my head, two from each continent.) --Peter cohen 10:50, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The UK does, by its adherence to the Treaty of Rome, and membership in the EU recognize that the northern part of Cyprus is different from the part of Cyprus in which all EU regulations are applicable. While it does not send ambassadors there, it doesn't mean that the UK and the rest of the world is ignorant of the situation. They may not like it, but c'est la vie. As for "Occupied Palestinian Territories" is there any evidence that the UK considered them as a single entity and as occupied during 1948-1967 as in our article's description? I think you'll find it difficult to find instances where UK refused to recognize Jordan's and Egypt's sovereignty over the 2 different places. Carlossuarez46 21:09, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * What I was reflecting was the current classification by the UK as it reflects as an example on the category debate. Comments on the rest to your user page as not relevant here.--Peter cohen 11:08, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep I can't believe this was (is) seriously being considered Delad 06:44, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep as there was no consensus reached in the discussion cited by the nominator, and his own understanding of the discussion is not sufficient grounds for deletion. ابو علي (Abu Ali) 21:01, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment considering that the standard was agreed to by myself, Alai, Abnn, and based on the previous compromise with Palmiro, I think that "consensus" is quite accurate, especially given the often disparate positions of the users in agreement. The only objection came from Tiamut, seemingly on the grounds that the proposal was then backed by Humus Sapiens, who she went on to make bad-faith allegations about. In any event, Abnn replied to all of her concerns.  Tewfik <sup style="color:#888888;">Talk 21:11, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * There was no consensus. --Timeshifter 06:38, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per Tewfik. This category is pointless and can be dealt with West Bank and Gaza Strip. Following Hamas take-over of the Gaza Strip, this category is inherently inaccurate anyway. Amoruso 17:05, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The 3 categories are all geographical categories. Geography, buildings, and cities in the Palestinian territories. --Timeshifter 14:15, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per Amoruso --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€  13:09, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Category:Gaza Strip and Category:West Bank are more than enough. Beit Or 17:35, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per Tewfik and Carlossuarez.  6SJ7 19:30, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per Tewfik and Carlossuarez. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 20:40, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Tewfik and Carlossuarez are both claiming that "Palestinian territories" is a political term. But most of the world uses it in its geographical meaning. From Palestinian territories: "The Palestinian territories is one of a number of designations for those portions of the British Mandate of Palestine captured and militarily occupied by Egypt and Jordan, and later, in the Six-Day War, by Israel." Just like "Cyprus" generally refers to the whole island, and not the partitions of it over time.--Timeshifter 07:39, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The following line from Palestinian territories: The designation typically refers to the territories governed in varying degrees by the Palestinian Authority or includes all of the West Bank and Gaza Strip.  Tewfik <sup style="color:#888888;">Talk 04:29, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep normal English-language usage, proposed rename increases confusion. DuncanHill 10:27, 24 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete - per Tewfik, Carlossuarez46 and others. Of course this is a political and has never been a merely "geographic" term as partisans claim. I find it bizarre that Timeshifter keeps citing a paragraph describing political changes and suddenly concluding that it is merely a geography. ←Humus sapiens ну? 23:12, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Most of the "Geography of..." categories are political. The United Kingdom one contains part (but not all) of the island of Ireland but also Guernsey ,an island off the coast of France. The only logic in these places being categorised with Great Britian is political. The categories for Russia and the United States both contain parts of big continental land masses separated from each other by other parts of those land masses that aren't part of the same by country category. Mainland Portugal and mainland Spain might on geographical terms be paired with each other, but instead are categorised to include Madeira and the Canary Islands respectively but not each other. Unless the whole geography by country system is being broken up, the fact that Gaza and the West Bank are only connected with each other politically is irrelevant. That is in the nature of by country categorisation.--Peter cohen 23:37, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Apparently the undisputed, independent, and internationally recognised state of Palestinian territories hasn't gotten the memorandum about how they are now on par with the United Kingdom, Spain, and Portugal, except for in the eyes of "only the right-wing of Israeli politics". Palestinian territories, along with Palestinian National Authority, Israeli-occupied territories and State of Palestine, are one of several terms that describe different aspects of what has become of the part of Palestine administered by the British Mandate of Palestine. Even the political connection borne in 1994 of the Oslo Accords, and only developed in the latter part of that decade, has been cut short this last week, and so categorising geography with this transient, disputed term, still makes far less sense than using the established geographic terms of Gaza Strip and West Bank. And even the Seine has yet to be categorised under Category:Rivers of the European Union...  Tewfik <sup style="color:#888888;">Talk 01:24, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * It is mainly only the right-wing of Israeli politics that insists on a political definition of the name "Palestinian territories." Wikipedia uses the most common, English-language meaning of a name. For most people worldwide it is not a political decision to use the name "Palestinian territories". It just common usage to mean the totality of the West Bank and Gaza Strip. There are probably some French people who still don't like the name, "English Channel". By the way, I have lived in France. :) --Timeshifter 00:21, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Timeshifter still attempts to turn WP into a battleground. I suggest you find yourself another forum to express your aversion of "the right-wing of Israeli politics". ←Humus sapiens ну? 02:22, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The term "Palestinian territories" is relatively new to me, but the geographically equivalent terms "occupied territories" and "disputed territories" have both been around for a long time. And the latter is a term favoured by Israel and her supporters. --Peter cohen 09:04, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Tewfik is misrepresenting editors objections in his comments above about '"the undisputed, independent and internationally recognised state...". Please keep it clean. DuncanHill 09:35, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment DuncanHill is misrepresenting Tewfik's comments - why doesn't he cease his baseless allegations? Please keep it clean.  Tewfik <sup style="color:#888888;">Talk 15:22, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong keep Leave the politics out of it, this is a standard and necessary organisational category. Olborne 12:42, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 15:07, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. --Kbdank71 16:25, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.