Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 June 5



Category:Instrumentalists

 * 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 17:12, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Propose deletion  instrumentalists

Either that or use it as a parent category. Categories for Multi-instrumentalists and Musicians by Instrument already exist. Instrumentalists as far as I can tell should cover every single musician that uses musical instruments: if so it's too vague to be a separate category. At any rate, there should be some description in the category itself as to what criteria is used for the inclusion of articles. T@nn 22:33, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep and restrict to those who play an uncommon instrument for which there isn't a category. If enough notable players of an uncommon instrument end up in the category, create a category for players of that instrument and move them into it. Otto4711 23:59, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, and delete sub-categories. WP:MUSCAT has categorization guidelines in place, into which this category doesn't fit. It has no use as a parent category, as the appropriate parents exist. It has no use as a category for articles: if we have people who play an uncommon instrument, then we should create a category for them, so that the article is integrated into the whole categorization by nationality/genre/instrument scheme.  This is a recognized exception to the general principle of avoiding small categories. But for this discussion I would have recategorized the articles in it - the category "Instrumentalist" is either misapplied or redundant to the correct categorization (such as .  As for ', it only contains '. The articles that contain have the same points (wrongly applied or better categorization possible), so these two categories should be deleted too.  I'll go and tag them (and Instrumentalists) now.  I'm happy to recategorize the articles by hand if this closes as "delete".  Bencherlite 10:38, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and per Bencherlite. I think a slightly stronger case can be made for Category:Instrumental musical groups, but this category is simply redundant with existing categories, as nom said.  Musicians who play an instrument for which there isn't a category can simply be classified under Category:Musicians by nationality until there's enough to justify the creation of a by-instrument category for that instrument.  Alternatively, I might be persuaded to endorse Otto's scheme, but only if the category is renamed to something which makes its new purpose more clear, like Category:Musicians who play uncommon instruments.  Xtifr tälk 11:56, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete and create any necessary categories for individual instruments. Perebourne 17:29, 9 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:If-then-else templates

 * 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 17:10, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Propose deletion  if-then-else templates
 * Nominator's rationale: As these template since long ago lived out their usefullness, I see no reason to keep this category. → Aza Toth 21:23, 5 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. I think this nomination rather puts the cart before the horse: the category still contains a group of 9 related templates. Those which I have checked are still in use, and I suggest that the category should stay until the templates are deleted, which will have to wait until  they are no longer used by other templates. --22:16, 5 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:Close to Home

 * 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, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Propose deletion  close to home
 * Nominator's rationale: Delete - category not needed for show article and episode and character subcats. Otto4711 21:14, 5 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 16:33, 8 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:Munsters films

 * 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 17:06, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Category:Munsters films to Category:The Munsters


 * Merge - seems unnecessary to split off from the main category. Should the film that's crystal-balled in the article-sized category description ever get made then the utility of the category can be reconsidered but for now it's not needed. Otto4711 19:12, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge per nom. No need for a one-article sub-category to facilitate crystal ball-gazing in the category text. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:39, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge per above. It's not like either category is so big. Doczilla 04:13, 6 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:KYTV (TV series)

 * 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 17:03, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * kytv (tv series)


 * Amazing show, but Delete the cat. Lugnuts 19:19, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom & ample precedent. Carlossuarez46 16:34, 8 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:Belgian animation films

 * 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 17:05, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Propose renaming Category:Belgian animation films to Category:Belgian animated films
 * Nominator's rationale:


 * Rename per nom. Note that the nominator did not follow the procedure at WP:CFD, so the category was not tagged with cfr. I have now tagged it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:09, 5 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:Boondocks Pictures

 * 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 17:02, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Propose renaming Category:Boondocks Pictures to Category:The Boondocks images
 * 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:Blind Bluesmen

 * 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:Blind bluesmen  --Kbdank71 16:57, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * blind bluesmen
 * Merge into Category:Blind musicians, or at least Rename to Category:Blind bluesmen. -- Prove It (talk) 15:33, 5 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Merge to both Category:Blind musicians and Category:Blues musicians. Otto4711 15:53, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep and populate, and rename to Category:Blind bluesmen. A Google search throws up a number of references which suggests that Blind bluesmen are a significant group in the history of the blues, and that it would be possible to write a substantive head article on the subject. Once the category is populated, it might be appropriate to consider then whether it should be listified, but for now I would like to see the category retained. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:36, 5 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:People from Bryan-College Station, Texas

 * 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, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * people from bryan-college station, texas
 * Merge into Category:People from the College Station/Bryan, Texas, area, or the reverse. -- Prove It (talk) 15:22, 5 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:Parasitic twin

 * 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, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Category:Parasitic twin to Category:Twins


 * Merge, Category:Parasitic twin is very narrow and unlikely to be well populated. Alternatively, merge it with Category:Conjoined twins, a similarly narrow category that already shares some articles with Category:Parasitic twin. Una Smith 15:03, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment doesn't it more likely go with Category:Supernumerary body parts? 132.205.44.134 22:36, 5 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:List of Railways in Cambridgeshire

 * 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 to Category:Rail transport in Cambridgeshire  --Kbdank71 16:39, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * list of railways in cambridgeshire
 * Merge into Category:Transport in Cambridgeshire, badly named, too small to be useful. -- Prove It (talk) 14:57, 5 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep and populate, but rename to Category:Railways in Cambridgeshire  per other regional subcats of Category:Rail transport in England (where it should have been parented, and is now). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:21, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment That is incorrect. The standard form is "Rail transport in", both within the UK and globally. Haddiscoe 12:13, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep and populate, but rename to Category:Rail transport in Cambridgeshire (correcting my !vote), thanks to Haddiscoe for the correction. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:05, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep and rename per BrownHairedGirl, for consistency with other British railcats. DuncanHill 22:50, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep and rename to Category:Rail transport in Cambridgeshire, which is actually the standard form. Haddiscoe 12:13, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep and rename per Haddiscoe - my mistake earlier! DuncanHill 12:32, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Rename per Haddiscoe. -- Prove It (talk) 13:18, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep but rename as above. Peterkingiron 22:33, 6 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:American Idol season summaries

 * 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 16:50, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Category:American Idol season summaries to Category:American Idol episodes


 * Merge - these are basically season-length episode guides. Since we already have a well-established Category:Television episodes by series structure it makes sense not to build up another structure at the "seasonal summary" level. Otto4711 13:29, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge Agreed. Season summaries should be in the same category as individual episode summaries, possibly sorted to the top to help differentiate the two within the category. Dugwiki 16:52, 5 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:Primates of the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America

 * 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 to Category:Archbishops of the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America  --Kbdank71 16:48, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Propose renaming Category:Primates of the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America to Category:To be determined by consensus
 * Nominator's rationale:


 *  Rename to Category:Archbishops of the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America  - A couple of the biographies on these people at http://www.goarch.org refers to these people primarily as "Archbishop". This title should be used for the people.  (The Greek Orthodox have a cool name for their website.)  Dr. Submillimeter 13:26, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Isn't "Archbishops of the fooish Archdiocese of" a bit excessive? Apart from a few special Roman Catholic posts, an Archbishop is always an archbishop of an archdiocese; we have Category:Archbishops of Canterbury rather than Category:Archbishops of the archdiocese of Canterbury. At http://www.goarch.org/en/archbishop/demetrios/, it refers to the current post-holder being "Enthroned as Archbishop of America" rather than "Enthroned as Archbishop of the archdiocese  of America". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:51, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Rename to Category:Greek Orthodox Archbishops of America - The use of both "archbishop" and "archdiocese" in my first suggestion was redundant. Dr. Submillimeter 14:29, 5 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Concern I am a little concerned that Category:Greek Orthodox Archbishops of America provides a temptation for mis-categorisation under a Greek-by-Nationality category (much as has happened here with Slovak Greek Catholics (who are presumably members of the Slovak Greek Catholic Church which has a diocese in Canada, the 'Eparchy of Saints Cyril and Methodius of Toronto' to be exact, and will not necessarily all be Slovak by nationality)). However I can't think of a better name without clumsiness of some sort. Are there other Orthodox Archbishops of America? Ecumenical? -- roundhouse 19:37, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * These are the Ecumenical ones, ie they come under the Ecumenical/Greek Patriarch of Constantinople (as other discussion). Johnbod 22:34, 5 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree that it will be hard to find any other name, but the meaning should be explained by the category text. I don't this that piece of pastorwaynery should be taken as very strong evidence of a wider problem. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:53, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment However, I have just found Archbishop Damaskinos of Jaffa - Greek Othodox in USA, coming under the Orthodox Patriarch of Jerusalem (and boy, look at his category!). So the Dr's suggestion is I think out, except as a head category for two sub-cats. They are different churches, though in full communion.  I'm rather more concerned with the wider scheme - if the other debate deletes the parent category, the present one will be orphaned.  What a mess. PW didn't link his Primates into wider schemes. Johnbod 23:06, 5 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Terrific (created 2 May - this should be celebrated and preserved; pity that Exarchiate couldn't have been worked in). This and related topic does need several people + care + some days + discussion. -- roundhouse 23:24, 5 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment - The church is known as the "Greek Orthodox" church, so the phrase "Greek Orthodox" still needs to be used in the title. Given the problems with my second suggestion, maybe it would be appropriate to use Category:Archbishops of the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America?  While this contains redundant words, it is the most clear title.  Also note that Category:Baptists from the United States demonstrates that such category names are sometimes necessary for avoiding ambiguity problems.  Dr. Submillimeter 07:27, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I could accept that as a temporary solution, but I do think that at some point soon we need to review these categories en masse. Merely renaming these categories is leaving us with a huge tree of very small categories, and I think that it would be useful to consider collapsing these categories to a broader grouping such as "Greek Orthodox Archbishops and Patriarchs". PW has created a structure which (like his structure for United Methodist bishops) seems to me to be far too finely divided. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:30, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Agree with the drift of all the above. I would personally suggest "Primates of the Greek Orthodox Church(es)" (for the suggested broader grouping in the above comment) as primate is a perfectly acceptable ecclesiastical word, to include actual Primates (title) and as a synonym for Archbishop, Patriarch, Exarch, Eparch and even the occasional Epitropos etc etc. -- roundhouse 10:55, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment: Let's consider that primate is a somewhat vague title.  It is best defined, in a nutshell, as "the head of a church or some subsection thereof".  Pope Benedict is Primate of the entire Catholic Church; but the Archbishop of Quebec is Primate of the Catholic Church in Canada -- and if the word is not capitalised, any archbishop is effectively primate of his archdiocese.  But that's in the Catholic Church, which appoints archbishops to formal primacies.  It's not clear to me that the Greek Orthodox Church (or the Eastern Orthodox Church, a distinction which deserves some explication) does so.  Since the title Primate has a certain vagueness, and since all clergy serving as primates bear other ecclesiastical titles of note (Archbishop, Patriarch, Exarch, &c.), it would be better to categorise preferentially under the more concrete ecclesiastical titles. --7Kim 21:48, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * We are definitely only concerned with Capital P Primates - things are bad enough already. Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America talks in line 2 of its "primate" and is described as an Eparchy of the main church. On reading that article it doesn't seem to me he is a Primate - just a primate. I would support renaming to Category:Archbishops of the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, per Dr S, but am open to other variants. Johnbod 23:01, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment - the title appears to be "Archhishop of America". If so, the category should be Category:Greek Orthodox Archbishops of America.  "Primate" and "Metropolitan" are recognised terms, but do not need to be included.  However I am not sure what a Patriarch of Constantinople is doing in this category!  Yes, some ignoramuses will treat such people as of Greek nationality, but we have to like with them and revert their errors, as we do with vandals.  Peterkingiron 22:42, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * You could always try actually looking at the articles - the Patriarch was Archbishop of America before becoming Patriarch. He was of course Greek, born in Epirus. One of the others in the category was born in Turkey, but I would not recommend describing him as Turkish without very careful qualification. Johnbod 23:02, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I am quite happy to abandon primate ... identifying people as say Greek via a misplaced category inclusion seems to me to be rather difficult to spot. John Sentamu, the current archbishop of York, of Ugandan origin, is both an Anglo-Saxon bishop and an English prelate if we follow category inclusions (subcat of prelates by nationality). (English is not a nationality a Ugandan can choose - a Ugandan can become a British citizen.) If I were to write in his article that he was Anglo-Saxon or English it would be reverted in minutes. -- roundhouse 01:04, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Category:Anglo-Saxon bishops is a silly category, that would be due a visit here if we did not all have bishops coming out of our ears. The articles are ok - the sub-cats mostly belong in Category:Holders of English bishoprics founded before 1066 or something - or a list. Johnbod 19:24, 7 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:Canadian expatriate journalists in the United States

 * 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 16:28, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Category:Canadian expatriate journalists in the United States to Category:Canadian journalists and Category:Canadian expatriates in the United States


 * Merge, overly narrow triple intersection per WP:OCAT. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:52, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge per nom. Carlossuarez46 16:35, 8 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:UConn Huskies football 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/merge as nominated  --Kbdank71 16:24, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * uconn huskies football coaches
 * Merge into Category:Connecticut Huskies football coaches, convention of Category:College football coaches. -- Prove It (talk) 05:48, 5 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, I'd reverse merge to "UConn Huskies football coaches," as I think that's a much more common phrasing.--Mike Selinker 06:24, 6 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:West Virginia Journalists
<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 16:20, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * west virginia journalists
 * Merge into Category:American journalists, or at least Rename to Category:West Virginia journalists. -- Prove It (talk) 02:32, 5 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Merge to Category:American journalists and to Category:People from West Virginia. Many journalists move around n the course of their career, and sub-catting American journalists by whatever states they have worked in would both create category clutter on individual articles and a plethora of small sub-categories for smaller states which do not have many notable journalists. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:56, 5 June 2007 (UTC)


 * It's not a category for "whatever states they have worked in" but the state THEY ARE WORKING in. From a journalists perspective, this is important. Also, just because they're working in a state doesn't mean they're from that state. That will lead to innacurate associations. Wvtowner 14:08, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia doesn't separate categories by current/former status, so if the category exists, it will include journalists who have worked in Virginia as well as those currently working there.
 * So far there are only 3 articles in the category (the 4th was the subject of an expired prod, so I deleted it), so it wont be hard to fix any inappropriate additions of the "from" category. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:18, 5 June 2007 (UTC)


 * First of all, it's West Virginia. A category tag can be removed if the journalist doens't work there any more. I thought you knew how Wikipedia worked. On top of that, the delete notice had not expired. Wvtowner 23:22, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, sorry about the missing "West". But the suggestion that the "category tag can be removed if the journalist doesn't work there any more" would require that the category be more accurately named Category:Current West Virginia journalists, and per Naming conventions (categories) we don't divide categories into current and former. (And yes, the prod tag on Vicki Smith had expired after 5 days in which it was not contested, which is why the article was deleted; your recreation of the article was deleted as a copyvio). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:41, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Merge Definitely agree. This borderlines overcategorization. Bulldog123 02:42, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Upmerge and delete to Category:American journalists per nom; any proposed "merger" with Category:People from West Virginia needs to evaluate each (heck, there are only 3) article because the category has nothing to do with people from WV, just those who are notable for reporting "in or about" WV, so the stringer coming down from Pittsburgh PA to cover the cat in the well story of what have you seems to qualify (another good reason to delete it). Carlossuarez46 16:39, 8 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:History of the Levant
<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 keep  --Kbdank71 16:00, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Category:History of the Levant to Category:Levant


 * Merge the categories, as Levant itself refers to a historic region, and as such a 'history of' category is redundant; at the moment the two overlap and create confusion.  Tewfik <sup style="color:#888888;">Talk 01:48, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose. This seems to me to cause problems with parent categories. is a geograpical category which includes the whole,  wtc; but  is as subcat of , which should not include all the non-historical articles from that region. Much better just to sort any excessive dual-categorisation. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:40, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose per BHG. Johnbod 22:35, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose History articles always have their own category as history is only one component of information on a country or region (group of countries) Hmains 02:17, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment There is no need for to be a subcat of ; all it does in that capacity is create a duplicate hierarchy for History of Jordan, History of Lebanon etc., which are already categorised in  and .  Tewfik <sup style="color:#888888;">Talk  04:46, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose - history categories are useful to have. This one may need more populating.  If there is a problem it is with defining the extent of regions.  When I was young, I believed the Egypt was Near East, and the Middle East was the area around the Persian Gulf, but somehow the Middle East has become larger.  What is probably needed is for some one to go through the articles and make sure they are correctly and consistently categorised.  Peterkingiron 22:58, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Levant is primarily a historical term though, so what would be the difference in scope between and ?  Tewfik <sup style="color:#888888;">Talk  02:43, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose per BHG & Peterkingiron. Carlossuarez46 16:40, 8 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:Pseudo-scientific fraud
<div class="boilerplate vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


 * The result of the discussion was: merge with category:Pseudoscience. The claims of fraud in many of these cases is shaky, and that's a word we need to be careful about using.--Mike Selinker 20:00, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * pseudo-scientific fraud


 * Please suggest a specific rename or merge when you nominate. (And no, they don't all have to be frauds. They could just be stupid. The originator of phrenology believed it. No fraud was required.) Doczilla 05:05, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I figured the new name would be agreed upon by discussion here. I suggest Category:Pseudoscientific fraud.  I'll be away for a few days but will return to this when I get back (so don't take my absence as indication of abandonment of this or any other nomination!) --Sapphic 12:13, 5 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Spelled without hyphen The spelling of the category should match themain article Pseudoscience which doesn't include a hyphen. So Category:Pseudoscientific fraud is probably ok. Dugwiki 16:56, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Rename to Category:Pseudoscientific fraud (since and its subcats appear to have standardised on the American spelling), and please somebody fix the tabloid tone of the category text. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:27, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge with Pseudoscience what qualifies as "fraud" seems to be inherently POV in the categorization here. Let's take each categorized article and I'll show that none belong here or their belonging is purely POV:
 * International Star Registry? Have they been convicted of fraud? NO! Then what are they doing here?
 * The Ica stones article says there is evidence that they're a hoax; yes, some will claim that there is evidence that all pseudoscience is a hoax so what distinguishes them from your average pseudoscience or astrologer?
 * The Bat Creek inscription has been investigated and apparently the experts disagree whether it's a hoax; is that "fraud"?
 * Drug dynamization, maybe it works maybe it doesn't, but isn't not working inherent in pseudoscience, but again where's the "fraud"? No one has been convicted of it.
 * Plastic shaman is a term used for some people that call themselves shamans but orthodox Native Americans and First Peoples do not accept them as such; labelling Native American or First Peoples' beliefs pseudoscience is rather harsh; Jesus is claimed to be the son of God by the Roman Catholic Church, but Jews, Muslims, Hindus, don't recognize that, so do we add the RCC (and all of their priests, bishops, and popes) to the pseudoscience fraud category? No, because we're going to delete it.
 * Jasmuheen is Living person who in her article never mentions being convicted of fraud; indeed, there is a statement that after investigation in the UK she was cleared of all charges. What's she doing here?
 * So now we are left with Albert Abrams (dead, so no BLP issues) who practiced unconventional "medicine" with a machine that under scientific analysis didn't do what it claimed to do? Is that really different from pseudoscience in general? Do we get to put every practitioner of every invention that didn't live up to its claims in here, or what if after the transubstantiation, science were to find that the wine was still scientifically wine, is that a further reason to add back the clergy, or add nuclear power because it was supposed to be "too cheap to meter" and that claim is certainly provably false?
 * This category is inherently POV, appears to be a WP:BLP violation magnet, and is no different than pseudoscience. Carlossuarez46 17:03, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge with Pseudoscience per Carlossuarez46. Well said.  --Kbdank71 12:38, 9 June 2007 (UTC)


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