Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 November 19



Category:The Raccoons

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


 * The result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:39, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * the raccoons


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete Overly narrow category. Contains only the main article, episode list and a redirect. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 22:26, 19 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom - nowhere near enough here for a category. Cgingold (talk) 23:35, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom - with individual character articles now integrated into the main article there is no need for a category. Plasma east (talk) 23:40, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom - doesn't appear that there would be much more to add to the category in the foreseeable future. Skier Dude  ( talk ) 01:06, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete too narrow a category, though I will reconsider if there is a prospect for more articles in the immediate future. Alansohn (talk) 23:29, 23 November 2008 (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.

Category:Baptist churches in the Republic of Ireland

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


 * The result of the discussion was: delete per my highly irregular comments below, which I'll try not to repeat (has remained empty). Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:01, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * baptist churches in the republic of ireland


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete All of the articles in this category are redirects Skier Dude  ( talk ) 22:12, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Agreed. Cirt (talk) 22:33, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Agreed. Redking7 (talk) 22:36, 20 November 2008 (UTC)


 * By all means, Delete - It looks like they all redirect to the same article, Association of Baptist Churches in Ireland -- and what's worse is, as far as I could see they're not even mentioned in the article! Good grief. I dare say all of those redirect pages should go, too. Cgingold (talk) 23:02, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I've just discovered List of Association of Baptist Churches in Ireland churches, created by the same editor, which appears to be a very lengthy listing of churches, all of which look as though they have articles, but actually redirect to Association of Baptist Churches in Ireland. I think the editor has a fundamental misunderstanding of how things are supposed to work. Cgingold (talk) 23:09, 19 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment. I admit that this is somewhat out of process, but I've gone through and done a major clean-up on many of the redirect pages that contained inappropriate categories that were created by this one particular editor. The reason for this was that the user had originally added templates and categories to the redirect pages. Other users removed the templates but not the categories. By me removing the categories from the redirects, this category has been emptied. (I didn't set out to accomplish that, but that's what happened.) I think perhaps if a few of us discuss this directly with the creator, that may be the most effective way to approach this issue. Would anyone object if this category were deleted as empty when this discussion is closed? (Of course, if there is an article that goes in the category, the category can always be re-created.) I'm not the type of editor that ever really invokes WP:IAR, but in this case, I think it might be the best approach to the problem, which has been quite extensive it looks like. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:27, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * My goodness, that blockage sure was drained quickly and efficiently! Have you thought about starting up a Roto-Rooter franchise? :) In case anybody cares to see the redirects that were de-categorized, they were all listed at List of Association of Baptist Churches in Ireland churches. Cgingold (talk) 00:46, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment as nominator I don't have any problems with WP:IAR in this case! Skier Dude ( talk ) 01:04, 20 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment - there is nothing wrong per se with categorizing redirects. Eg the creator might have been intending to flesh out the list or create individual articles in due course. Occuli (talk) 17:43, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Nothing wrong with it per se, but in this case, when there are questions as to whether or not the redirects themselves are even appropriate (no mention of them on the target pages), they can be problematic. In this case, the redirects were literally drowning the contents of Category:Association of Baptist Churches in Ireland, where you had over 100 redirects redirecting to the same main article. Good Ol’factory (talk) 20:41, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete not enough articles to fill the category and it appears that there are none now. Alansohn (talk) 23:30, 23 November 2008 (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.

Category:Columbia metropolitan area

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


 * The result of the discussion was: rename. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:38, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Columbia metropolitan area to Category:Columbia, Missouri metropolitan area
 * Nominator's rationale: Rename for clarity, as there is also a Category:Columbia, South Carolina metropolitan area— which is substantially larger. -choster (talk) 21:36, 19 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Support per nom 76.66.193.170 (talk) 07:05, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Support rename better matches Columbia, Missouri Metropolitan Area and better indicates where this is located. Alansohn (talk) 19:52, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Support for simplicity: no reason this Columbia metro area is more important than the other Columbia metro area. Nyttend (talk) 23:01, 24 November 2008 (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.

Category:Constitutional laws of Ireland prior to independence

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


 * The result of the discussion was: Rename to Category:British constitutional laws concerning Ireland. I see a clear consensus to change, however it is not clear what the best target would be.  I think this version appears to have broad support, but it may not be without some issues.  Vegaswikian (talk) 20:49, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Constitutional laws of Ireland prior to independence to Category:Constitutional laws of Ireland before independence
 * Nominator's rationale: Better English. One word "before" is better than two words "prior to". Regards. Redking7 (talk) 21:36, 19 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Support nom -- clearer grammar, but should not Poynings Law and other such pre-Union laws appear? Peterkingiron (talk) 00:59, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Ho-hum; the last of these is 1938, well after Irish independence by most reckonings (certainly by Irish ones), and all are British laws except for one Papal Bull of 1189, plus many are not really "constitutional". I think a Rename to Category:British laws concerning Ireland is probably best - adding several & putting Laudabiliter to a see also. Johnbod (talk) 01:07, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Rename to Category:British laws concerning Ireland, which more accurately reflects the political status at the time these laws were enacted. Alansohn (talk) 19:54, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Very good points above. I do not support the exact suggestion as I think it is too wide - Many, many British laws concerned or even today concern Ireland. Instead, I think this variation is the perfect name for the category, Rename: Category:British constitutional laws concerning Ireland. Does this suggestion have your support? If, not, I prefer my original suggestion (a minor change). I would mention it is a wider category than the existing category and will include the 1938 Agreement for example - but I think it should any way. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 22:32, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Better than the original nom, certainly, and does fit the British parent. But the Land Acts are not really constitutional - maybe 2 cats are needed, as there must be other non-constitutional laws. Johnbod (talk) 01:26, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I really think there is no need for another category for non-constitutional laws concerning Ireland - All British laws before independence concerned IRL because IRL was part of the UK. British law was the law of IRL during that time. Those laws are well categorised already as British laws etc. There may well even be separate categories for British land law etc. I think there is no benefit to try to pull all UK law before 6 December 1922 into a separate category because it concerns IRL.
 * Take the land acts out altogether if you wish. I guess they are there for convenience - the land acts closely followed constitutional developments in that era so having them in the same category was handy for Readers.
 * I think my modest change i.e.: Category:British constitutional laws concerning Ireland would be enough. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 12:28, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Alternative suggestion Category:Constitutional laws in Ireland before 1922. This would theoretically exclude the 1938 Act, but its appearance would do no harm sicne it was resolving the loose ends left from the 1922 settlement. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:42, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment (voted above) another missing item is Crown of Ireland Act 1542 which was an Irish Act. The 1938 Act could be treated as ratifciation of an internatioanl treaty, and perhaps should not appear, but it does no harm.  The statemetn that all pre-1922 British Acts applied to Ireland is incorrect: despite Parliamentary Union, the UK contained three separate jurisdictions, England (including Wales), Scotland, and Ireland.  Even in the period 1801-1922 the UK Parliament was quite capable of passing Acts relating only to one or two of these.  Before 1801, the GB Parliament occasionally passed Acts relating to Ireland, but most legistaltion was that of the Irish Parliament.  Most of the constitutional Acts were British ones, but if we add the word "British", we would have to leave out Poynings Law and Crown of Ireland Act 1542.  Peterkingiron (talk) 17:43, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, your latest suggestion, tweaked to this sounds good to me: Alternative suggestion Category:Constitutional laws in Ireland before independence. The "1922" date was problematic because some of the most important Constitutional laws were effected in 1922.
 * Re. not all pre-1922 British Acts applied to Ireland is incorrect. Of course. My point was a huge huge category of British law "concerned Ireland" so an earlier suggestion re categories was not practical. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 00:41, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Does all this discussion mean we are stuck with "prior to" rather than "before"? Can the little change I originally proposed not go ahead? Does this discussion now trail off .... with no change? Regards. Redking7 (talk) 00:09, 27 November 2008 (UTC)


 * No - "independence" - for which a variety of dates are possible claimants, is no good at all, and should not used. For the present contents, and imo for the useful most category for the future (since you don't like having two), I still think Category:British laws concerning Ireland - this would of course not include all British laws at all. Failing that, Category:British constitutional laws concerning Ireland for a narrower scope, though why you object to collecting laws on all subjects I don't know. Several of the laws were after "independence" (on most views - on all for some), so why exclude them? Johnbod (talk) 02:58, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, sounds like there will be no change....One User pointed out why "British" could not cover all relevant constitutional laws and I pointed out that your first choice, "British laws" was much to wide for what this category was intended for...All I wanted was to get rid of the words "prior to" and have the word "before" instead. Sounds like my small improvement is lost amongst all these great ideas and there will be no change. I now give up on it. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 22:21, 27 November 2008 (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.

Category:Florida Sun Conference

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


 * The result of the discussion was: rename. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:37, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:Florida Sun Conference to Category:The Sun Conference
 * Nominator's rationale: Merge. The official conference name is The Sun Conference, not the Florida Sun Conference. The Category:The Sun Conference reflects correct naming. -- Absolon S. Kent (talk) 20:52, 19 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Support match current name of conference. Alansohn (talk) 23:32, 22 November 2008 (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.

Category:Ancient Roman Christianity

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


 * The result of the discussion was: No consensus. However it appears that there could be a consesus for a rename so there will be a follow on nomination to continue the discussion. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:51, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Ancient Roman Christianity to Category:Ancient Christian history
 * Nominator's rationale: Rename. A fairly small amount (or less) of Christian history in the years 1 - 500 AD was not "Roman" (in the Roman empire). This change makes the Category more incusive and makes clear were to place and find Ancient non-Roman Christian history events. It will also match the set of subcategories Category:Christianity of the Middle Ages and Category:Modern Christian history -- Carlaude (talk) 20:15, 19 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment -- IN principle Support nom, unless there is a parallel category dealing with ancient Christianity outside the Roman Empire (e.g. in Persian Empire). Peterkingiron (talk) 00:44, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * There are only particular ones than have nothing else in common... Persian, Ethiopia, some germans, Celts, Armenia, Georgia, Indian. -- Carlaude (talk) 21:46, 20 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose I'm not convinced by this - it actually covers the period 70-500, earlier than that being New Testament Christianity. Nor is it really just a history category, as so many issues & articles are still highly relevant. I don't think "Ancient Christian" is a commonly used term, or a clear one. Christianity was very much a religion of the Empire, & the relatively minor extent of it beyond those borders before 500 does not pose a big problem I feel. Armenia & Georgia, the main areas concerned, were in and out of the Roman Empire during the period. Johnbod (talk) 07:47, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 1st-- it does "cover" New Testament Christianity, but that is a just under "New Testament history" within "Ancient Roman Christianity"
 * 2nd-- a change to "Category:Ancient Christianity" would be okay with me instead.
 * 3rd-- Again... Persian, Ethiopia, some germans, Celts, Armenia, Georgia, Indian! Many many small examples. Note well that plenty of Europe was non Roman as well. -- Carlaude (talk) 21:46, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 4th-- If it is "relatively minor" the "extent of it beyond those borders before 500" then all the more reason to change to the more useful and incluesive "Category:Ancient Christian history" -- Carlaude (talk) 01:52, 21 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment I think the concept of "Roman-era Christianity" is well-understood by students of it, but I can see how it would be misleading to the casual reader. Consider, however, that the main articles are Early Christianity and List of events in early Christianity, and at least some of the topics are theological and not historical. Perhaps a Category:Early Christianity parent should be interposed, while keeping and cleaning up Ancient Roman Christianity. Topics pertaining to Christianity outside ancient Roman civilization in this period (e.g. Gothic, Oriental, perhaps Celtic) could be moved thence, as well as the generic history by century categories. -choster (talk) 19:05, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Are you proposing "Category:Roman-era Christianity"? While most people do not know this, the Christians in "New Rome" called themselves Romans and were around until 1450 AD or so.-- Carlaude (talk) 21:46, 20 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not proposing. I pointed out that no rename may be required, and that the contents are a mix of history and theology, so "Ancient Christian history" may not be the best alternative. I believe Category:Ancient Roman Christianity was named to conform with Category:Ancient Roman religion, and think it can be narrowed to Roman topics, adding a parent like Category:Early Christianity, Category:Ancient Christianity, or Category:Christianity in the ancient world.-choster (talk) 05:26, 21 November 2008 (UTC) -choster (talk) 05:26, 21 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Category:Ancient Christianity would still work fine under Category:Ancient Roman religion; there is no need to indicate "Roman" Christianity, just Ancient Christianity.
 * Also, "Early Christianity" would be a sub-set of "Ancient Christianity" (not the other way around) since Early Christianity in church history either ends with the convertion of Consentine I, or to some, ended even sooner. -- Carlaude (talk) 01:17, 22 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose Per the issues raised, I'm not sure that this is the appropriate title, but will consider variations. Alansohn (talk) 23:31, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Like Category:Ancient Christianity? -- Carlaude (talk) 21:28, 26 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment. Carlaude's rationale for the change is sensible, although I'd prefer Category:Ancient Christianity. Majoreditor (talk) 06:56, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm still not convinced of the need to rename, but Category:Ancient Christianity would be a better choice than the one in the nomination. Johnbod (talk) 13:55, 27 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment -- Votes for Rename to Category:Ancient Christianity
 * Choster (talk) 05:26, 21 November 2008 (UTC) (apparrently)
 * Carlaude (talk) 01:17, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Majoreditor (talk) 06:56, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * See comment of Johnbod (talk) 13:55, 27 November 2008 (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.

Category:Albums produced by Richard Landis

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


 * The result of the discussion was: Delete User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 04:24, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * albums produced by richard landis


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete Judging from CFD's like this, it seems that there is a rough consensus that albums should not be categorized by producer unless the producer has an article or at least has the potential for an article. I have been unable to find any reliable sources that are directly about Richard Landis, so I doubt that he will ever have a page, and therefore I think his category should go too. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 15:45, 19 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep – I take it that the nom has not emptied it this time (unlike the last time, a few weeks ago). Occuli (talk) 19:06, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * And what's your reason for keeping? Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 19:19, 19 November 2008 (UTC) Never mind, I see. Yes, I forgot I nominated this before. Still, this time there seems to be more of a consensus that these cats shouldn't exist if the producer doesn't meet WP:MUSIC, and Landis clearly doesn't meet WP:MUSIC. Just producing for several artists doesn't make you automatically notable.  Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 19:21, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, almost all many of the albums he produced were on BNA Records, so I think that very little navigational purpose is lost by deletion of this category. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 19:35, 19 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete - per nom, precedent and rough consensus forming at the category talk page, if the producer doesn't pass WP:MUSIC then s/he should not have a category. Otto4711 (talk) 22:01, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - I see no reason for this category to stay. The person doesn't even have their own page. -- DA Skunk -  (talk)  16:38, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Per the "Otto Test", under which a category will be retained if it meets three criteria 1) is it possible to write a few paragraphs or more on the topic of the category? YES 2) is it obvious why any given article would be in the category? YES the title is self-defining 3) does the category fit into the overall categorization system? YES a broad range of categories categorizes music. But most importantly, it groups similar articles together as an aid to navigation. Alansohn (talk) 23:36, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * How the heck does it pass the Otto test if Otto himself said delete? Also, I doubt you could write "a few paragraphs" on Richard Landis. I've tried and failed several times. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 19:51, 24 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete Categories should have some sort of related article. There is no reason to have a category topic that has no related articles. Reywas92 Talk  23:06, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. If there is no existent article, there should be no existent category. Diverse  Mentality  23:13, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete If a producer isn't notable enough for an article, there shouldn't be a category based on him. Spellcast (talk) 00:57, 25 November 2008 (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.

Category:Charleston-North Charleston metropolitan area

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


 * The result of the discussion was: rename. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:36, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Charleston-North Charleston metropolitan area to Category:Charleston-North Charleston-Summerville metropolitan area
 * Nominator's rationale: Rename. The official name of the Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) was changed in 2007, when Summerville was designated a Principal City. The article has been renamed and I thought that the category should reflect this change as well. --Acntx (talk) 15:32, 19 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Rename per nom. Perfectly logical. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 15:47, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Rename to Category:Charleston, South Carolina metropolitan area (to avoid confusion with Category:Charleston, West Virginia metropolitan area). I imagine very few people refer to any metro area by its full, Census Bureau name, and indeed in the general scheme of U.S. metropolitan areas, Census definitions may vary somewhat from actual usage. The overwhelming majority of such categories in Category:Metropolitan areas of the United States use Foo metropolitan area (after the primary city) or Foo-Bar metropolitan area (if there is more than one primary city), with a handful adopting a more common local term, such as Category:San Francisco Bay Area or Category:Dallas-Fort Worth Metroplex.-choster (talk) 21:24, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Rename per choster; I had to read the proposed a couple times to figure out where the "-" was appropriate (Charleston-North / Charleston-Summerville OR Charleston / North Charleston / Summerville OR Charleston / North Charleston-Summerville) Skier Dude  ( talk ) 01:12, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Rename to Category:Charleston, South Carolina metropolitan area per User:Choster. There is no reason or obligation to match the MSA titles. This is about a geographic area around the city, not necessarily based on how the United States Census Bureau defines it. Alansohn (talk) 23:38, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Support per nom Plainly not the right title currently, as there is no such metro area anymore. As far as Choster's proposal: if we base our metro area category on "a geographic area around the city," how are we going to know exactly what fits into the category?  To have a clear standard for the category, it should describe the metro area as precisely as possible, and the official name is the best way to do that.  Nyttend (talk) 23:04, 24 November 2008 (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.

Category:Sarasota-Bradenton-Venice metropolitan area

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


 * The result of the discussion was: rename. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:35, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Sarasota-Bradenton-Venice metropolitan area to Category:Bradenton-Sarasota-Venice metropolitan area
 * Nominator's rationale: Rename. In 2007, the official name of the Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) was changed from Sarasota-Bradenton-Venice to Bradenton-Sarasota-Venice because Bradenton surpassed Sarasota in population. The article has been renamed and I thought that the category should reflect this change as well. --Acntx (talk) 15:32, 19 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Rename per nom, MSA was renamed. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 15:53, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Rename per nom. -choster (talk) 21:31, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Rename per nom. Skier Dude  ( talk ) 01:13, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Rename to Category:Bradenton-Sarasota metropolitan area. Venice, Florida is a small fraction teh size of either Brandeton or Saresota and we have no obligation to match MSA names. Alansohn (talk) 23:54, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Rename per nom: no reason to leave out Venice if it is a principal city in the metro area. If you want to take the trouble of renaming it to fit Bradenton's expansion, why would you not want to continue to have it fit the actual name of the metro area?  Nyttend (talk) 23:06, 24 November 2008 (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.

Category:Attributes of African vocality

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


 * The result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:33, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

attributes of african vocality
 * Delete - Where to begin??... 1) This is the only category of the sort -- no categories for "attributes" of, say, Asian, Native American or Polynesian vocality. 2) Are these or any other "attributes of vocality" exclusively African?? (or Asian, Native American or Polynesian, etc.?) If not, they would probably need to be listed in multiple categories. 3) These and other "attributes of African vocality" are referenced in the short (2-paragraph) article on vocality. That article -- which was written entirely by the same editor who created this category -- is focused entirely on African/African-American aspects of vocality. Given the issues I've raised, it seems to me that if the article was renamed as "African vocality" (and properly categorized in and ), that would be far more useful to readers than this category.   Cgingold (talk) 14:15, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete I think this category was created with the best of intentions, but there is no evidence that there is anything African-specific here. As it turns out, I have been using Melisma, one of the two articles included here, without ever knowing it. Given the apparent lack of a parent article, it's hard to tell if there is a real structure here. I will reconsider, but I cannot see this category expanding or forming a connection of related articles. Alansohn (talk) 15:56, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete "African" means "African American" here, and that the two articles included are correctly so described seems wrong. The main article vocality seems very dubious to me. Johnbod (talk) 16:48, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I have concerns in that regard as well, but I figured it was a little beyond the scope of this CFD. Cgingold (talk) 22:20, 19 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete Loose criterion, we don't categorize this way anyway. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 17:58, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete I, like Johnbod, think that "African-American" was the concept here, but that aside, I don't see this expanding with a lack of inclusion criteria. Skier Dude  ( talk ) 01:15, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm sure we all agree that African and African-American are not the same thing. The "Vocality" article, just because it says something is both African and African-American (the aspects characteristic of African and African-American vocality), I don't think is unclear in itself (that would be the African in African-American). Regardless of that article, if the category "Aspects of African vocality" is inherently inappropriate, it should be deleted. Note that it was created two years ago. Hyacinth (talk) 03:23, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for joining the discussion, Hyacinth. I think it would be helpful for the article to state more clearly that African vocality carried over into African-American vocality (or something to that effect). As long as you're here, I'm also wondering what you think of my suggestion re renaming the article to reflect its focus. Or alternatively, it could perhaps be expanded to broaden the focus. Cgingold (talk) 15:12, 23 November 2008 (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.

Category:Political figures

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


 * The result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:32, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

political figures
 * Delete - This is an impossibly vague category that serves no conceivable purpose.  Cgingold (talk) 10:56, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong delete Hopelessly vague. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 15:53, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete talk about a mixed bag. There are three articles, one for a West Virgina Democratic State Senator, another for an operative at the Republican National Committee and a 1st chairman of the Mongolian Communist Party. There seems to be little that this category adds that is not covered by other political category structures. Alansohn (talk) 16:00, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete obviously, but Iapon Danzan needs some categories beyond his birth & death dates. Johnbod (talk) 16:50, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, would substantially overlap with Category:Politicians, Category:Activists, and other existing categories without adding information.-choster (talk) 21:01, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete now down to two articles ;0 - seems redundant to Category:Politicians Skier Dude  ( talk ) 01:16, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Note that the articles should not be upmerged into the parent category Category:Politicians, as they're both already contained in more specific subcategories of that. Bearcat (talk) 01:15, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * No, Iapon Danzan is back (after I reverted tph's highly irresponsible edit - this is exactly the sort of thing that kills you at Rfa, tph) and he does need some categories. Johnbod (talk) 01:22, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I added him to Category:Mongolian communists. This category can be safely deleted, I think. Terraxos (talk) 03:33, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I added Mongolian politicians too, so yes. Johnbod (talk) 11:20, 22 November 2008 (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.

Category:People in three or more occupations

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


 * The result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:29, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * people in three or more occupations


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete - per WP:OC. Why three occupations? Why not four or six? Also ambiguous. Would Janet Jackson or Madonna qualify because they sing, dance and act? Presumably the people who would be listed here are already going to be categorized in the respective occupation categories so this is just useless clutter stuck on the end of what's likely to be a long list. Otto4711 (talk) 10:34, 19 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. This adds nothing of real value to the Category structure.  Cgingold (talk) 11:46, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Johnbod (talk) 16:51, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Arbitrary. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 17:58, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as simply too arbitrary. Skier Dude  ( talk ) 01:17, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Might meet the "Otto Test", but it appears too arbitrary. Alansohn (talk) 23:55, 23 November 2008 (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.

Category:Sean Paul collaborations

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


 * The result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:31, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * sean paul collaborations


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete Overcategorization category brings no useful, relevant info to any article and is clearly trivial and category clutter Diverse  Mentality  08:00, 19 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete I agree with DiverseMentality on this one, as starter of this discussion. --Andrewlp1991 (talk) 06:14, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: This deletion is such a good idea, User:DiverseMentality nominated it yesterday. - Dravecky (talk) 03:21, 20 November 2008 (UTC) (moved here from November 20 CFD page) Cgingold (talk) 05:02, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Reply: Actually I tagged the category first, but for some reason DiverseMentality's signature claims credit. --Andrewlp1991 (talk) 04:16, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I did, actually, but User:DuttyYo reverted my CfD edit and I didn't notice. Diverse  Mentality  04:21, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * That's why I reverted all the way back to your edit, closed out the duplicate CFD on the 20th, and moved that comment here. Cgingold (talk) 10:36, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom - not a sufficiently identifying characteristic. (I believe similar 'People by collaboration' categories have been deleted in the past.) Terraxos (talk) 03:30, 22 November 2008 (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.

Category:Hip hop albums in 2008

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


 * The result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:41, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming deletion of Category:Hip hop albums in 2008 to Category:2008 hip hop albums
 * Nominator's rationale:  Rename . Changing to Delete. There are no other categories that break down a musical genre by year. Should this be the first? Should it continue with others (country, rock, etc.)?  Would each album need to be categorized as Category:2008 albums (as recommended) and Category:2008 hip hop albums (or whatever genre) or just the latter more-defined sub-category.  So I thought it would be best to bring this up for discussion because this could lead to a lot of genre overcategorization if not checked.  At the very least, I propose the name change for this and the following categories: Wolfer68 (talk) 06:47, 19 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment Prehaps take it to the talk page of WP:ALBUM to see what sort of consensus is reached there?  Lugnuts  (talk) 07:57, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I had started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums as well. --Wolfer68 (talk) 09:43, 19 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment I worry that after these categories get populated, all other genres will follow, and then someone will decide that the parent categories (albums by year) should all be depopulated.  I've long advocated keeping useful categories undiffused.  As this is an intersection, I'd rather see fully populated categories for both "albums of 2008" and "hip hop albums".  The intersections can be found using search, and a list of the search intersections could be made to make the task easier.  This would allow people to find both large and small groupings of articles. -- &#x2611; Sam uelWantman 10:28, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete all We already categorize albums by year, and by genre, separately. No need to then doubly categorize them by year and genre together.  Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 15:55, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Upmerge all to Category:Hip hop albums (the ones I have looked at have all been removed from this) and to the corresponding year category. Occuli (talk) 19:54, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. Most albums will be categorized as a hip hop album (normally one of its subgenres) under the respective Albums by artist category and not under the individual album. Which brings up a good point about adding in these categories to every, in this case, hip hop album. The albums (and songs) by artist categories should be reserved for specific genre categorization where appropriate which keeps the maintanence of categorizing albums (and songs) to a minimum. I agree with Hammer...this is overcategorization. --Wolfer68 (talk) 20:37, 19 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete all - per deleters above, and closing admin please be sure to catch the single bluelink in the proposed rename column. Otto4711 (talk) 22:03, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. All categories, overcategorization. Diverse  Mentality  23:18, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete all - appears to be another silly case of overcategorization - see discussion.-Andrewlp1991 (talk) 02:52, 20 November 2008 (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.

Hip hop albums by year
<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: delete (per above discussion). Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:42, 27 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Category:Hip hop albums in 1989 to Category:1989 hip hop albums
 * Category:Hip hop albums in 1991 to Category:1991 hip hop albums
 * Category:Hip hop albums in 1993 to Category:1993 hip hop albums
 * Category:Hip hop albums in 1995 to Category:1995 hip hop albums
 * Category:Hip hop albums in 1996 to Category:1996 hip hop albums
 * Category:Hip hop albums in 2002 to Category:2002 hip hop albums
 * Category:Hip hop albums in 2003 to Category:2003 hip hop albums
 * Category:Hip hop albums in 2005 to Category:2005 hip hop albums
 * Category:Hip hop albums in 2006 to Category:2006 hip hop albums
 * Category:Hip hop albums in 2007 to Category:2007 hip hop albums
 * Category:Hip hop albums in 2009 to Category:2009 hip hop albums
 * and others that may occur as these all seem to be recently created


 * Support all. Seems to be the more logical catname. // roux <span style="border:1px solid #36454F;-moz-border-radius-topright:10px;-moz-border-radius-bottomleft:10px;padding:0px 7px;font-size:30%;">  05:10, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete all per above discussion. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 18:02, 21 November 2008 (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.

Category:Johnson Publishing Company
<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: delete. Philosopher Let us reason together. 11:07, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * johnson publishing company


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete. Contains nothing but main article Johnson Publishing Company, which is already in parent category.  Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:28, 19 November 2008 (UTC)


 *  Delete  per nom Johnbod (talk) 16:51, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom & no hope of expansion. Skier Dude  ( talk ) 01:20, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep although currently thinly populated, it is serves as a logical placeholder expansion is likely despite previous comment. --emerson7 21:21, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Switched to Neutral - now contains 3 valid articles plus main; but we don't categorize books (unlike magazines) by publisher. Neutral on whether this is enough, but future expansion is clearly not hopeless. Johnbod (talk) 23:48, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment (nominator). I'm not as enthusiastic about deletion now that the category seems to have been populated, but I still think it's probably a bit too sparse for categorization, since all the articles appear to be interlinked in the articles. Good Ol’factory (talk) 20:18, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - small category, unclear expansion potential. The magazines are linked through the main article and I'm less than sanguine about categorizing books by the company that published them (the Forced Into Glory article). No prejudice to recreation should there be a sudden explosion of articles but for now it's not needed. Otto4711 (talk) 23:02, 4 December 2008 (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.

Category:Renegades
<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. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:06, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Suggest merging Category:Renegades to Category:Gobots
 * Nominator's rationale: Merge. This is for a group of Gobot villains. There's no article about the group, nor are they mentioned at the disambiguation page Renegade, so I'm not sure they are prominent enough to be a subcategory of Category:Gobots. I'll admit I know little about Gobots. If kept, should rename to Category:Renedages (Gobots) Category:Renegades (Gobots), heh .  Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:18, 19 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment – I like the word 'renedages'. 'Rouge renedages regene on deal'. Occuli (talk) 20:31, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * * But Merge per nom. Occuli (talk) 20:36, 19 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Suggest renaming to "Renegades (Gobots)" Mathewignash (talk) 23:29, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge It appears that all the Renegades are already in the 'parent' category. If kept wouldn't there be a need to split the category between the renegades and non-renegades? :)   Skier Dude  ( talk ) 01:23, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge per nom. According to the Challenge of the Gobots article, the Gobots were divided into 'Guardians' and 'Renegades'; but given that we don't even have articles on those separate groups, I don't think we can justify having separate categories for them. Terraxos (talk) 03:27, 22 November 2008 (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.

Category:Endangered Creole languages
<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. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:08, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Endangered Creole languages to Category:Endangered pidgins and creoles
 * Nominator's rationale: Rename. Per the parent Category:Pidgins and creoles and all the subcategories. If kept, caps should be corrected to Category:Endangered creole languages.  Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:12, 19 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Rename per nom. No prejudice to splitting again if it gets large. Johnbod (talk) 16:54, 19 November 2008 (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.

Category:Doctors who became politicians
<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 both to Category:Physician-politicians. Philosopher Let us reason together. 11:00, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Suggest merging Category:Doctors who became politicians to and Category:Doctor-politicians to Category:Physician-politicians (change made per Cgingold's suggestion below)
 * Nominator's rationale: Merge, apparently duplicate categories into a re-named new one.  Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:08, 19 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Support merge target has a better definition, and a clear title. Unclear why order is important in the old category. Alansohn (talk) 03:22, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment use Category:Medical doctor-politicians instead, since Doctor is ambiguous... considering how people throw it around... (ie. Dr. Stephen T. Colbert DFA, candidate for POTUS) 76.66.193.170 (talk) 04:10, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Better yet, Merge both to  ("physician" being the term that's favored in Wiki categories). Cgingold (talk) 05:48, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete both - "physician-politician" is a trivial occupational overlap. Otto4711 (talk) 07:17, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Au contraire! This is, in fact, a highly significant intersection. Health and medical issues are high on the list of major political issues, and physicians have knowledge and perspectives that are rather different from the general run of politicians. Cgingold (talk) 11:42, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Not to get all waxy, but any politician coming from any other occupation brings knowledge and perspectives that are different from those brought by members of other professions. Infrastructure is high on the list of political issues, so should we have Category:Architect-politicians? Category:Farmer-politicians because of the importance of agriculture? We've already had one opinion against Category:Lawyer-politicians below but surely they bring a perspective on the law that non-lawyers do not. Why is that different perspective below the threshold of categorization and not doctor-pols? And why stop at politicians? I imagine that athletes may bring a different perspective to their follow-up occupations than non-athletes, so why not Category:Athlete-bankers or Category:Athlete-physicians or Category:Athlete-used car salesmen? What's the logical endpoint for these dual occupation categories? At what point does the perspective of a former occupation stop having a significant-enough-for-categorization bearing on the next occupation and how do we determine that without resorting to POV and OR? Otto4711 (talk) 20:02, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Lawyer-politician is unfortunately a triviality, as might Beautician-politician, but the Category:Doctor-politicians captures a notable and defining characteristic that has been the subject of numerous newspaper and magazine publications. Alansohn (talk) 16:20, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * And of course being the subject of numerous reliable sources is the definition of notability, not definingness. Otto4711 (talk) 22:05, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Now Otto is disregarding the Otto standard: Per WP:CAT, three questions that are useful in determining the utility of a category are: 1) Is it possible to write a few paragraphs or more on the topic of the category? YES - Numerous magazine and newspaper articles have been written on the subject. The article "Diagnosing a Nation: Physician Politicians Combine Medicine and Public Service" from the Association of American Medical Colleges is one of hundreds of sources showing that this is a strong defining characteristic. Tell me how many more you need. 2) Is it obvious why any given article would be in the category? YES - Someone who is both a physician and a politician, e.g., Howard Dean and Bill Frist in the United States and say Gro Harlem Brundtland in Europe. 3) Does the category fit into the overall categorization system? YES - Given the broad structure of categories for politicians and physicians, this fits into both structures well. And the first guideline for category usage is that the category groups similar articles together. That is certainly happening here. I will be happy to support your nonsensical hypothetical cases when you find corresponding reliable sources. Do we delete this solely because you've decided it's trivial or are there any policy considerations here? Alansohn (talk) 20:18, 20 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment - I have tagged the doctor-politician category for discussion. Otto4711 (talk) 09:15, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge, preferably per Peterkingiron below. Johnbod (talk) 16:54, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * When you say "merge per nom", I hope you actually meant "merge both per Cgingold" to . Otherwise, I dare say we'll undoubtedly have to come back here again to rename it. Cgingold (talk) 22:17, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * amended, but not that way. Johnbod (talk) 07:50, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I see that the nominator has modified his proposal, so I suppose this is a moot issue now. :) Cgingold (talk) 00:50, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not trying to pre-empt the comments of those who prefer using "doctor". But I agree that "physician" is by far more commonly used in WP, and it is also far less ambiguous. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:53, 20 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Prefer Category:Medical doctors who became politicians. To my mind, physician is one medical speciality, on the other hand all medical men (and women) start by qualifying as doctors, before they drop Dr and become Mr on qualifying as surgeons. However the nomenclature is perhpas different in USA from England. IN any event Merge these duplicates in some way. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:52, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Prefer Merge both to ''' Deviathan (talk) 08:27, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * No opinion on whether to keep a category of "people whom we have two reasons not to trust", but if kept I would prefer a title which does not imply chronological order. That is it should be able to potentially include politicians who became doctors/physicians/whatever. (If such people exist—I haven't attempted to find any…). — CharlotteWebb 19:43, 20 November 2008 (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.

Category:Brady Bunch cameos
<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: Delete. While there is some support for a listify, these are only cameos and clearly not defining attributes. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:11, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * brady bunch cameos


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete. Overcategorization of performers by performance.  Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:03, 19 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete - per nom and unwavering precedent. Otto4711 (talk) 07:18, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - per nom, rejecting temptation to waver. Occuli (talk) 20:34, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - Every person categorized already had information in their page about their appearance on the Brady Bunch. This is one piece of evidence that there is something enduring about BB and the people who cameoed on it. SnappingTurtle (talk) 00:45, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Listify and delete - That is the usual answer to categorisation of performer by performance. Categories are intended as a navigation tool, not as an "enduring record" which should always be an article.  Peterkingiron (talk) 00:55, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Listify and delete as the proper way to organize performers by performance per precedent and best practices. - Dravecky (talk) 03:18, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I cannot see any encyclopedic value to a separate list of people who played themselves on The Brady Bunch. If this is going to be listified I suggest adding a cameo section to the existing List of The Brady Bunch characters. Otto4711 (talk) 20:09, 20 November 2008 (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.

Category:NSW Waratahs rugby union footballers
<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 per nom. This seems to be support for a rename of the other existing category.  If so, that really needs to be a second nomination. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:17, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge Category:NSW Waratahs rugby union footballers to Category:New South Wales Waratahs rugby union footballers
 * Nominator's rationale: Merge. Use category with expanded abbreviation per article New South Wales Waratahs. (Or should this just be Category:New South Wales Waratahs players, since the New South Wales Waratahs is only a rugby union team?)  Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:46, 19 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Rename both to Category:Waratahs rugby union footballers as per all the other teams (except Western Force) in Category:Rugby union footballers by Super 14 team The-Pope (talk) 04:11, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Rename Sorry about that ... I only realised after I added the category to multiple pages that it existed under another name. I'm also pretty sure that abbreviations are discouraged in categories so I have no objections for it to be moved to Category:New South Wales Waratahs rugby union footballers. I disagree though that it be changed to just 'Waratahs' because unlike with the Brumbies and Reds, the New South Wales Waratahs article still uses the state in it's title so I assume that is still their official name. Jevansen (talk) 23:40, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment:I think you'll find that their current 'official' name is HSBC Waratahs. For some reason Super 14 teams are refered to by nickname only much more than place-nickname combinations.  Aust teams may be the exception as the place-nickname style is what we're used to doing with NRL/AFL teams.The-Pope (talk) 23:08, 23 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Rename per The-Pope Skier Dude  ( talk ) 01:26, 20 November 2008 (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.