Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 August 25



Category:Parapolitics

 * 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. —  ξ xplicit  22:21, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * parapolitics


 * Nominator's rationale: "Parapolitics" has a couple of unrelated meanings but it seems to be most commonly used by conspiracy theorists, which is what two of the four articles in this category are about. The inclusion criteria aren't clear and Category:Conspiracy theories already gathers together articles about that kind of thing.    Prezbo (talk) 22:40, 25 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete - unclear inclusion criteria, and redundant to other, better categories. Robofish (talk) 11:49, 3 September 2010 (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:Spiritual theories

 * 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. —  ξ xplicit  22:21, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * spiritual theories


 * Nominator's rationale: What are the inclusion criteria of this category? This seems like a more-or-less arbitrary combination of religions, philosophical positions, superstition, and folk traditions. I can't figure out what belongs here and what doesn't. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:56, 25 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete Inclusion criteria definitely seem very obscure. This category was created by a sockpuppet of a banned user if that's relevant.Prezbo (talk) 22:48, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - too overbroad to be useful. I considered renaming to Category:Religious theories (which would more accurately reflect the contents), but that would seem to be redundant to Category:Religious belief and doctrine and its subcategories. Robofish (talk) 11:45, 3 September 2010 (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:Objectivism

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


 * The result of the discussion was: Keep. Ruslik_ Zero 12:37, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Objectivism to Category:Objectivism (Ayn Rand)
 * Nominator's rationale: Per main article and Objectivism; not sure if any subcat.s need to be renamed as well. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:10, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Support. Karol (talk) 08:17, 29 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose as the rationale is backward; there is no other distinct encyclopaedic topic of "objectivism" which would merit a category of articles – the name of the article is what is at fault, not the perfectly cromulent category.  Skomorokh   15:45, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Support because current articles in category are all relevant to her views. And because at some point someone may want to put the various people/ideas mentioned in Objectivity_(philosophy) in a more general objectivism category. Or maybe they have already but as soon as they saw all the Randroids recoiled in horror :-) CarolMooreDC (talk) 04:13, 31 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Weak oppose - there are several uses of the term 'Objectivism', but this seems to be the most widely-used one, at least on Wikipedia. I suppose there is some potential for confusion with Category:Objectivist poets, but that seems to be the only other category with 'objectivist' in the title which isn't related to Rand's movement. I could accept this being renamed, but the subcategories really should be kept as they are rather than being renamed to Category:Objectivism (Ayn Rand) scholars, Category:Objectivist (Ayn Rand) organizations, Category:Objectivist (Ayn Rand) philosophy, etc.; that would be both ugly and unnecessary. Robofish (talk) 11:38, 3 September 2010 (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:Transport museums in Alaska

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


 * The result of the discussion was: Keep. Ruslik_ Zero 12:41, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * transport museums in alaska


 * Nominator's rationale: A category with nothing but one subcategory that contains only a single article. To the best of my knowledge there are no other transportation museums in Alaska with Wikipedia articles, if and when there are this can be re-created. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:53, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - Every other state has this category. It may be small on the state level, but is useful at the larger level for finding transport museums by state.  Jllm06 (talk) 22:59, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * keep as part of an established pattern of subcats of Category:Transportation museums in the United States by state which I just added to this category as it was missing. Hmains (talk) 02:08, 26 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep - Per Jllm06. Joaquin008  ( talk ) 15:03, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * What about the subcategory then, isn't it a bit silly to have two categories that serve only to categorize one article? Or would that also be inconsistent with the sacrosanct established pattern? Beeblebrox (talk) 16:13, 26 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Rename to Category:Transportation museums in Alaska to match normal American usage and the existing parents, Category:Transportation in Alaska and Category:Transportation museums in the United States by state. Yes, this would mean some additional renames, but this is a place to start. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:07, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * even better than just my 'keep' above. Hmains (talk) 03:22, 1 September 2010 (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.

Queens

 * 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 except for Category:Images of Queens to Category:Images of Queens, New York City, which is clearly ambiguous. Ruslik_ Zero 08:40, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming:


 * Category:Art galleries in Queens to Category:Art galleries in Queens, New York City
 * Category:Buildings and structures in Queens to Category:Buildings and structures in Queens, New York City
 * Category:Churches in Queens to Category:Churches in Queens, New York City
 * Category:Sports venues in Queens to Category:Sports venues in Queens, New York City
 * Category:Synagogues in Queens to Category:Synagogues in Queens, New York City
 * Category:Burials in Queens to Category:Burials in Queens, New York City
 * Category:Companies based in Queens to Category:Companies based in Queens, New York City
 * Category:Education in Queens to Category:Education in Queens, New York City
 * Category:Images of Queens to Category:Images of Queens, New York City
 * Category:Museums in Queens to Category:Museums in Queens, New York City
 * Category:Neighborhoods in Queens to Category:Neighborhoods in Queens, New York City
 * Category:Parks in Queens to Category:Parks in Queens, New York City
 * Category:People from Queens to Category:People from Queens, New York City
 * Category:Sportspeople from Queens to Category:Sportspeople from Queens, New York City
 * Category:Transportation in Queens to Category:Transportation in Queens, New York City
 * Category:Streetcar lines in Queens to Category:Streetcar lines in Queens, New York City
 * Category:Streets in Queens to Category:Streets in Queens, New York City
 * Category:Queens to Category:Queens (nobility)
 * Category:Queens, New York City to Category:Queens, New York or Category:Queens (borough) or Category:Queens (New York)
 * Nominator's rationale: For consistency with the parent category, . Categories like could use also the disambiguation. —  ξ xplicit  19:46, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Support for "Images of Queens". I am personally neutral on the rest of them.  --M @ r ē ino 20:52, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: What's interesting is that the main article of the parent category, Queens, is not disambiguated as Queens, New York City. Gjs238 (talk) 22:44, 25 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose all any to Queens, New York City. No one calls this Queens, New York City.  Vegaswikian (talk) 03:01, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose all. Everyone calls it Queens, not "Queens, New York City", which is why the main article is just Queens, and why all these other categories are at Category:Museums in Queens etc. Also, no other NYC borough categories are disabmiguated this way: it's Category:Brooklyn, Category:Manhattan, etc. This is unnecessary disambiguation. Instead, Category:Queens, New York City should be renamed to Category:Queens, which makes more sense, and is a lot simpler. Jayjg (talk) 03:06, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Have you actually looked to see what is currently? How could the category be moved to that? Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:38, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Category:Queens (borough) or Category:Queens (New York) could work. But the proposal presented is too problematic. Probably a solution that should be consider is moving Category:Queens to Category:Queens (nobility) and replacing it with a category dab page. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:13, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You have a good point, but I like Vegaswikian's solution; move one to Category:Queens (nobility) and the other to Category:Queens (borough) or Category:Queens (New York). Jayjg (talk) 08:00, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The only reason I suggested Foo in Queens, New York City is to match the parent category. I have no problem with renaming it to one of the suggestions above. — ξ xplicit  18:05, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Added Category:Queens to the nomination. Of course I support that rename.  I'm going to wait on the target of the others to see if there is a consensus that develops. I will add that I'm not sure that we need to change the NYC ones except at the parent.  The current naming does not conflict with the form used for the subcategories of Category:Queens. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:27, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Added Category:Queens, New York City to the nomination, might as well discuss every thing. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:40, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose to match how the other four boroughs of New York City are handled for such categories. Alansohn (talk) 03:25, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Support the addition of disambs to all. Speaking as someone who has never visited the US, I am aware of Brooklyn, Manhattan and the Bronx but have no idea where or what Queens might be. And I certainly think that subcats should follow the naming of the head category. (It is very surprising that Queens has no disamb. This makes Birmingham seem quite reasonable.) Occuli (talk) 09:53, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure about this. In the battle between "Queens the borough" and "Queens the royalty," the royalty has to have supremacy. There have been "queens" for thousands of years in every corner of the globe, and "Queens" in one city for a couple centuries. The reason the borough wins in the articlespace is that the main entry for the royalty is Queen; if the borough were named "Queen," it would be treated like the band and disambiguated. (Although weirdly, unlike King, the Queen article is a disambiguation page. That makes no sense either. That should also be addressed somehow.) I think I have to Oppose renaming Category:Queens. But I'm not sure about the rest.--Mike Selinker (talk) 15:02, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose renaming Category:Queens per Mike Selinker. I'm not convinced that we should disambiguate the one for the royal women. Whatever name is chosen for should be extended to the other subcategories. Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:31, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. For what it's worth, I also disagree with the proposed rename of per Mike Selinker. I think we're mostly in agreement that  should be renamed as the current name simply does not reflect what I think could argued to be the common name. Granted, the policy refers to article names, but I think it can be stretched to the category in this case. I really can't make up my mind as what the category should be renamed to as they're all reasonable (and more desired than the current name), but whatever name is agreed on should follow through with its subcategories. —  ξ xplicit  22:14, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep category called "queens" should be about female monarchs (Queens regnant) or the consorts of kings (Queens consort). Alternatively, these should become "Queens (monarchs)" and the present category should become a dab category.  Keep rest: categories "from Queens" or "in Queens" clearly refer to the NY borough.  Rename Images of Queens (as ambiguous) per nom.  The parent of these should match the present main article to prevnet ambiguity.   Peterkingiron (talk) 22:34, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Support rename all except the last one listed. Disambiguation required here for these categories (regardless of the article name and its use of WP:Common name) Mayumashu (talk) 02:31, 2 September 2010 (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:Recipients of the Royal Architectural Institute of Canada’s Gold Medal

 * 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. Ruslik_ Zero 12:18, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * recipients of the royal architectural institute of canada’s gold medal


 * Nominator's rationale: Having created this one myself, I'm now not so sure this meets OC. Is a top prize from Canada's national architectural institute truly defining for its recipients? I'm really not sure. Arguments against: Canada is a relatively small nation, population wise. Today, most of the Canadian architects who have achieved any great recognition have had to do so by working outside Canada...  Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:31, 25 August 2010 (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:Air Dispersion Model articles

 * 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. —  ξ xplicit  22:21, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * air dispersion model articles


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete. Redundant to Category:Air dispersion modeling. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 19:11, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, seems redundant to parent cat. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:14, 25 August 2010 (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:Kipling stories with characters from the administrative class
<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. —  ξ <sup style="color:#000000;">xplicit  22:21, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * kipling stories with characters from the administrative class


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete - as with other similar Kipling categories, seemingly all created by one very industrious editor a couple of years ago, it seems unwise to group stories based on the perceived class or status of one or more of its characters. Note that this is not limited to stories whose central character is of the "administrative class" but conceivably could contain any story in which such a character has a single line of dialogue. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 18:04, 25 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete Overcategorization. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:57, 25 August 2010 (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:Current sports as of August 2010
<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. These categories can be uncontroversially deleted either under C1 or G6. —  ξ <sup style="color:#000000;">xplicit  22:21, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * current sports as of august 2010


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete No idea what this category is supposed to be. Pichpich (talk) 15:15, 25 August 2010 (UTC) Pichpich (talk) 15:15, 25 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete – we have Category:Current sports events, populated by Current sport (and containing a record %, surely, of user pages). Occuli (talk) 16:15, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment it's actually being populated by the "date=" parameter in Current sport. BencherliteTalk 21:12, 25 August 2010 (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:Christian anti-Zionism
<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. —  ξ <sup style="color:#000000;">xplicit  22:21, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * christian anti-zionism


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete as POV. Pichpich (talk) 15:09, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep What POV? It is noting that some anti-zionists are christian, as opposed to the many who are muslim. Certainly nobody argues with tagging David Duke or Pat Buchanan as a christian anti-zionist. What is non-neutral POV being promoted? Bachcell (talk) 19:29, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe both David Duke and Pat Buchanan would reject the label. That's a problem. Pichpich (talk) 23:03, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It also implies that their anti-Zionism is connected to their Christianity in some way, which is a blatant SYNTH violation. So, Delete. Stonemason89 (talk) 00:50, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete as absurd attack-by-labeling. Is this connected with Wikipedia Editing for Zionists? Flatterworld (talk) 21:57, 25 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete I don't really think its POV but I fail to see the reason anti-Zionists should be disambiguated by their religious beliefs. The similar Category:Anti-communists disambiguates people by country or origin, not by whether they are Christian, Hindus, Pagans, etc. Dimadick (talk) 05:42, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - unnecessary subcategory of Category:Anti-Zionism. (Category:Jewish anti-Zionism is worth keeping, as the two are directly relevant - but Christianity and Zionism don't necessarily have anything to do with each other.) Robofish (talk) 11:28, 3 September 2010 (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:Miss Guatemala winners
<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: keep. —  ξ <sup style="color:#000000;">xplicit  22:21, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Miss Guatemala winners to Category:Guatemalan beauty pageant winners
 * Nominator's rationale: Rename to match similar categories in Category:Beauty pageant winners by nationality. Pichpich (talk) 15:02, 25 August 2010 (UTC) Pichpich (talk) 15:02, 25 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. But that's wouldn't be correct, I mean Guatemala's beauty pageants-related categories aren't much developed here, besides you can just create additional Category:Guatemalan beauty pageant winners, but deleting Category:Miss Guatemala winners would be unreasonable, there's for a lot of countries such category exist, see Category:Miss Russia winners, Category:Miss USA winners, Category:Miss Canada winners. And also this category more precisely indicates in which category these people won the title, in this case it's - Miss Guatemala. Userpd (talk) 17:45, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment The category would be read as "winners of the Miss Guatemala" competition, and thus is more analogous to Category:Miss America winners or Category:Miss Brasil winners. The simplest solution may be simply to reparent this category directly under Category:Beauty pageant winners, although given the small size of the category and likelihood it will remain small in the near term, I have no objection to the nom.- choster (talk) 17:48, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment, like I said, Guatemala beauty pageant-related categories / articles almost aren't developed here, concerning about the small size - it's not an argument, «Rome was not built in a day.», we should always start from something. You better write about other Guatemala contestants, that'd be more helpful. Userpd (talk) 21:19, 25 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep – I think a Miss Guatemala should be categorised under 'Miss Guatemala', not merely as a 'Guatemalan beauty pageant winner'. (These are probably all delegates to Miss World.) I would probably go with the creation of the intermediate Category:Guatemalan beauty pageant winners which seems neater: I expect some Guatemalans can be found who have won competitions elsewhere. Indeed there is Ilma Urrutia. Occuli (talk) 23:10, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep then create Category:Guatemalan beauty pageant winners as parent cat. - Lenticel ( talk ) 01:21, 27 August 2010 (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:Aviation in Alaska
<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: keep. —  ξ <sup style="color:#000000;">xplicit  22:21, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * aviation in alaska


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete Serves no useful purpose not covered by Category:Transportation in Alaska and the subcategories Category:Airlines in Alaska and Category:Airports in Alaska. No other US state has an equivalent category. Pichpich (talk) 13:07, 25 August 2010 (UTC) Pichpich (talk) 13:07, 25 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep In no other U.S. state does aviation play as important or as large a role as it does in Alaska. There are dozens of towns, villages, and even the capital city Juneau, that are not accessible by road. Additionally, not all the pages are actually related to transportation such as Elmendorf Air Force Base or the Arctic Thunder Air Show. Category has only been around for one day, I've barely started populating it. There are numerous biographies of pioneer bush pilots I have yet to add, they also would not fall under "transportation." Although not everything in it would qualify, it could be a subcat of Transportation in Alaska category and all aviation articles could be moved over, there are quite a few of them. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:42, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Ditto above, certainly no advantage to deleting the category other than kicking down somebody else's sandcastle and promoting deletionism. Bachcell (talk) 19:31, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete as redundant to the existing category structures. Air travel is more important in Alaska than it is in other states; doesn't mean it should have a separate aviation category when the existing categories serve the purpose. Individual pilots should be categorized as "pilots" and not as "aviation" anyway. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 17:39, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * But pilots obviously fall under the general heading of "aviation" along with airports, Air Force bases, Air shows, etc. I'm not an expert by any means on "category structure" I created this because I was very surprised to find out that it didn't already exist. I don't see what the harm is in making it easier to find all the article on a related topic. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:50, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Bush pilots should be in the existing Category:Bush pilots, not directly in an aviation category. See also WP:NOHARM. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 18:36, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yea, most of them are in the category for bush pilots, but not every Alaska aviator is a bush pilot and not every bush pilot is an Alaskan. And NOHARM is more about articles, which serve a different purpose than categories. If we discount the argument that a category is useful there is no reason to have any of them at all. And for the record the airports in Alaska and Airlines in Alaska categories could be subcats of this one as they fall under the general heading of aviation-related articles. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:29, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Well obviously non-bush pilots would go into a different sub-category of Category:Aviators. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 19:55, 25 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment Ok. I see the creators' point. If kept, then the content in Category:Transportation in Alaska needs to be reorganized. All aviation/airline/airports content should be moved to the relevant subcat of Category:Aviation in Alaska. Pichpich (talk) 23:12, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * keep and further populate from Category:Transportation in Alaska, given its importance to Alaska and remove them from Category:Transportation in Alaska where they clutter up navigation. Hmains (talk) 02:20, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - It's still useful and it could be reorganized to solve these problems. Joaquin008  ( talk ) 15:01, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I had kind of started doing that but it's on hold now due to the threat of deletion, didn't want to waste any more time if it was all going to go up in smoke. I don't participate much here at Cfd because I frankly don't like it over here. It  seems like in these debates the usefulness of the category is often considered less important than if it fits in the "category structure" or if it is consistent with other similar categories. That seems completely backwards to me. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:10, 26 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep Seems like a useful category and "Transportation in Alaska" is too vague. Dimadick (talk) 05:36, 28 August 2010 (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:Former drinking water reservoirs
<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. —  ξ <sup style="color:#000000;">xplicit  22:21, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * former drinking water reservoirs


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete. Unnecessary level of categorization for 3 articles. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:28, 25 August 2010 (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:Drinking water reservoirs
<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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 19:51, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Propose merging Category:Drinking water reservoirs to Category:Reservoirs
 * Nominator's rationale: Merge. Most reservoirs supply drinking water as well as water for many other uses. One wonders if we might use any of the water from these drinking water reservoirs for flushing which I believe is a much larger portion of water use in dwellings.  I suppose that it will not be used for washing or landscape either.  If this really is a British terminology, the subcategories would retain the unique naming in the parent.  Vegaswikian (talk) 07:15, 25 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment This isn't normal British terminology - I suspect that the creator is trying to distinguish other reservoirs e.g. Category:Canal reservoirs in England . Probably best merged and a fuller description put into the header. Twiceuponatime (talk) 08:13, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Rename Reservoirs can fulfil various purposes - Hydro-electric; and filling canals are two. I would call them Category:Water supply reservoirs or somethign like that.  Peterkingiron (talk) 22:44, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * If we do that, and I'm not opposing your proposal right now, will we wind up with many reservoirs being in multiple categories like Category:Water supply reservoirs, Category:Hydro-electric reservoirs, Category:Flood control reservoirs and such? Vegaswikian (talk) 02:08, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge per nom. I don't see the utility in subgrouping these, given that the overlap will be tremendous. It's not part of a broader scheme right now and is very lightly populated. Good Ol’factory (talk) 11:17, 8 September 2010 (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:Sister cities in the United States
<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: rename. —  ξ <sup style="color:#000000;">xplicit  22:21, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Sister cities in the United States to Category:Lists of sister cities in the United States
 * Nominator's rationale: Rename. Contents are really lists. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:51, 25 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Rename per nom.-- Lenticel ( talk ) 08:16, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Rename per nom. Joaquin008  ( talk ) 14:49, 26 August 2010 (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:Kentucky architecture and infrastructure
<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: rename. —  ξ <sup style="color:#000000;">xplicit  22:21, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Kentucky architecture and infrastructure to Category:Kentucky infrastructure
 * Nominator's rationale: Rename. All siblings are infrastructure only. What makes infrastructure architecture? Maybe some specific cases, but this high up the tree? At this level, there are only two state categories and one city category.  They seem out of place there. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:23, 25 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Rename to match sibling cats.-- Lenticel ( talk ) 01:29, 27 August 2010 (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.

Cartel (band)
<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: rename. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:23, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming:


 * Category:Cartel songs to Category:Cartel (band) songs
 * Category:Cartel albums to Category:Cartel (band) albums
 * Nominator's rationale: To match parent article Cartel (band) and disambiguate from Cartel (rap group). — ξ <sup style="color:#000000;">xplicit  05:23, 25 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Rename per nom. -- Lenticel ( talk ) 00:23, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Rename - Per nom. Joaquin008  ( talk ) 19:33, 29 August 2010 (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:Hemiphractinae
<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: rename, invoking WP:SILENCE. —  ξ <sup style="color:#000000;">xplicit  22:21, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Hemiphractinae to Category:Hemiphractidae
 * Nominator's rationale: Rename. See Hemiphractidae. Also see Flectonotus and Gastrotheca placement for further discussion. From what I'm reading, ever since 2006, these genera have been considered at least one and possibly three separate families, as opposed to previous treatment as a subfamily under Hylidae.  Treatment on Wikipedia is inconsistent, including a number of variations.  Trying to consolidate to a single treatment for these genera. If rename approved, this category should be placed under Category:Frogs by classification, rather than as a subcategory for Category:Tree frogs (which is the common name for family Hylidae. Dawynn (talk) 01:54, 25 August 2010 (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:American servicemembers discharged for homosexuality
<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: rename. —  ξ <sup style="color:#000000;">xplicit  22:21, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:American servicemembers discharged for homosexuality to Category:American military personnel discharged for homosexuality
 * Nominator's rationale: Rename to match the parent Category:American LGBT military personnel and the various other "military personnel" categories. When I created the category I think I was feeding off of the organization Servicemembers Legal Defense Network but that's no reason for the name deviation in the category. Otto4711 (talk) 01:45, 25 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Rename for consistency reasons. Dimadick (talk) 05:32, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Rename per nom - 'personnel' is the established term to use here. Robofish (talk) 11:22, 3 September 2010 (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:Anti-Islam activists
<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. —  ξ <sup style="color:#000000;">xplicit  22:21, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * anti-islam activists


 * Nominator's rationale: This seems to be hard pov-pushing, how would you describe one as activist? The one who marches with protests on streets? So this category doesn't properly list a substantial number of individuals, who could be included in this category. The title of the existing category is far from ideal because the people currently in the category, I looked at four, seem to either be opponents of radicalized Islam and the terrorists they support and sympathize with, or, like DeWinter who hates everything not like him, and I think he should be in 'Racists'. I didn't see any of the other three I looked at saying 'all of Islam is bad', which means this category is a BLP violation. they do all seem to oppose radical/fundamentalist Islam. Just like there shouldn't be Category:Anti-Semitic people. Albeit there are more than enough other categories which are also specify it better Category:Anti-Islam_sentiment, Category:Islam critical scholars, Category:Criticism of religion. And note, there's no "anti-Christian activists" (or "anti-Buddhist activists"), for this matter there's already the category Category:Anti-Christianity. Also, in some cases (like with the people in this category at the moment) it's clear, but not always so - what if someone just stops actively campaigning, but privately keeps the same beliefs? And if Category:Former Jehovah's Witnesses has a reason to exist, because renouncing one's own religion is pretty much sustainable, unless you don't become an agnostic after being religions, while already having categories for these people's believes and creating such biased and silly category in addiction - don't. However, if one simply against Islam, without providing any arguments why one is against it (criticizes terrorism or extremism), due to one's brainwashed mind, then it'd be simply Category:Anti-Islam sentiment, but giving a platform for right-wing persons and let them to create such biased categories and promote their ideas with thanks to it, I don't thing it'd help to neutrality of Wikipedia. So also arguments of "former" anti-Islam activists could be with the same success applied here. And like it was noted here people sometimes change their minds concerning some specific aspects in Islam, for example one shia islamic scholar may be against using musical instruments, would he be an anti-islam activist? Or some atheist who would be against wearing hijab in Islam, would he be too an anti-islam "activist"? So as you see, this category isn't able to make it clear and categorize rightfully. And taking into account that all current people who are in this category can be, and already, listed in aforementioned categories, I don't see why this category shouldn't be deleted or at least be renamed to make it clear, and it was proposed for deletion 2 times already and both times there was no enough arguments for keeping it so there was "no consensus"(although, cfd isn't not a poll), this should give you cause for reflection. Userpd (talk) 01:24, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete I agree with above. Plus this category has real BLP problems. And I doubt many of people in it have any WP:RS calling them "Anti-Islam activists." CarolMooreDC (talk) 05:23, 25 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. What kind of actions should a person do to be considered an anti-Islam activist? Joaquin008  ( talk ) 15:00, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. This one's always puzzled me, because people just aren't commonly described as "anti-Islam activists" anywhere in the media. Usually these "opponents" are targeting one particular feature or sect or practice within Islam, not the entire religion. Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:17, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * That's not exactly true. Lately, with this thing in Manhattan being big news I have heard several interviews/sound bites wherein some of these protestors are claiming that Islam is not a religion at all. Don't ask me to explain how they came to that absurd conclusion though. However this category is vague and far too open to POV pushing and original research. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:12, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * That's an extreme form, and I'd guess that most people who espouse views like that are not taken seriously as activists and therefore aren't notable as activists. (There may be rare exceptions to this rule, as with Fred Phelps, who espouses an outrageous form of activism for all his causes.) In any case, I doubt the news stories describe such nuts as "anti-Islam activists". It probably just describes them as people opposed to the "ground zero mosque". Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:25, 3 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Preferably keep - despite the nomination above, I think this is an acceptable category. Many of the people in it are opposed to Islam as a whole, not particular aspects of it like hijab, and I think it's usually easy to find reliable sources describing these people as such. However, if it is deleted, the contents should be merged into Category:Anti-Islam sentiment. Robofish (talk) 11:19, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. Read arguments why can't be "anti-semitic people" category, here's the same, the title of this category presents its as hating the whole subject, and portrays it as Islam itself is a danger, this is not what wikipedia is, we should avoid misconceptions generated by such categories. Imagine a category for people who hate all jews, in this case "anti-semitic people", that's ridiculous if some people hate everything without differencing things or explaining why exactly they hate, but hating just because it's "Islam" or "semitic" is dumb. Too subjective to act as a category, and I'd also be skeptical of it as a list. It's too easy for someone to use this as an attack category. Also note that there are going to be people who don't outwardly hate Islam but who vehemently disagree with policies of radical islamists that will fall into a grey area. As way to prone to subjective opinions and abuse.One man's anti-islamist is another man's anti-terrorism fighter. So delete for all the same reasons we have deleted similar categories for racists Category:Racists, misogynists and the like (both real and fictional). Whether or not someone is anti-islamic is often a matter of opinion. And I'm not really sure how much I can add given the excellent summaries by previous editors (BLP issues, very subjective, POV, etc etc.) I think the category would be better off deleted, but having the category be only self-identified anti-Islam activists would work as well. In that case, there would be no BLP issue (because they self identify) as well as no POV issue (because they're admitting it.) The next best option, but somewhat unfavorable, is a list. Although it still can potentially suffer from the same problems as this category, it at least has citations. Given that "Anti-islamic" is quite often used as a pejorative term, having citations seems like it would be paramount in such a case as this. Userpd (talk) 17:49, 3 September 2010 (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.