Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 December 17

< December 16	December 18 >

December 17[edit]

Category:Bangladeshi business people[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename. Timrollpickering 14:43, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Bangladeshi businesspeople per convention of Category:Businesspeople by nationality and discussion of November 9th. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 23:03, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Deaths by cancer[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was merge. Timrollpickering 14:42, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Cancer deaths, duplicate. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 22:47, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge This category is duplicate. Daniel5127 <Talk> 04:21, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. David Kernow (talk) 05:23, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom.Shawn in Montreal 05:33, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Super Bowl XL[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. Timrollpickering 14:40, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This category only has two pages in it. It's really a useless one, IMO. → JARED ^(t) 21:51, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Useless category. Daniel5127 <Talk> 04:21, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Useless, indeed.Shawn in Montreal 05:33, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Useful. --W.marsh 15:15, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Super Bowl ## Categories[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete and merge to Category:Super Bowl. Timrollpickering 23:37, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(Note to Administrator: please allow an extra day of discussion. The tags weren't placed until 18 December; I just didn't want to separate these from the previous nomination. Thanks.)

Delete all. Overcategorization.—Chidom ^talk 05:54, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all Super Bowl. TonyTheTiger 18:59, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Useful and interesting categories, more articles could be added as time goes by. --W.marsh 15:14, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Fictional characters with uncontrollable eating habits[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was speedy deleted. David Kernow (talk) 05:25, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per November 23 deletion of "fictional overeaters". ~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 21:49, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete I didn't know about the earlier deletion, but I think its time that Wikipedia start a category for articles and categories that were deleted so this won't happen again. Robert Moore 22:17, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Excess Military Organization categories[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Keep and populate, merge, delete and rename as per proposal by Kirill Lokshin. Timrollpickering 14:52, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge all up~~. Under the category "Military units and formations" there are fourteen empty or near-empty sub-categories that should be deleted and merged up to Category:Military units and formations as a part of an effort to re-organize the entire category. johnpseudo 20:17, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and populate, merge, and delete as per proposal by Kirill Lokshin. Eh, I think even if the voting gets complicated, it's more efficient to get this all out of the way in one fell swoop. johnpseudo 21:30, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep all~~; these are part of an ongoing effort by WP:MILHIST to properly categorize military units (see WP:MILHIST#Units and formations). The vast majority just haven't been tagged into the proper categories yet. Kirill Lokshin 20:48, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, looking through these more carefully, some of them are indeed remnants from the old category system, and can be deleted at this point, as their use has been deprecated. So:
- Delete:
  - Category:Task forces (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  - Category:Task groups (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  - Category:Task units (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  - Category:Sub-areas (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Keep, per WP:MILHIST#Units and formations:
  - Category:Mechanized units and formations (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  - Category:Irregular units and formations (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  - Category:Infantry units and formations (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  - Category:Medical units and formations (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  - Category:Cavalry units and formations (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Merge:
  - Category:Mechanized infantry units and formations (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) into Category:Mechanized units and formations (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  - Category:Horse units and formations (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) into Category:Cavalry units and formations (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  - Category:Military units by type (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) into Category:Military units and formations by type (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Rename:
  - Category:Training units (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Training units and formations (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  - Category:Light horse units and formations (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Light cavalry units and formations (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- This is why mass nominations are a bad idea, incidentally. ;-) Kirill Lokshin 21:06, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I support Kirill's various recommendations. Carom 21:30, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A little of everything per Kirill Lokshin. [It seems to me that it was a lot easier to lay everything out than try to look at and understand 14 different nominations, and more likely that all of your recommendations will reach consensus instead of the possibility of hit and miss.] ~ BigrTex 03:10, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/keep/merge/rename per Kirill. David Kernow (talk) 05:27, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and populate, merge, and delete as per convention, basicly Kirill Lokshin proposal.--Dryzen 16:41, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
question Doing a wiki search turns up some/many? articles, such as the following: 'Task Force 16' and 'Task Force 121'. Has anyone evaluated whether placing these in the category named 'Task Force' would be of user benefit? Hmains 02:53, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not entirely sure. Unlike more permanent unit types (e.g. regiments, divisions, corps, etc.) "task forces" tended to be very different things depending on the time period, organizing service, and so forth; lumping them all together just because of the name probably won't be too useful. I'd suggest putting at least some of them (in possible sub-categories by service) under something like Category:Ad-hoc military units and formations, though. Kirill Lokshin 03:06, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

support Kirill solution; please hurry up and populate though; Hmains 02:55, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/Merge/Delete as per Kirill. TomStar81 (Talk) 06:00, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Simon & Schuster[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. Timrollpickering 14:39, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I believe that this category was intended to be used to include subsidiaries of the company Simon & Schuster, seeing as this category is a subcategory of Category:Book publishing companies of the United States. However, the only entries in this category are books published by Simon & Schuster, which I believe is an incorrect usage of this category tree. Since there are no "valid" entries in the category (other than the titular article), I propose it for deletion. GentlemanGhost 18:38, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The name is too ambiguous. Unless there's a well-honored system of such cats, it should be deleted. Xiner 15:19, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Other subcats of Category:Book publishing companies of the United States have varied content (most appear to include at least some books by the publisher). It looks like renames might be in order. ~ BigrTex 16:30, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there is no value in the vast majority of books being in a publisher category. Unless the imprint or publisher gains certain notariety of itself. "Ace Books" for instance, where they almost become a book series. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 09:13, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Pre-revolutionary history of the United States[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename. Timrollpickering 14:37, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Pre-revolutionary history of the United States to Category:History of the Thirteen Colonies

Rename, per this discussion about a related category. —Kevin 18:17, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename A neat solution. Greg Grahame 19:40, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Remane Better name for this category to be History of Thirteen Colonies rather than Pre-revolutionary history of the United States. Daniel5127 <Talk> 04:20, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per outcome to discussion linked by Kevin. David Kernow (talk) 05:28, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per discussion. TonyTheTiger 19:02, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per discussion. jengod 21:27, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
comment the main article of this category is named (for better/for worse) 'Colonial America'. Might that change anyone's conclusions? Hmains 03:01, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe rename the article...? Regards, David Kernow (talk) 09:17, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename and rename the article too. Chicheley 11:45, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
oppose There is more to pre-1776 history of the US than the history of the 13 colonies. Where does all the history of the then Spanish/French central and western US go to? This category is supposed to cover it all. Hmains 03:52, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Evangelical United Brethren bishops of the Southwestern Area[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was upmerge. Timrollpickering 14:36, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Over-categorisation. A single-member sub-category of Category:Bishops of the Evangelical United Brethren Church, which itself contains only 8 articles. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 13:20, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge to Category:Bishops of the Evangelical United Brethren Church. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 13:21, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge Oh no, not one of these again. Xiner 15:19, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge obviously. roundhouse 15:54, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Methodist bishops of Japan[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was merge all. Timrollpickering 14:32, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete all~~ as over-categorisation: sub-categories which contain only one article, all sub-cats of underpopulated categories.
Note, this is part of a wider problem of over-categorisation of Bishops of the United Methodist Church, and of other related categories created by the same prolific category-creator. See many other related CFDs, including:

Note that the CFD for Religious leaders by state contains a list of a further seven related CFDs.
Note that removing these unnecesary subcats will also in assist in unravelling the other sort of over-categorisation prevalent in these articles, viz. of categorising articles in both a category and that category's parent. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 12:32, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge all to Category:Bishops of the United Methodist Church (clarifying intention from preious "delete"). --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 13:22, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge all to Category:Bishops of the United Methodist Church roundhouse 20:07, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all into Category:Bishops of the United Methodist Church. One thing I'd really like to know ... how many United Methodist bishops actually have wikipedia articles? The current layout makes that difficult to figure out. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 22:27, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply By burrowing through all the categories, I can find only 63 UM Bishops. (The List of Bishops of the United Methodist Church includes more, but many of those were bishops of predecesssor denominations, and had died before the UM Church as created). I started counting the UM-specific categories, and gave up when I got to 67, with more still uncounted. So there are actually more categories than articles. :( --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 23:35, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thank you for counting ... it's even worse than I thought. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 00:54, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge per above. (Radiant) 10:17, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all How many of this type of overcategorization are there?? Xiner 15:20, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No not merge or delete. You are making a mistake by eliminating some of these categories. Some categories might seem small to you, but are still useful. In this case, for example, bishops come from a nation, but also make up subregions within that nation such as Illinois, and Ohio and have a long history. Catholic bishops from California part of a region, but also have a history because it grew out of a single region.

You have removed these categories without any real discussion of the content itself, just a quick discussion of how many names were listed in the categories. This type of decision making is getting to be a problem on Wikipedia, since the content takes a backseat to form.

How many names need to be listed for a category to be useful? What if some of those names for those categories are not yet entries in Wikipedia yet? How useful do you think it is to instead have an entry to all American Catholic bishops in the United States over the past 200 years? I don't find find that very useful, since now readers need to pick through entries of potentially hundreds of people from another part of the country. As a part of making these decisions, you might research Wikipedia itself. For example, see List of the Roman Catholic dioceses of the United States, which shows how bishops are further divided into regions.

Although you already made this decision, I would suggest restoring the categories.

Craig.borchardt 23 December 2006.

Thank you, Craig.borchardt My beliefs exactly. Just because a cat has few articles or subcats does not in itself make that cat not useful! There seems to be such anxiety about destroying many, many valuable religious cats and subcats. It almost seems like a terrible bias against religion by some editors! There are hundreds if not thousands of cats on Wikipedia each with very few articles (or subcats). Yet these do not get attacked. Only these religious ones, apparently. But even if it is not a anti-religious bias, it certainly is against small cats for some reason. Thank you for expressing what I have been trying to say. Pastorwayne 19:05, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I don't know if there is a religious bias. I would consider that a serious issue for Wikipedia; if you have examples, can you post on my talk page?

I think there are a few things going on. First, Wikipedia is maintained by a number of hard-working, well-meaning volunteers. Many of these people are perhaps dedicated or technically skilled, but perhaps not content experts. Also, when you look at the number of edits that some people make, you'll see that some make hundreds each day. For a site that's frequently under attack for the quality of the content, I think it's impossible for some of these people to make consistently considered decisions about the changes they are making.

I would really support limiting the number of edits that any person can make to Wikipedia per day. It seems almost impossible to me that people can make thoughtful decisions when they make hundreds of changes per day.

On the topic of categories for bishops, the issue is that several people rush to make a decision without any real consideration of the content. For example, one person commented that there shouldn't be a category for Catholic Bishops from Ohio because there is no diocese of Ohio. But as I've already shown, these bishops are divided into an Ohio region: there is a major bishop for Ohio and all of the other bishops in the state essentially report to him. The same is true of California, which has a long history as a region and now was eventually reorganized. California bishops still meet regionally and work on similar projects together.

I also didn't see any real effort to really consider the content or bring people into the discussion who might have a contribution to consider. I'd like to see more of that on Wikipedia when decisions are made.

Second, how many bishops do you need before you can have a category? By definition a bishop is pretty much responsible for people in a geographic area. Sometimes this geographic area can be quite large, and the person serving can be bishop for years, maybe decades. So there are not going to be very many bishops. Is that a reason not a have a category? I don't think so.

Third, some articles for bishops are not yet listed on these category pages because no one has written an article for them yet. That's what's great about wikipedia: people can contribute this information. Wikipedia provides the structure and users provide the content. So why not leave the structure of these category pages in place for when people do write more of these articles?

Given some of the categories that I have seen for other articles that don't seem very useful but have many entries, I would agree with you that it seems odd that people would want to get rid of these categories that actually do serve a purpose. Happy Holidays! Craig.borchardt 25 December 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

films category[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename Category:Pedro Almodóvar films to Category:Films directed by Pedro Almodóvar. No consensus to rename Category:Charlie Chaplin films. Timrollpickering 14:24, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

rename. subcategory on the Category:Films by director. Ycgi 08:49, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per convention of Category:Films by director -- ProveIt ^(talk) 14:34, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Very strong oppose renaming the Chaplin category. It was agreed last year that it should be an exception from the general rule. He did not direct his early shorts, but there lasting importance is down to his involvement. He is sufficiently eminent for the rule to be adapted in his case. Osomec 19:43, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll keep an open mind for this argument, as I was not involved in the previous discussion, but there are many actors now who are moving to directing. I prefer new rules to one-case exceptions. Xiner 15:24, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename There is no need to make an exception for Chaplin. The filmography in his article has annotations that make these distinctions. If we are going to have Category:Films by director, the Chaplin entry should just have the films he directed. This adds MORE information since, the list of all his films already exists elsewhere. -- Samuel Wantman 20:46, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Per above. Daniel5127 <Talk> 04:19, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose renaming the Chaplin category. A convention that prevents his films being in one place is a bad convention. Chicheley 11:46, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

His films are all on one place. They are at Charlie Chaplin#Filmography. We have already decided not to categorize films by performers, and this category is a subcategory of Category:Films by director. If you want, you could also make List of Charlie Chaplin films. So what is the problem? -- Samuel Wantman 00:25, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:High wing aircraft[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was keep. Timrollpickering 14:48, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Click here to edit

Unless I'm very much mistaken, the number of aircraft that could potentially belong to this category is simply enormous. Just about any aircraft that isn't some crazy design like a lifting body or a flying wing is going to be either high-wing or low-wing. Karl Dickman ^talk 03:40, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I also recommend deleting: Category:Low wing aircraft, Category:Jet aircraft, Category:Propeller aircraft, and Category:Single engine aircraft, Category:Multiple engine aircraft, on the grounds that these categories are far too broad to be useful. Karl Dickman ^talk 03:48, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know, there is nothing in WP:CAT that says a category should not be created due to the fact that it would be enormous. Single and Multiple engine aircraft, have different characteristics, and are very different aircraft. Similarly, high and low wing aircraft as well as the different between prop or propeller aircraft are significant enough for me to believe that they require a category. However, if more people involved with WP:AIRCRAFT agree that they are unecessary, I wont have a problem with them being deleted. However, I personally feel that they are important categories, especially in categorising aircraft. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 04:09, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - agree with Chris, nothing wrong with enormous categories. These are useful groupings, even if they're huge. Georgewilliamherbert 07:57, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Don't delete yet - that's sort of like saying we should eliminate [Category:American people] because there are too many of them. If the category is too big, it needs to be subdivided or refined. That said, I can't think of any reasonable divisions other than strut braced and cantilever. The real issue is what is the reason for the category, and how would someone be expected to use it. I can't imagine why someone would be looking for high wing aircraft in a list. Dhaluza 12:52, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
High wing and low wing aircraft have some different characteristics. Such as, the way fuel is obtained from the tanks (which are stored in the wings). I am not opposed to, if there are more categories of wing types, creating them to make the category coverage more complete, however, when i look at an aircraft, and even when me and my instructor are sitting in class, he will refer to "that high wing out there" or "that low wing out there". -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 17:34, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Rename. Don't forget those tail draggers. Vegaswikian 08:29, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (or Rename to High-wing aircraft etc). I can imagine that people might use this cateorisation. One way to avoid having too many aircraft in each category (and too many categories on each aircraft) is to create Category High-wing single-engine jet aircraft and place this in the relevant parent categories. Bluap 17:52, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Does it make sense to go ahead and make the 8 subcategories (16 if you count tail draggers)? ~ BigrTex 16:45, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The thing is, I do not believe these categories are all inclusive. There are probably more classifications such as middle wing aircraft and I know there are other propulasion systems that are not covered by propeller aircraft or jet aircraft. I think that these categories will come out in time, but by combining the names into High-wing single-engine aircraft, every time a new catregory is found, the number of categories just grows and grows. PRetty soon, it would be out of hand. I think the single categories at least for the high and low wing. On the matter of the single engine aircraft and multiple engoine aircraft, I dont see why it would be horrible to create a category such as Category Single Engine Propeller aircraft, etc etc. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 16:54, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Find it odd that ALL the planes listed in both the high wing and low wing aircraft categories are Cessnas. Surely other aircraft makes relate to these two categories? If this remains a category for Cessna-devotees, perhaps a renaming would be in ordering. Or perhaps editors who feel this is a '"keep" could populate the category with some non-Cessna models? That might build a stronger case for retaining.Shawn in Montreal 00:57, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I will take credit for that. I am working through wiki project aircraft. I had to take a small wiki break after i finished categorising cessnsas and creating templates. I am working my way through as I create nav templates. I come back and find some controverys over it so i stopped using it until it is resolved. Should this beek keep, I plan on continuing this categorisation. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 01:02, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I still have not seen an explanation of how a High wing aircraft category would be useful. We can create any number of cetegories that make distinctions without a difference. For example, we could have categories by main gear tire size, e.g. Airplanes with 5.00x5 tires, Airplanes with 6.00x6 tires etc. This is obviously absurd, but I could make an argument that this is a better categorization because it is more specific than high/mid/low wing. I think the high/low wing belongs in the aircraft info box, but we don't need a category for this. Dhaluza 01:17, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

High wing and low wing aircraft are different types of aircraft. They have different fuel pumping systems, and have different effects in relation to ground effect. The artugment about the tire size is a little far out there. The categories are not for high wing aircraft with wingspans of 22 feet, etc etc. However, it brings a valid point that a cetgory for retractable gear aircraft would seem like a good idea. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 01:37, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To expand on the fuel systems comment in high vs low wing aircraft. High wing aircraft use gravity to drain the fuel to the engine, it is almost always appropriate to have the fuel tank setting to both as it will drain its way out eventually, even if there are some inequalities in tank capacity of filling. FOr low wing aircraft, fuel is pumped to the engine. It is necessary to select which tank is primary tank, to prevent tanks from draining unevenly, and causing problems with the gas pumping systems. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 01:40, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is completely true, but it does not explain why we should have separate Wikipedia categories for high/low wing. Should we have categories for airplanes that spin their propellers clockwise and counterclockwise too? The p-factor is reversed, so it flys differently, but why would we need a category listing for this? Dhaluza 04:24, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is true, however when looking at an airplane, nobody is ever going to say, "oh that one spins counterclockwise." If it is rare that they spin a certain way, for example if an aircraft had counter rotating propellers or contra-rotating propellers, then the direction or type of propeller spin would be important as it is important in the classification of the aircraft. The thing is, high and low wing aircraft are not all types of aircrafts classified by wing types. There are swing wing aircraft, bi plane aircraft, and I am sure others. I would not object to changing the category name to high fixed wing aircraft or low fixed wing aircraft, or creating the category to narrow it so that it does not apply to all airplanes (i.e. fighter jets, etc). I understand your argument against, the p-factor example was an excellent example. Similarly, we would not create an category aircraft with flaps and aircraft without flaps. However, I feel the categorys high and low wing aircraft are not on the micro detail level, like Category:Aircraft that can get 40 degrees of flaps. I still believe that the airplane type by wing classification, due to pretty major differences in design, reinforcement, and even flight warrant these categories. Until now, it appears the major discourse is on the high and low wing aircraft. Are there any objections to Category:Single engine aircraft and Category:Multiple engine aircraft? -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 12:02, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- this category is potentially huge. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 17:13, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - A category being potentially huge is not a good argument for deletion. I even ready WP:CAT to make sure of that. There are many more categories, such as american people, etc etc. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:15, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — I really can't see any reason to establish categories for wing placement (though, high-, mid-, low-wing could be added to the infobox as per Dhaluza's suggestion). In fact, I don't see a whole lot of reason to have categories by numbers of engines either. (However, if we do, the proper terms are "Single-engine aircraft" and "Multi-engine aircraft" — not "multiple engine aircraft".) IMHO, categories regarding functions make more sense than quantities of equipment. The latter can all too quickly lead to counting the number of machineguns or cannon with which a fighter is armed, the number of crewmembers (e.g., single-seat vs. two-seat), radar-equipped or not, tailsitter or not, etc. Askari Mark (Talk) 19:54, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do not have an objection if the wing type is mentioned in the info box, i feel it is worth being noted. However, in WP:CAT, it has to be something mentioned in the article, or of importance to the topic to be a good category. By saying that it is worthy a mention in the infobox, it appears as though it should be a worthwhile category. In rebuttal to the comment on scope creep, reagrding number of engines, that is why i explicitley named it multiple engine aircraft (instead of aircrat with 3 engines, aircraft with 4 engines, aircraft witn n engines, etc). I have no objection to a rename of the categories to Category:Single-engine aircraft and Category:Multi-engine aircraft. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 20:17, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm not convinced that this should be deleted. I'd really like to hear support from Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft to delete before I could support a delete. Vegaswikian 23:07, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - THis discussion is actually transcluded on the WP:AIRCRAFT project talk page. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 23:14, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:United States Air Force Fighter Squadrons[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Moved to speedy renaming by NDCompuGeek. Timrollpickering 14:19, 24 December 2006 (UTC) changed to speedy rename (see here) NDCompuGeek 14:32, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom (and also lowercase correction). David Kernow (talk) 05:30, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:United States Air Force wings[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Moved to speedy renaming by NDCompuGeek. Timrollpickering 14:19, 24 December 2006 (UTC) changed to speedy rename (see here) NDCompuGeek 05:16, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:United States Air Force groups[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Moved to speedy renaming by NDCompuGeek. Timrollpickering 14:19, 24 December 2006 (UTC) changed to speedy rename (see here) NDCompuGeek 05:14, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Christian leaders[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename. Timrollpickering 14:20, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Christian leaders to Category:Christian religious leaders

Rename, to make it clear that they're religious leaders, and not political or other leaders. Also for consistency with other religion categories in Category:Religious leaders (see also the discussion on that page). Mairi 04:28, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support renaming as useful clarifcation. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 12:09, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per Mairi. --- ProveIt ^(talk) 14:10, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Xiner 15:26, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Pastorwayne 21:08, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:United States Air Force Field Operating Agencies[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Moved to speedy renaming by NDCompuGeek. Timrollpickering 14:19, 24 December 2006 (UTC) changed to speedy rename (see here) NDCompuGeek 05:30, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom (and also lowercasing). David Kernow (talk) 05:31, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Lifting bodies[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename. Timrollpickering 14:17, 24 December 2006 (UTC) Should be renamed Category:Lifting body aircraft, because the latter is more clear terminology. Karl Dickman ^talk 03:35, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't propose it on CFD if you want to rename it... propose renaming on the category talk page! Please retract this CFD nomination and follow proper procedure. Georgewilliamherbert 07:55, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When did discussing renames here stop being policy? Vegaswikian 19:33, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Scarborough RT Stations[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename per nom. Timrollpickering 20:35, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Scarborough RT Stations to Category:Scarborough RT stations

Rename "Stations" shouldn't be capitalized -- Selmo ^(talk) 02:45, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Scarborough metro stations. We try not to use abbreviations in Category names. Vegaswikian 19:36, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Should Category:Toronto subway and RT stations also be renamed to Category:Toronto subway and metro stations? Vegaswikian 19:39, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Wrong capitalization on Stations. Daniel5127 <Talk> 04:23, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:United States Air Force divisions[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. Timrollpickering 14:10, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Improper category naming convention, already created and populated replacement category (Category:Divisions of the United States Air Force). NDCompuGeek 02:34, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Xiner 15:26, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:People by war[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename. Timrollpickering 12:59, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest "People of..." rather than "...people" used for this category's subcategories, as the latter can create some potentially confusing names, e.g. "War of the Confederation people" = "[War of the Confederation] people", not "War of the [Confederation people]", etc.
A few nominations that do not follow this pattern are in italics.
Only the top-level categories have been tagged, as (1) I believe this should be sufficient to alert anyone interested in any of the below; (2) my brain/fingers are starting to hurt (I don't know of any bot that might assist with mass nominations...)
David Kernow (talk) 01:59, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename all as nom. David Kernow (talk) 01:59, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all, I've never been happy with this XXX people construction, these proposed names seem far better. Hopefully this will serve as a useful precedent for other similarly named categories such as Category:South African people etc. --Xdamr^talk 02:13, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all; the new names are broadly consistent with the naming conventions that WP:MILHIST has been moving towards. Kirill Lokshin 02:16, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all per Xdamr. Timrollpickering 03:56, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose all The present names are succinct and consistent with Wikipedia's usual style. Greg Grahame 19:38, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all per nominations. Carom 21:31, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all per nom. --ScreaminEagle 00:54, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all I've never been a fan of using nouns as adjectives in category names Bluap 05:39, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all per nom.--Dryzen 16:42, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all per nom. Dahn 19:18, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose all Non-solution to a non-problem. Chicheley 11:47, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I would have thought that grammatical atrocity (e.g. "South American wars of independence people") would be considered a problem; this change happens to solve it. Kirill Lokshin 16:31, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose as contrary to the naming convention for categories of people. Pinoakcourt 15:24, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Um, what convention would that be? The conventions cover categorizing people by nationality and occupation; there's nothing in the guideline that would force an associated event to be placed in one position versus the other in the category name. (This aside from the somewhat obvious point that such conventions can be changed, and that a mass CFD nomination is a perfectly acceptable way of doing so.) Kirill Lokshin 16:31, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Not least so that Xdamr's desired precedent will not be created. Category:South African people is much better than Category:People of South Africa. Olborne 01:49, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- We're not discussing that category here, as it were; and, in any case, the two are only vaguely related. Do you have other concerns with the names proposed for these categories? Kirill Lokshin 01:53, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - He raised the issue, not me. Some renaming might be appropriate in special cases, but not this blanket switch to odd sounding overly formal names. Olborne 01:57, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing intrinsically odd about a more formal sounding category name - we should look for the one which makes most sense whilst being gramatically sound. Having said that, don't oppose this on the grounds of my side-comment above, judge this nomination on its own merits. When I propose Category:South African people for renaming, then feel free to oppose that as much as you like, for whatever reasons you like.

Xdamr^talk 14:16, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Whatever the outcome of the discussion, New Zealander is incorrect. Olborne 01:57, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is...? It seems to be in general use elsewhere in Wikipedia, although I realise that doesn't make it gospel... Do you have (m)any external references...? Thanks, David Kernow (talk) 00:51, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No it isn't. See Category:New Zealand people and its subcategories. Olborne 03:45, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid you are mistaken - Wikipedia category names, in themselves, are not adequate authority. Look for 'New Zealander' in a dictionary and you will find it - I certainly did.

Xdamr^talk 05:49, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dictionaries aside, a google search turns up "New Zealander" as the preferred usage of the BBC, the CIA, and, perhaps most importantly, the government of New Zealand. Carom 05:59, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename all per nom (big improvement). roundhouse 03:44, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename all; it's a real improvement, and it makes the titles a great deal clearer. It also seems grammatically fishy- 'Crimean War', for example, is not actually any kind of premodifier in the general perception, at least. Anyhow, that's my opinion. Bosola 00:57, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename all per nom. NDCompuGeek 12:30, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - not required Octopus-Hands 10:15, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:People who have held World Championships[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename to Category:World Champion professional wrestlers as this appears to have the greatest support given the consensus to keep and rename. Timrollpickering 20:41, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Far too broad to be a useful category. Only professional wrestlers are currently in the category. Walor 01:13, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Mikedk9109 (hit me up) 01:20, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete too broad, unnecessary. --Aaru Bui ^DII 03:11, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, clearly wrongly named, since it's intended to only include pro wrestlers. ↪Lakes (Talk) 07:42, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Can't it be renamed to Category:Professional wrestlers who have held World Championships? -- Mikedk9109 (hit me up) 14:55, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, it can; but has each wrestler in the category held more than one World Championship...? Regards, David Kernow (talk) 05:39, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Too broad, especially when one remembers that it could include vast numbers of team sport players. Greg Grahame 19:39, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per above. Daniel5127 <Talk> 04:24, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename as description on category page seems viable; maybe Category:World Champion professional wrestlers or the like...? David Kernow (talk) 05:39, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. (Radiant) 10:16, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Useful for wrestling fans. TonyTheTiger 19:05, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:World Champion professional wrestlers Per above, people is ambiguous. The category is apparently intended for wrestlers only. Dugwiki 18:52, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:World Champion professional wrestlers per David Kernow and Dugwiki. ~ BigrTex 21:08, 19 December 2006 (UTC) [reply]
Rename to Category:World Champion professional wrestlers per above. I see no problem with broad categories. Quite the opposite, we could use many more broad categories, as many perfectly fine, useful topic level categories been diffused into subcategories containing trivia and minutia. --Samuel Wantman 07:42, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per Dugwiki. TJ Spyke 01:25, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - renaming is an improvement, but still won't work. Professional wrestling is not a regulated sport, and "world champion" in this context has no definition. The person who started this category tried to create one (see his description on top of the category page), but that's his own POV and is OR, as any attempt to give a definition will be. You can run a show next week in front of 10 people and bill yourself as "world champion" and, voila, you're a world champion. That scenario plays out hundreds of times a year and has for decades. As a category, "Professional wrestling world champions" is like "People who have been lead actors"—it would cover so much territory (e.g. feature films, Grade 6 plays, home videos, Broadway, YouTube posts, etc.) that it has no value. An accurate description of the current content of this category is "Male professional wrestlers who have held singles world heavyweight championships that I take seriously as world titles, and not the thousands of other so-called world titles that I want to exclude." If you think that's a useful category and want to rename it, then that would be the name of what we have here. It's certainly not "Professional wrestling world champions" which would include all the hundreds of holders of such prestigious titles as "world TV title" and "world brass knucks title" and "world cruiserweight title" and "world six-man tag team title" and so on (and on and on). And that's on top of the thousands of wrestlers who have been billed as world champion or world tag team champion on shows around the world over the last century. As much as this might seem like there would be a useful category here, "Professional wrestling world champions" either will end up including just about every pro wrestler, or will be restricted through POV-laden definitions. --Walor 15:41, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Renaming addresses the concern that you stated in your nomination. If the category becomes too large, then it is easy to subcat the category by federation (Category:World Champion WWE wrestlers, Category:World Champion WCW wrestlers, etc.) or by broad type (Category:World Champion Tag-Team prefessional wrestlers, Category:World Champion Singles prefessional wrestlers) and if those get too large, you have pointed out further subcategories. ~ BigrTex 16:00, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Walor, the titles in this category are not my personal favorites or OR. The titles in this category are titles in the World Heavyweight Championship article, that are recognized as having real world title status. There are 11 real world titles according to PWI magazine and are all listed in the World Heavyweight Championship article. So, I suggest you do some research before accusing of POV or OR and go and look at the titles on the World Heavyweight Championship page, because they ae the same as the ones in this category. -- Mikedk9109 (hit me up) 18:00, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:World Heavyweight Championship professional wrestlers per the corresponding article name. It would be nice if the category description explained where the list came from. ~ Bigr Tex 21:22, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Episcopacy in Christianity[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was keep Category:Episcopacy in Orthodoxy; delete all others. Timrollpickering 14:07, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The parent category Episcopacy in Christianity, and most (but not all) of its sub-categories are a solution in search of a problem. Category:Episcopacy in Catholicism and Category:Episcopacy in Anglicanism do serve a useful purpose in grouping together articles about the concept of episcopacy, but the other categories only contain holders of episcopal offices, which are in each case categorised appropriately already under "bishops" categories. Most of the "Episcopacy in" categories exist only as counterparts to the Catholic and Anglican categories, and contain only sub-categories of bishops, or a few other articles tenuously attached to justify their existence. BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 01:06, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Keep I take great exception to these comments. If such a category is useful and correct for Anglicanism and for Roman Catholicism (and Roman IS correct, whereas Catholicism in many minds includes both sides of the 11th century schism), then it surely is similarly useful and correct for other branches of the Christian faith, especially Methodism. Indeed, if right for Roman Catholicism, then equally so for Orthodoxy and Protestantism, too!! So many of the arguments posted here and elsewhere against various categories really make little sense. Pastorwayne 22:59, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Wayne, that's an incorrect (and irrelevant) statement regarding the prefix Roman in Roman Catholic. As a leader in a Methodist church, you surely understand why the term Roman Catholic is an oxymoron. Also, you should be aware that the term was intended as offensive in origin. The other churches which you alluded to are recognized as part of the universal church, just not in full communion with the Bishop of Rome. When one hears, "the Catholic Church," he knows which church is intended. OBriain 01:42, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - to tell you truthfully, when I hear "Catholic church(es)" I think of any of a number of Catholic ChurchES. When I hear "Roman Catholic," ONLY then do I know what church is being spoken of. Of course Orthodox churches are not in communion with Rome -- if they were, they would use the name Roman. Just like the Russian Orthodox uses Russian. Or the Romanian Orthodox uses Romanian. Etc. etc. etc. It's a very small point, of course. But one worth making. Thanks. Pastorwayne 23:49, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - Well, Wayne, you're in an extremely marginal minority if that's the case. Most people aren't even aware that there are other churches that use the title catholic. The various Orthodox churches use national names because they are national churches. The Catholic Church is a universal church that does not employ regional or national self-governance, only organizational administrative units. The Catholic Church recognizes the Orthodox churches as parts of the universal church, as I said. If they were in communion with Rome they would be called the Catholic Church as there is no division in that entity except in the case of some particular churches that have specific national rites. Those are, nonetheless, entirely in communion with and subordinate to Rome. They are still part of the Catholic Church. Thus, there is no difference between the Catholic Church and the "Roman" Catholic Church, except that the latter term is an oxymoron and conceived in its contemporary form as an offense (as I suspect you are aware and neither of which points did you respond to from my earlier reply). OBriain 07:06, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (just to clarify nomination, sorry for not including this at the outset). --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 10:49, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Dahn 02:16, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~; any of these that gain the usefulness of the Catholic or Anglican ones can be re-created then. --Alynna 02:35, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- What IS this "usefulness?" Pastorwayne 13:17, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep the Orthodoxy one because it's useful now (per Mairi's comments below). Delete all others. Define usefulness here as containing a significant number of things about the concept of episcopacy, and not simply duplicating a bishops category - see nominator's comments. --Alynna 05:06, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: see a list of related CFDs at the CFD for Methodist bishops of Japan. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 13:09, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - a nightmare vision of endless categories listing only subcategories. roundhouse 20:05, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- yes, and to be consistent, delete EVEN the one for Anglicanism, since it does nothing that the ones for Methodism or Protestantism don't also do. But then you better delete ALL categories with sub-categories (probably thousands), too. What is wrong with cat's filled with subcats? It is a good way of organizing subcats. Pastorwayne 23:52, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Deleting editor should be sure to maintain Catholicism and Anglicanism. OBriain 07:34, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- but see preceding comment. Pastorwayne 23:52, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete all~~ - I was originally going to stay neutral after a discussion with Mairi. However, the arguments here have persuaded me that this is just another layer of bureaucracy. Dr. Submillimeter 10:43, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Modification of my above vote: Delete all except Category:Episcopacy in Orthodoxy - The Orthodoxy category is being used properly. Dr. Submillimeter 10:22, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Category:Episcopacy in Orthodoxy (altho it probably ought to be Episcopacy in Eastern Orthodoxy), as there seem to be enough articles (and a several categories) to warrant it. The rest are potentially useful, don't appear to actually be at present, based on the lack of articles in them. Mairi 06:28, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Further comment: Category:Episcopacy in Orthodoxy has 21 articles at present. Mairi 06:47, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree that Episcopacy in Orthodoxy should be maintained alongside Episcopacy in Catholicism and Episcopacy in Anglicanism. OBriain 07:06, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Doug characters[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. Timrollpickering 13:59, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's a category containing only a list, which could be as well served in the parent category. Character pages were merged into said list at an earlier date. Supermorff 00:34, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete in favor of the list. David Kernow (talk) 05:41, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and use list instead per above Dugwiki 18:53, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and use list instead as above Bosola 00:58, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Dave The Barbarian characters[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. Timrollpickering 13:57, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's empty, and there are no articles that could reasonably be put there (they've been merged into the series page). Supermorff 00:31, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom Dugwiki 18:54, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Orders and decorations of Australia[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename all per noms, except:

Category:Orders and decorations of the Catholic Church to Category:Orders, decorations, and medals of the Holy See
Category:Awards and decorations of East Germany to Category:Orders, decorations, and medals of the German Democratic Republic
per discussion below.

Re using "SAR" (or perhaps "(SAR)") for the Hong Kong and Macau categories, suggest this becomes the subject of a separate nomination. For the time being, therefore, have removed "SAR" from the Hong Kong nomination and set Orders, ... of Macau SAR to be renamed to Orders, ... of Macau for sake of (apparent) consistency.
Re concern expressed over adding all to Category:Military decorations, have taken no action.
Hope all in order (at least as far as closing this CfD), David Kernow (talk) 10:40, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Orders and decorations of Australia to Category:Orders, decorations, and medals of Australia

Category:Awards and decorations of Georgia (country) to Category:Orders, decorations, and medals of Georgia

Category:Awards and decorations of Luxembourg to Category:Orders, decorations, and medals of Luxembourg

Category:Awards and decorations of Belarus to Category:Orders, decorations, and medals of Belarus

Category:Orders and decorations of the British Empire to Category:Orders, decorations, and medals of the British Empire

Category:Awards and decorations of China to Category:Orders, decorations, and medals of China

Category:Canadian orders and decorations to Category:Orders, decorations, and medals of Canada

Category:Orders and decorations of the Catholic Church to Category:Orders, decorations, and medals of the Vatican

Category:Awards and decorations of Croatia to Category:Orders, decorations, and medals of Croatia

Category:Awards and decorations of Denmark to Category:Orders, decorations, and medals of Denmark

Category:Honours system of the Dominican Republic to Category:Orders, decorations, and medals of the Dominican Republic

Category:Awards and decorations of East Germany to Category:Orders, decorations, and medals of East Germany

Category:Estonian State Decorations to Category:Orders, decorations, and medals of Estonia

Category:Orders and decorations of Finland to Category:Orders, decorations, and medals of Finland

Category:Awards and decorations of France to Category:Orders, decorations, and medals of France

Category:Awards and decorations of Germany to Category:Orders, decorations, and medals of Germany

Category:Awards and decorations of Greece to Category:Orders, decorations, and medals of Greece

Category:Orders and decorations of Hawaii to Category:Orders, decorations, and medals of Hawaii

Category:Hong Kong honours system to ~~Category:Orders, decorations, and medals of Hong Kong SAR~~
Category:Orders, decorations, and medals of Hong Kong

Category:Orders and decorations of Italy to Category:Orders, decorations, and medals of Italy

Category:Orders and decorations of Jamaica to Category:Orders, decorations, and medals of Jamaica

Category:Japanese honours system to Category:Orders, decorations, and medals of Japan

Category:Awards and decorations of Lithuania to Category:Orders, decorations, and medals of Lithuania

Category:Orders and decorations of Mexico to Category:Orders, decorations, and medals of Mexico

Category:Orders and decorations of Monaco to Category:Orders, decorations, and medals of Monaco

Category:Awards and decorations of Nazi Germany to Category:Orders, decorations, and medals of Nazi Germany

Category:Orders and decorations of the Netherlands to Category:Orders, decorations, and medals of the Netherlands

Category:Orders and decorations of New Zealand to Category:Orders, decorations, and medals of New Zealand

Category:Orders and decorations of Norway to Category:Orders, decorations, and medals of Norway

Category:Orders and decorations of Austria-Hungary to Category:Orders, decorations, and medals of Austria-Hungary

Category:Orders and decorations of Bangladesh to Category:Orders, decorations, and medals of Bangladesh

Category:Orders and decorations of Barbados to Category:Orders, decorations, and medals of Barbados

Category:Orders and decorations of Brazil to Category:Orders, decorations, and medals of Brazil

Category:Orders and decorations of Burma to Category:Orders, decorations, and medals of Burma

Category:Orders and decorations of Czechoslovakia to Category:Orders, decorations, and medals of Czechoslovakia

Category:Orders and decorations of India to Category:Orders, decorations, and medals of India

Category:Orders and decorations of Israel to Category:Orders, decorations, and medals of Israel

Category:Orders and decorations of Malaysia to Category:Orders, decorations, and medals of Malaysia

Category:Orders and decorations of Malta to Category:Orders, decorations, and medals of Malta

Category:Orders and decorations of Morocco to Category:Orders, decorations, and medals of Morocco

Category:Orders and decorations of Panama to Category:Orders, decorations, and medals of Panama

Category:Orders and decorations of Papua New Guinea to Category:Orders, decorations, and medals of Papua New Guinea

Category:Orders and decorations of Persia to Category:Orders, decorations, and medals of Persia

Category:Orders and decorations of South Korea to Category:Orders, decorations, and medals of South Korea

Category:Orders and decorations of Ukraine to Category:Orders, decorations, and medals of Ukraine

Category:Orders and decorations of Vietnam to Category:Orders, decorations, and medals of Vietnam

Category:Orders and decorations of the Czech Republic to Category:Orders, decorations, and medals of the Czech Republic

Category:Orders and decorations of the Philippines to Category:Orders, decorations, and medals of the Philippines

Category:Awards and decorations of Poland to Category:Orders, decorations, and medals of Poland

Category:Awards and decorations of Rhodesia to Category:Orders, decorations, and medals of Rhodesia

Category:Awards and decorations of Russia to Category:Orders, decorations, and medals of Russia

Category:Awards and decorations of Singapore to Category:Orders, decorations, and medals of Singapore

Category:Orders and decorations of South Africa to Category:Orders, decorations, and medals of South Africa

Category:Soviet decorations to Category:Orders, decorations, and medals of the Soviet Union

Category:Orders and decorations of Sweden to Category:Orders, decorations, and medals of Sweden

Category:Awards and decorations of Thailand to Category:Orders, decorations, and medals of Thailand

Category:Orders and decorations of Turkey to Category:Orders, decorations, and medals of Turkey

Category:Orders and decorations of the United Kingdom to Category:Orders, decorations, and medals of the United Kingdom

Category:United States awards and decorations to Category:Orders, decorations, and medals of the United States

Category:Awards and decorations of Yugoslavia to Category:Orders, decorations, and medals of Yugoslavia

I've just come across another national orders and medals category, one which was not linked from Category:Orders and decorations. I'd like to append it to this debate:

Category:Pakistan honours system to Category:Orders, decorations, and medals of Pakistan

Xdamr^talk 16:35, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename, This is a pretty large group nomination, all the national sub-categories of Category:Orders and decorations. At present thereis no particular naming scheme for these sub-categories. Recent discussion at the Orders, decorations, and medals WikiProject has led to consensus for a uniform naming policy, as a first step towards broader improvement in the coverage of this area. It is hoped to rename each of these sub-categories to Orders, decorations, and medals of XXX. Xdamr^talk 00:29, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename all with the possible following exceptions/additions:
- Category:Orders and decorations of the Catholic Church - are these inherently state awards of the Vatican?
- Category:Awards and decorations of East Germany - East Germany is a redirect to German Democratic Republic. In line with this, rename to Category:Orders, decorations, and medals of the German Democratic Republic.
Timrollpickering 04:28, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename all, but I agree with the exceptions/additions that Timrollpickering stated. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 08:46, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The answer to the question whether orders and decorations of the Catholic Church are inherently state awards of the Vatican is: No, they are not state awards of the Vatican. The Vatican State came into existence only in 1929, while these orders, decorations, medals etc. existed long before. The correct term would surely be awards etc. of the Holy See, which is a recognized entity in international law distinct from the Vatican City State, which of course it pre-existed and may well outlast. "Catholic Church" is too wide a term. Lima 19:28, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment No problem with the Catholic Church/Vatican suggestion - I don't really know enough about that particular area to comment with any certainty (although, per Lima above, Holy See sounds a better alternative). So far as East Germany goes, I'm less sure. Essentially, bar the Vatican and Hong Kong, I went with the names as they presently stand (Australia, not the Commonwealth of Australia; United States, not the United States of America; etc, etc, etc).

If we are going to adopt the 'official' name for one country then should we not do that for all? Of course this presents some difficulties, names of nations change yet national continuity is often preserved - like in 1922 when Ireland left the UK - the name changed from the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Pre-1922 UK orders and medals continued to be awarded despite the name change (broadly speaking), but which category should these pre-1922 awards be listed under - the GB and Ireland, or GB and Northern Ireland? Or do we have two categories for each 'nation' (with most UK medals categorised under both)?

I don't necessarily object to the East Germany change in itself, I just think that it raises issues which haven't been considered yet. I think that the East Germany-GDR change is best left alone for now.

Xdamr^talk 19:44, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't so much an "official long title" vs "official short title" form (i.e "French Republic" vs "France") but there's been a lot of discussion at Talk:German Democratic Republic about the location of the article and whether "East Germany" is preferable or not. Currently it's at the former location and categories relating to countries should use the same name as the country articles. Timrollpickering 21:04, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename all per nom except do not append SAR to Hong Kong. This is not done for other Hong Kong categories and it is not conventional to use full names or mention the status of a place in category names. Olborne 01:52, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SAR is appended to distinguish these awards from those handed out during earlier manifestations of Hong Kong, such as those given out when HK was a crown colony. Perhaps it might be useful to place seperate categories encompassing each of these in a broader Orders, decorations, and medals of Hong Kong category, but I think that adding 'SAR' serves a useful purpose. Xdamr^talk 14:10, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do note, by the way, that we currently have Category:Orders, decorations, and medals of Macau SAR to consider as a precedent. Xdamr^talk 17:06, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And you're the person who created the precedent not long ago. — Insta ntnood 21:59, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By all means - what I mean to suggest is that depending on the decision adopted here, that category will likewise have to be considered, if we are to keep consistency. Xdamr^talk 22:40, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. But it's probably better to consider that category separately. The case of that category is not related to this umbrella nomination. — Insta ntnood 12:13, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment: Agree. SAR is not necessary for top-level by country categories. It's not helping anybody except those who already know what SAR means. The subcategories might perhaps be created, say, named ..before 1997 and ..after 1997, to distinguish those awarded before and after the end of British rule. (Yet I don't think it's so necessary to distinguish them since names of the award tell anyways, and therefore I'm not in favour of the creation of subcategories.) — Insta ntnood 21:59, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename all with exceptions menioned above. Good work to unify the naming convention of these cats. --Shuki 20:06, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While you are at it, please add all to the Category:Military decorations. --Shuki 20:08, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. However, adding all to [[Category:Military decorations]] could be problematic as some of the sub-categories and pages, e.g. at Category:Pakistan honours system largely comprise of civil decorations of Pakistan as well. --Isle Scape^Talk 23:30, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For all but the most under-populated national categories, there is a level of sub-categorisation - dividing the civil awards from military. To take Category:Orders and decorations of the United Kingdom as an example - within it we find Category:Civil decorations of the United Kingdom and Category:Awards and decorations of the British armed forces. These sub-categories are also categorised under Category:Civil decorations and Category:Military decorations respectively.

Discussion is ongoing as to the inner structure of these national sub-categories. Over the next few weeks naming will possibly change, however the essential division outlined above will remain.

Xdamr^talk 23:46, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.