Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 March 17

March 17

Category:Fine dining

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. >Radiant< 10:27, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, "Fine dining" is a very nebulous, poorly-defined phrase. The category description makes reference to the "criteria defined in Fine dining" -- the only definition of "fine dining" at the redirected page is the following unsourced text:

“

Fine dining is a phrase used to describe restaurants that create a serious dining experience. The experience can start with the location and the view. The interior of such restaurants is often purported to be quite elegant and designed in accordance with the restaurant's concept. Service attempts to be impeccable, with chefs and service crew typically hailing from the best culinary schools.

Restaurants fitting the fine dining label are normally highly rated; in the four star range and will provide more nuanced service and more expensive food than a standard sit-down restaurant.

”

In short: it's an original research, POV category. Dylan 22:04, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as hopeless POV. Categories with adjectives defining quality ("good", "famous", "notable", "important", "fine", etc.) are almost always a bad idea. It's possible that a decent article could be created on the topic (if there isn't one already), but as a category?... No! A less subjective category like, say, Category:Four-star restaurants would be better, but still dubious, as categorizing by award is usually (though not always) a bad idea. Xtifr _tälk 23:28, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bold text*Note previous CFD that closed no consensus. Otto4711 00:55, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- The reason being that while fine dining is used in the food service industry by just about everyone, a definitive definition for the term appears to be lacking. I believe that if there was a clear definition for the term, there would be no problem keeping the category. Vegaswikian 04:10, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as POV. Supposedly, if a restaurant merits an article Wikipedia, it is fine enough. --rimshots^talk 10:44, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That comment made me gag on my food. A restaurant that has horrible food could very well be notable based on the guidelines. Vegaswikian 18:39, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. These aren't even articles about fine dining, so the category is really just working like advertising. Optionally move to Category:Fancy schmancy overpriced restaurants. — coel acan — 00:38, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The "no consensus" in the previous afd was, in my opinion, borderline, mainly due to a vocal dissenter at the time. As I pointed out in that previous debate, this appears to use a highly subjective inclusion criteria. Barring a formal, objective definition accepted in the restaurant industry for what constitutes "fine dining" this category should be deleted as having POV issues. Dugwiki 17:25, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On an aside, note that the associated main article for Fine dining (now a redirect) remains unreferenced since last December's discussion. Dugwiki 17:28, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This category groups restaurants with much in common. Unlike categories based on rating systems it can be applied globally. Olborne 21:33, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hopelessly vague. No objective criteria for inclusion. --15:31, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

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

Category:Famous Crimes

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. >Radiant< 10:27, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Famous Crimes to Category:Crimes

Merge, A barely started category with a name that uses a term that should be avoided. Piccadilly 21:38, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge—if they aren't famous, they shouldn't have Wikipedia articles, so the distinction is pointless and category redundant. Xtifr _tälk 23:30, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. Doczilla 08:12, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Category:Crimes is an odd mixture of types of crimes and specific instances of crimes. A merge will not fix that problem. I think this category should be split up somehow. Hmains 17:50, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd suggest adding Category:Crimes by type for the actual crimes to be grouped and then leave the rest of the category for the types of crimes. Vegaswikian 18:44, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom and Xtifr. For clarity, I suggest that "crimes" should have two subcats: "Crimes by type" (for each individual instance mugging, murder, etc) and "types of crime" (for the overview articles on murder, theft, genocide, fraud etc. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:36, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Fictional alumni

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: judgment call. I think the "it's interesting" argument should be discounted. That leaves us with the question of whether being an alum is defining. For real people, arguably, it is, since they really spent several years there and it shaped them. For fictional people, this does not apply at all unless the fiction really covers that part of their background in detail, which frankly most fictions don't. Frequently it's important to the story that a character has an academic background, but not at all where that academic background was obtained, and in most stories where it's mentioned you can replace university X by university Y without affecting the story at all. So no, it's not a defining characteristic, so delete. >Radiant< 10:27, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This simply seems like unnecessary detail on these fictional characters' backgrounds. The characters are only related through their fictional alma maters. Could anyone else identify any reason why Michael Corleone and Trapper John MacIntyre should be categorized together? Note that these are the only three fictional alumni categories that currently exist. Dr. Submillimeter 21:24, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. You could make the same argument for nonfictional people: is there any reason why Daniel Webster and Mindy Kaling ought to be in a category together, other than their common alma mater? These categories are easily verifiable, so there shouldn't be a problem. Besides, I think it's incorrect to put these characters in the general categories (i.e. Category:Dartmouth College alumni, Category:Duke University alumni) because they aren't real people. Finally, regarding the fact that there are only three, that shouldn't make much difference -- it means that it's a nascent idea, not necessarily a bad one. Considering these aren't the highest-profile universities, I think a potential Category:Fictional Harvard University alumni would be good as a much longer article. Dylan 22:10, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Week keep, I can see the arguments on both sides, but ultimately, I think it can pass the "defining characteristic" test, albeit barely. Xtifr _tälk 00:07, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm barely convinced that in most instances alumni categories for real people are warranted. I'm quite unconvinced of the necessity of fictional alumni categories. Otto4711 15:06, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Otto4711, having these for fictional characters is complete overkill. --Xdamr^talk 14:11, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep categories of interest to casual browsers. I might be interested to see which WP-notable fictional characters went to various UK universities. Jheald 07:19, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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:Existential therapy

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. >Radiant< 10:27, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This currently contains nothing more than Category:Gestalt therapy, which is also in a few other psychology categories. This extra layer of categorization simply does not seem necessary. Dr. Submillimeter 21:16, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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:Criminology topics

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. >Radiant< 10:27, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Duplicate of Category:Criminology. No need to merge as it seems that almost all the articles are in Category:Criminology already. Piccadilly 18:22, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The notes on the category say that it was created to replace a list, but the list still exists, as of course does the correctly named top category on the subject of criminology. Greg Grahame 14:03, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Xdamr^talk 14:11, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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:Wikipedia reader feedback

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. >Radiant< 10:27, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All comments on talk pages are reader feedback. This category should be deleted and the pages integrated with normal Talk: space. -- Beland 18:08, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, looks like the guy's proposal never really took off. The template for this was deleted. Recury 18:23, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete given that the associated template has been deleted, there seems little point in holding on to the category. --Xdamr^talk 14:13, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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:Planes of the Philippines

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 (as amended). >Radiant< 10:27, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Planes of the Philippines to ~~Category:Aircraft manufactures by the Philippines~~ Category:Aircraft manufactured by the Philippines

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, per convention of Category:Aircraft by country. Choalbaton 17:44, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename follows parent category's other subcats. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 17:56, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per convention. --Xdamr^talk 14:13, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per amended nomination. Olborne 21:34, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per convention, although, it seems like a mistaken convention. "The Philippines" does not, and never has, manufactured a plane; however I'm sure that many fine aircraft have been manufactured in the Philippines. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:39, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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 US Air 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: Wow, this one offers so many options that it really needs a renomination. Oh yeah and do start by merging the two which are obviously redundant and plausibly a typo/speedy. >Radiant< 10:30, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Recipients of the US Air Medal, convention of Category:United States military honor recipients. -- Prove It ^(talk) 15:07, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems consistent with Category:United States military honor recipients subcats. else Merge all 16 sub cats. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 17:58, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Why is the category not Category:Recipients of the United States Air Medal since we discourage abbreviations? The main article seems to simply call it the Air Medal without the US, so why is the US included at all? Vegaswikian 19:46, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Per WP:ODM guidelines the United States qualifier is not required, there being only one 'Air Medal). In the event that an 'Air Medal' was awarded by another country in addition to the US, the category ought to be renamed Category:Recipients of the Air Medal (United States). This is not the case however, so Category:Recipients of the Air Medal is eminently suitable.

Xdamr^talk 15:13, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Why keep this category at all? The Air Medal is a low level award, and not particularly rare or notable. The article itself says:

The Air Medal is awarded to any person who, while serving in any capacity in or with the Armed Forces of the United States, shall have distinguished himself/herself by meritorious achievement while participating in aerial flight.

Taking out the qualifier "in aerial flight" and the criteria reads like the criteria for a Meritorious Service Medal. In fact, look at where it is in the order of precedence - Inter-service decorations of the United States military. Having a category for it is little better than having a category for "Recipients of the Army/Air Force/Navy Commendation ribbon." It's not ununsual at all for a pilot to receive a total number of Air Medals in the double digits. David Hackworth received 34, and wasn't even a pilot.-- Nobunaga24 06:14, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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:Kelly family

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.--Wizardman 18:07, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete Mayumashu 13:42, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why?????? The nominator usually supplies a reason for the proposed deletion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:17, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree, though amazingly giving a reason isn't explicitly stated in the instructions (it is strongly implied, mind you). Grutness...wha? 23:58, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the category is holding three members of a sports broadcasting family. All three articles are interlinked with each other so this, as with so many recent CFDs for eponymous categories, is overcategorization and should be deleted. Otto4711 15:16, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Useful and a navigational aid, especially for longer articles, where family information gets lost. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 22:44, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This category should be considered along with the 3-19 bulk of Category:Sports broadcasting families. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 22:44, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result of that discussion was to delete all categories. Otto4711 15:02, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Otto. >Radiant< 10:10, 23 March 2007 (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 appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Scottish people by council area

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

The result of the discussion was: rename. >Radiant< 10:27, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Natives of Aberdeenshire (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Natives of Banff and Buchan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Natives of Kincardine and Mearns (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Natives of Angus (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Natives of Argyll and Bute (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Natives of East Ayrshire (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Natives of North Ayrshire (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Natives of South Ayrshire (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Natives of the Scottish Borders (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Natives of Clackmannanshire (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Natives of Dumfries and Galloway (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Natives of East Dunbartonshire (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Natives of West Dunbartonshire (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Natives of Falkirk (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Natives of Fife (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Natives of the Outer Hebrides (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Natives of Highland (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Natives of Badenoch and Strathspey (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Natives of Caithness (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Natives of Inverness (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Natives of Lochaber (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Natives of Nairn (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Natives of Ross and Cromarty (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Natives of Skye and Lochalsh (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Natives of Sutherland (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Natives of Inverclyde (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Natives of North Lanarkshire (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Natives of South Lanarkshire (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Natives of East Lothian (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Natives of Midlothian (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Natives of West Lothian (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Natives of Moray (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Natives of Orkney (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Natives of Perth and Kinross (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Natives of Perth, Scotland (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Natives of Renfrewshire (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Natives of East Renfrewshire (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Natives of Shetland (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Natives of Stirling (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Rename All to People from X as per naming conventions. Note that this changes the meaning of the category somewhat, but as the linked guideline says, The place of birth is rarely notable. --rimshots^talk 13:25, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename as per nom Mayumashu 13:44, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom, to include notable non-native residents. -- Prove It ^(talk) 13:53, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. --Xdamr^talk 14:53, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all per nom. Not only is the place of birth is rarely notable, but the concept of "native" is ill-defined, and offers a misleading impression of precision.
e.g. Hamish was born in a specialist hospital in Glasgow, to parents who had lived all their a remote island; as soon as he was well enough, they all returned to the island. Is Hamish a native of the island or of Glasgow?
A week after Fiona was born, her parents moved with her from Edinburgh to Inverness, where she has lived ever since. Is she is a native of Edinburgh or of Inverness? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:27, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all per BrownHairedGirl. Choalbaton 17:45, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all per nom. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 18:19, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all and make this a guideline and allow these nominations to be done as a speedy. Vegaswikian 19:47, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all, an eminently sensible decision with ample precedent. Xtifr _tälk 23:09, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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:Ski resorts and areas in Italy

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. >Radiant< 10:27, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Ski resorts and areas in Italy to Category:Ski areas and resorts in Italy

Nominator's Rationale: Rename. Reverse the word order to agree to similar categories. Wilchett 13:24, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename for consistency. --Xdamr^talk 14:54, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename for consistency. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:28, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment is there a parent category where I can see similar categories? I don't see Category:Ski areas and resorts or Category:Ski areas and resorts by country. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 18:03, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename I responded too fast. I see Category:Ski resorts now. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 18:04, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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:Caribbean lawyers

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. There is something to be said for merging as well, but that would be best done in a new nomination. >Radiant< 10:27, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Caribbean lawyers to Category:Lawyers of Commonwealth of Nations member countries in the Caribbean

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, This category was previously unsuccessfully nominated for deletion on the grounds that lawyers from separate jurisdictions should not be grouped in this way, but was kept because the countries share major elements of legal culture and structures, including the same final court of appeal (the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council), and the top lawyers work across the region. However this only applies to the current and former English-speaking British territories in the region, and most of the inhabitants of the region live in places like Cuba, the Dominican Republic and Haiti. If this rename is implemented, the Haitian and Puerto Rican categories should be removed. Postlebury 11:59, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment-What about naming it to Category:Lawyers of countries in the Caribbean, less specific but clearer.--23prootie 12:07, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Wait what about keeping the category and making ang subcategory like Category:Lawyers of Caribbean countries using the British judicial system or something.--23prootie 12:12, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (still favouring Upmerge) The proposed names are rather cumbersome. If a rename is agreed upon we really need to find a better one. What about Category:Lawyers of Caribbean Commonwealth countries or Category:Lawyers of Commonwealth countries in the Caribbean? I would favour the first if forced to choose, though, as I say, I still favour Upmerging as I don't see any factual basis for this category.

Xdamr^talk 14:56, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge all to Category:Lawyers by nationality Lawyers should be charaterised by legal system, not region. Despite their geographical proximity, each country has an idependent legal system, with seperate Bars/solicitor's bodies, etc.

Many of the most prominent lawyers do indeed appear in different Carribean juristictions, but this does not signify a union of legal systems, they must first apply for admission into the relevant national lawyer's body. Indeed, many of the top lawyers who operate in the Carribean are actually from England and Wales.

Taking a look at these legal categories, there is perhaps scope for introducing a division between civil law and common law juristictions.

Xdamr^talk 14:10, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Caribbean countries are grouped legally two different ways. Firstly, all Caribbean countries have a common system of legal education at University of the West Indies, irrespective of whether they subsequently practice in a civil law or common law jurisdiction. Secondly, they form part of a combined court circuit, with a central court of appeal. I think there are compelling reasons for grouping them in this manner. Which was why I did it in the first place. --Legis (talk - contributions) 15:39, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That is very, very misleading. See University of the West Indies: "The University of the West Indies, also known as UWI, is an autonomous regional institution supported by and serving 16 English speaking countries and territories in the Caribbean : Anguilla, Antigua and Barbuda, The Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, the British Virgin Islands, the Cayman Islands, Dominica, Grenada, Jamaica, Montserrat, St. Kitts and Nevis, St. Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Trinidad and Tobago, and Turks and Caicos. All of these countries are members of the Commonwealth of Nations." Around 80% of the population of the Caribbean does not live in those 16 countries. The three most populous countries in the region by far are not on the list of 16. Choalbaton 21:55, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. As stated above, the creator is using a completely erroneous definition of "Caribbean". Choalbaton 21:55, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom, as that title reflects what the category is actually for. Greg Grahame 14:04, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Abberley2 12:49, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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:ASEAN Heritage Sites

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. Discussion of acronyms goes elsewhere.

Rename Category:ASEAN Heritage Sites to Category:Heritage parks of ASEAN

Nominator's Rationale:Rename to reduce ambiguity with UNESCO's World Heritage Sites, also name is more closer to official name as seen [1] and here.

Note: This is NOT a discussion about acronyms and I am only using the word ASEAN to keep it parallel with the original name. If you want discuss about acronyms, see these first: example1, example2, example3, then go have your discussion here. --23prootie 11:54, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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:Austrian terrorists

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, suggest a group renomination with an RFC or somesuch added to get some closure over the naming matter. Arguably the term is POV and/or offensive. >Radiant< 10:27, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As per Wikipedia:Words_to_avoid#Terrorist, terrorism and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view the title of this category is problematic.

Only one article is linked and it is about a mail bomber.

-- Cat ^chi? 11:20, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the previous discussions on this issue. Postlebury 11:59, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per previous discussions and for consistency. --Xdamr^talk 14:54, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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:Somali terrorists

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: as above. >Radiant< 10:27, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As per Wikipedia:Words_to_avoid#Terrorist, terrorism and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view the title of this category is problematic.

Only one article is linked and it is about an "Enemy Combatant" (as white house calls them) residing in Guantánamo Bay detainment camp and not necessarily about a "terrorist".

-- Cat ^chi? 11:18, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the previous discussions on this issue. Postlebury 12:00, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per previous discussions and for consistency. --Xdamr^talk 14:54, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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:Spanish terrorists

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: as above. >Radiant< 10:27, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As per Wikipedia:Words_to_avoid#Terrorist, terrorism and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view the title of this category is problematic.

No article is linked, although there is an ETA subcat which is better off without this parent cat.

-- Cat ^chi? 11:13, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the previous discussions on this issue. Postlebury 12:00, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per previous discussions and for consistency. --Xdamr^talk 14:55, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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:Jamaican terrorists

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: as above. >Radiant< 10:27, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As per Wikipedia:Words_to_avoid#Terrorist, terrorism and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view the title of this category is problematic.

Only one article is linked and it is for a suicide bomber and he can be categorized accordingly rather than "terrorist".

-- Cat ^chi? 11:10, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the previous discussions on this issue. Postlebury 12:00, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per previous discussions and for consistency. --Xdamr^talk 14:55, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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:Greek terrorists

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: as above. >Radiant< 10:27, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As per Wikipedia:Words_to_avoid#Terrorist, terrorism and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view the title of this category is problematic.

Only one article is linked and it is for the leader of November 17 organization and he can be categorized accordingly rather than "terrorist".

-- Cat ^chi? 11:07, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the previous discussions on this issue. Postlebury 12:00, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per previous discussions and for consistency. --Xdamr^talk 14:56, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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:Primary schools

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

The result of the discussion was: merge per Postlebury. >Radiant< 10:27, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Primary schools to Category:Elementary schools

Merge. Found this category listed with an article merge template. Retagged and listing here. No vote. Vegaswikian 06:25, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reverse merge Category:Elementary schools to Category:Primary schools, and mainatin category redirect. Looking at the content of the two categories and at Primary education (Elementary schools redirects there), the concept appears to be broadly the same, and "elementary" appears to be the favoured term only in the USA and Canada. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:15, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- change vote to: Merge both into Category:Elementary and primary schools per Postlebury, but keep category redirects from both the two current categories. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:00, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reverse merge. Category:Elementary schools to Category:Primary schools. Primary schools is the more widely used phrase. Vassyana 10:33, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Category:Elementary schools and primary schools, keep both as redirects, and leave the national categories where they are. Postlebury 12:01, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge both into Category:Elementary and primary schools, as both terms are widely used. -- Prove It ^(talk) 13:57, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge both into Category:Elementary and primary schools. This seems to be a good compromise. --Xdamr^talk 14:58, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge both into Category:Elementary and primary schools. This seems like a logical approach. The name is not so long that listing both in the category name causes a problem and avoids an impression of favoritism for one name over the other. Vegaswikian 19:51, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: seems like Category:Primary and elementary schools would be a better choice, since "primary school" is the more widely used term (yes, it's even used in the US). Xtifr _tälk 06:01, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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:French terrorists

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: as above, ignoring my own earlier vote to the contrary. >Radiant< 10:27, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As per Wikipedia:Words_to_avoid#Terrorist, terrorism and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view the title of this category is problematic.

3 of the 5 linked articles are "groups" not in the scope of this "people" category. Other two articles are about people. Weather or not they qualify under "terrorist" is highly subjective. One of them (Christopher Caze) seems to be a thug/robber rather than terrorist.

-- Cat ^chi? 04:17, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The "Words to avoid" style guides specifically emphasizes to avoid this term broadly. Doczilla 07:39, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Words to avoid. NPOV concerns. Great abuse potential against WP:BLP standards. Vassyana 10:34, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all the previous discussions on this issue. Postlebury 12:02, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per previous discussions and for consistency. --Xdamr^talk 14:56, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or rename "French paramilitaries". POV. According to the criteria for inclusion French resistance members could be included. The Proffesor 20:29, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All French resistance in WW2 was indeed considered terrorist by the Nazi government of Germany which meets inclusion criteria. -- Cat ^chi? 19:09, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is a genuine group of people here, and no other way to categorize them. Wilchett 23:36, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't see why groups are not in the scope of the category. Abberley2 12:50, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe because groups are not people?-- Cat ^chi? 19:08, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, negative/POV term. With respect to the previous discussion, see WP:CCC. >Radiant< 10:11, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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:Australian viceroys

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 per nom. >Radiant< 10:27, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Australian viceroys to Category:Viceroys in Australia

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, to match category:Viceroys in Canada, and for the same reason - most of them have been British. ReeseM 02:40, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Governors in Australia. The title "viceroy" appears never to have been used for Governors of the Australian states or for the Governor-General of Australia, and all the sub-categories of Category:Governors in Australia use the term "governor" rather than "viceroy". Other national subcats of Category:Viceroys also use the term governor where appropriate. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:10, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. "Viceroy" is a generic term for a representative of a monarch. Australia is full of "governors", - school governors and so on. Postlebury 12:04, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. "Governors" does not cut it. At some point, we will need Category:Administrators of the Northern Territory who are also representatives of the Queen. I agree that Viceroy is not used much. A Google search on "Viceroy Australia" is topped by two references from Canada calling the Australian Governor General a Viceroy, but there is this in a speech to the Australian Republican Movement. --Bduke 02:03, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support proposed change. I agree we don't say "viceroy" much, but we do say "viceregal" from the same root. The alternative would have to be Category:Governors and Governors-general in Australia or similar, which is just a silly mouthful for no gain. Do territory administrators represent the Queen, the G-G, the government, or something else? Administrator of the Northern Territory says that one is appointed by the G-G, but doesn't say who he represents, and his website only says his role is "...essentially the same as those of a State Governor". I haven't looked at whether other territory administrators have articles (or websites). --Scott Davis ^Talk 07:46, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Administrator of the NT is the representative of the Governor-General who represents the Queen. There isn't a direct link like there are with the states. Theoretically Australia could end up in the bizarre situation of having a republic at federal level but not at State levels - we're still like seven monarchies in one sense. Norfolk Island also has an administrator responsible to the Governor-General. JRG 12:04, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Composers by project

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. >Radiant< 10:27, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this is categorzation by project, which is inappropriate. Prolific film composers (such as John Williams) could end up in dozens of project-specific categories. Otto4711 02:22, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as performer by performance per powerful precedent please. Doczilla 07:38, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. CalJW 12:21, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as performer by performance. --Xdamr^talk 14:56, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Pavel Vozenilek 12:13, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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:Fiction Lesbians

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. >Radiant< 10:27, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Fictional lesbians, convention of Category:Fictional LGBT characters. -- Prove It ^(talk) 02:14, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy merge redundant category per nom. Doczilla 07:37, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Redundant. Vassyana 10:35, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Where are all the L Word gals. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 18:07, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.