Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 April 15

: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 {{{1|}}} rename :Category:People related to Campinas, São Paulo to :Category:People from Campinas, São Paulo. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:48, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

:Propose renaming :Category:People related to Campinas, São Paulo to :Category:People from Campinas, São Paulo

:Nominator's Rationale: {{{3|Rename, as per convention of :category:People by city. Brandon97 23:13, 15 April 2007 (UTC)}}}

• Rename per nom. Oliver Han 10:31, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
• Rename per nom. David Kernow (talk) 04:31, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
• Rename to :Category:People from São Paulo Merge to :Category:People from São Paulo state - categorizing people by the city in which they were born or are "from" is overcategorization. People move, meaning they can potentially be "from" multiple cities. The state or territory level is specific enough categorization for "people" in general (and IMHO even by state or territory may in many cases be overcategorization). Otto4711 01:51, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
• Rename as Otto4711 suggests. Aequo 21:10, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

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

: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 {{{1|}}} Rename. --Xdamr^talk 23:48, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

:Propose renaming :Category:History of computing software to :Category:History of software

:Nominator's Rationale: {{{3|Rename, there is no ambiguity in the shorter title, so it would be better. (I created this category today, and I am presently populating it.) greenrd 23:12, 15 April 2007 (UTC)}}}

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

: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 {{{1|}}} Rename all. --Xdamr^talk 00:10, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

:Propose renaming :Category:Quebec authors to :Category:Quebec writers

:Nominator's Rationale: {{{3|Rename. Convention of :Category:Writers. Brandon97 22:59, 15 April 2007 (UTC)}}}

• Rename per nom. Whilst we're looking at :Category:Canadian writers by province or territory, and as this CfD has only just started, can I add in :Category:Manitoba authors, :Category:New Brunswick authors and :Category:Nova Scotia authors as renames to '...writers' for the same reason? Bencherlite 23:11, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
• Rename all as above. Oliver Han 10:31, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
• Rename all per Bencherlite, for consistenct with other writers-by-place categories. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:28, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

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

: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 {{{1|}}} Repurpose to categorise talk pages, per recent precedents. --Xdamr^talk 23:57, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

:{{lc|Wikipedia articles incorporating text from the Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships}}

{{{3|Delete Random category for articles that share a source. Not necessary or useful. Casperonline 22:54, 15 April 2007 (UTC)}}}

• Delete per nom. Haddiscoe 12:48, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, but move to talk pages per lengthy recent discussions on other by-source categories which are used for maintenance. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:17, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep pending examination of source categories. If we need categories for the Catholic Encyclopedia and the 1911 Brittanica, we ought to have this one too. Mangoe 17:12, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete These categories are not "used for maintenance", they are records of one of text-dumps. AshbyJnr 18:10, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

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

: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 {{{1|}}} rename :Category:British Folk Rock Albums to :Category:British folk rock albums. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:57, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

:{{lc|British Folk Rock Albums}}

:Merge into :Category:Folk rock albums, or Rename to :Category:British folk rock albums. -- Prove It ^(talk) 21:23, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

• Keep as an important musical category, but Rename to :Category:British folk rock albums to fix capitalisation. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:58, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep I agree with BrownHairedGirl. There's a lot of folk rock albums and it makes sense to sort the British ones into a separate category. Definitely fix the caps, though. --Bonadea 12:43, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - and Rename seems very sensible to me. Neonblak 15:08, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

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

: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 {{{1|}}} Delete. --Xdamr^talk 23:50, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

:{{lc|EQUIS}}

:Rename to :Category:European Quality Improvement System, expanding the acronym. -- Prove It ^(talk) 20:22, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

• Rename per nom. Jamie Mercer 14:35, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - categorizing schools by whatever accreditiing body might accredit them is overcategorization. Otto4711 03:18, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per Otto. >Radiant< 09:23, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per Otto, but move the main article to :Category:School accreditors to not orphan it. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 14:38, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

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

: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 {{{1|}}} Delete. --Xdamr^talk 23:53, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

:{{lc|Natural bodybuilding}}

{{{3|The category is populated by two biographies, which are both now on AFD. The definition of "natural bodybuilding" seems arbitrary, and any relevant articles can go in the parent category about bodybuilding. YechielMan 18:39, 15 April 2007 (UTC)}}}

• Delete - The first section of the article on natural bodybuilding shows that the term indeed has several uses. Some people described as natural bodybuilders may not be described as such by other people. Since the categorization has a significant gray area, the category should be deleted. Dr. Submillimeter 08:16, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. AshbyJnr 18:11, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Doczilla 08:00, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

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

: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 {{{1|}}} Delete. --Xdamr^talk 23:55, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

:{{lc|May 27}}

{{{3|Yet another month-day date category, redundant to the May 27 article. See also Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 April 10#Category:July 1. —Resurgent insurgent 2007-04-15 12:16Z}}}

:Delete - the category as noted before is an "incredibly useless" category, not only does it have only one link on the actual page (which links to a user page), but what has happened on May 27th is already noted on the page it redirects to. Radio Orange 15:11, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

:Delete per nom. Bencherlite 14:28, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

:Delete per above. Doczilla 17:27, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

:Delete as already explained above. Aequo 18:13, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Casperonline 19:56, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
• delete wikipedia does not need a category for every date.--Sefringle 03:56, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

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

: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 {{{1|}}} Merge. --Xdamr^talk 00:08, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

:{{lc|Chiefs of Staff of the United States Army}}

{{{3|*duplicate of :Category:United States Army Chiefs of Staff — MrDolomite • Talk 11:03, 15 April 2007 (UTC)}}}

• Delete per nom. Bencherlite 14:28, 15 April 2007 (UTC) Reverse merge per creator of category. Bencherlite 18:15, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
• reverse merge to :Category:United States Army Chiefs of Staff to match official title of this position and its main article.
• Reverse merge and whoops, didn't realize it was a duplicate when I created it. Paul 17:42, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

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

: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 {{{1|}}} rename :Category:Tanks by nationality to :Category:Tanks by country. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:58, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

:Propose renaming :Category:Tanks by nationality to :Category:Tanks by country

:Nominator's Rationale: {{{3|Rename. I found the thought that tanks had a nationality rather odd. While not always used, the 'by country' form is the most common in :Category:Categories by country. Vegaswikian 07:24, 15 April 2007 (UTC)}}}

• Rename per nom. Mowsbury 09:53, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
• Rename the nationality of tanks does sound rather odd! Radio Orange 15:02, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
• Rename Per above. Aequo 19:38, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
• Rename per nom. David Kernow (talk) 04:31, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

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

: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 {{{1|}}} Keep. --Xdamr^talk 00:00, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

:{{lc|Anti-creationism}}

{{{3|Doesn't seem an appropriate category to use. Arbitrary/Subjective. ZayZayEM 07:19, 15 April 2007 (UTC)}}}

This category is subjective. It does not clearly define the anti-creationist movement as a collective or organised movement (c.f. intelligent design movement). It appears to be a collection of various people, groups and texts that lambast creationism (whether from a legitimate view), as well as those that actively promote good science, and a few that do a bit of columns A and B.

Please consider the status from an alternative viewpoint. Matters which may seem clearcut, may not be so clearcut from people with less, or different familiarity.

My version of what "anti-creationism" is may be quite different from someone else's (particularly a creationist's!).

• keep This is a field of study which is perhaps more legitimate (depending on your point of view) than the :Category:Creationism. Hmains 16:54, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
• "Field of study"???? Where are courses offered. I'd love to enrol (seriously)--ZayZayEM 06:41, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Aequo 19:42, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep An appropriate use for a category, neither arbitary nor subjective. Casperonline 20:00, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. The current name seems to violate WP:NPOV. Not sure what would work better, but after reading the introduction, maybe :Category:Creationism and pseudoscience. Vegaswikian 05:21, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Does not violate WP:NPOV, and is much clearer than the alternative proposed above. Oliver Han 10:32, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
• Comment A quick web search seems to indicate that the term "anti-creationism" is probably legitimate. However I'd feel more comfortable using this category if someone could create a referenced main article to go along with it that describes and defines Anti-creationism. Having a referenced main article would help demonstrate that the term is objectively defined and the category is likewise not biased. Dugwiki 22:26, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep It's obviously opposition to creationism, but since that is just a matter of post-Enlightenment opposition to supersition that should never be necessary in the first place, there is no "movement", and should not be. It is sad that there is still creationism out there that needs to be opposed, and in a more enlightened world this would be a non-issue by now. AshbyJnr 18:13, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
• keep very ligitimate, and it is pretty clear what articles belong in this category.--Sefringle 03:55, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

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

: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 {{{1|}}} rename :Category:People with an eidetic memory to :Category:People with eidetic memory. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:00, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

:{{lc|People with an eidetic memory}}

{{{3|Rename to :Category:People with eidetic memory for consistency with the preferred medical/psychological terminology. Doczilla 06:24, 15 April 2007 (UTC)}}}

• Support renaming, it sounds more concise and less wordy. --Philip Stevens 06:48, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

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

: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 {{{1|}}} rename to :Category:Fictional characters with eidetic memory. Noted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 April 17#Category:Fictional characters with an eidetic memory for implementation when that is closed. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:53, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

:{{lc|Fictional characters with an eidetic memory}}

{{{3|Rename to :Category:Fictional characters with eidetic memory for consistency with the preferred medical/psychological terminology. Doczilla 06:23, 15 April 2007 (UTC)}}}

::Addendum. Additional reason to change name: Now that the CfD on real people has closed, this one needs to be renamed for consistency with :Category:People with eidetic memory (see the CfD directly above this one). Doczilla 09:39, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

• Support renaming, it sounds more concise and less wordy. --Philip Stevens 06:48, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
• Support renamind - simpler the better.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 19:27, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
• Comment this Category is being also discussed for deletion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 April 17#Category:Fictional characters with an eidetic memory. Bencherlite 00:37, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

::Comment This is most disruptive. Given that the debate of the 17th is a deletion nomination I suggest this is left open until that result is known, after which the rename proposed here can be considered. Xdamr^talk 00:25, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

:::Reply. This one came first. If either were to be postponed, it should be the CfD introduced last, meaning the deletion proposal. Besides which, what's disruptive about it anyway? The name can change even if it only gets deleted a few days later. So what? (And I doubt it will get deleted. So far we have a consensus to rename, whereas the deletion proposal at this point looks like it's heading for no consensus.) Doczilla 09:35, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

::::Well it's disruptive insofar as we have to have this discussion, rather than simply closing the debate as usual - probably 'disruptive' was a little harsh, I meant it in its gentlest sense. (Note - I might have been slightly unclear, it is the nom of the 17th that I was largely referring to).

::::I agree with your reading of the later nomination, all I suggest is that we wait until that has closed—admittedly more for form's sake than because I believe that there is much of a chance of the 17th resulting in deletion, nevertheless there's little point in renaming a category which could be deleted a day or two down the line.

::::Xdamr^talk 12:30, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

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

: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 {{{1|}}} Rename. --Xdamr^talk 00:02, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

::Category:Catholic Churches in New Mexico to :Category:Roman Catholic churches in New Mexico

• Merge, Redundant and malnamed. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 03:15, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
• Merge per nom. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:15, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
• Merge per above Radio Orange 15:04, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

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

: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 {{{1|}}} Rename to :Category:U.S. Open (golf). --Xdamr^talk 00:04, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

:{{lc|U.S. Open}}

• Delete, U.S. Open is a disambiguation page, there are many events by that name. -- Prove It ^(talk) 02:48, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Rename as below: No kidding! What an incredibly useless category. The stuff in it if anything may need recat'ing though. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 03:18, 15 April 2007 (UTC) Updated: 07:20, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Doczilla 05:40, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
• Rename to :Category:U.S. Open (golf), which is obviously the purpose of the category. There is also a category for the U.S. Open tennis at :Category:U.S. Open (tennis) Mowsbury 09:55, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
• All the current members are Golf events. -- Prove It ^(talk) 13:19, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - The category is insufficiently provided. The intended purpose already exists. Radio Orange 15:03, 15 April 2007 (GMT)
• Rename :Category:U.S. Open (golf). It will fill out over time. Casperonline 19:59, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
• Rename :Category:U.S. Open (golf). There are over a hundred articles to be created. The main tennis tournaments are far better covered, so this is a serious backlog. Oliver Han 10:33, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
• Rename :Category:U.S. Open (golf). The purpose of this category is clear, and its legitimacy is beyond doubt. AshbyJnr 18:14, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
• Rename as above. Aequo 21:09, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

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

: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 {{{1|}}} Rename per SMcCandlish. --Xdamr^talk 00:17, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

:{{lc|Music fundraising, Hurricane Katrina}}

• Rename: I think I understand the purpose of this category, but the title doesn't convey it very well. Needs to be renamed, but I'm not sure what the best title would be. Same goes for the subcategories. — CharlotteWebb 02:39, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
• Rename: {{cl|Hurricane Katrina relief fundraising}}; that category doesn't even exist yet, so have a musical subcategory of it is pretty silly. There isn't anything particularly special about music-based fundraising compared to telethons, sponsored walks, charity sports demo matches, Comic Relief, etc., etc., etc. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 03:22, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

:*And rename: {{cl|Benefit albums, Hurricane Katrina}} → {{cl|Hurricane Katrina relief charity albums}} • {{cl|Benefit concerts, Hurricane Katrina}} → {{cl|Hurricane Katrina relief benefit concerts}} • {{cl|Hurricane Katrina tribute songs}} → {{cl|Hurricane Katrina relief charity singles}} — per those subcats' other parent-categories' names. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 03:30, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

:Rename' - Yes, the name of the article is a bit clumsy and may not be fully understood by visiting editors/readers. - Radio Orange 15:00, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

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

: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 {{{1|}}} rename :Category:Members of the Liberal Party to :Category:Mexican liberales (convention of :Category:People by political orientation and nationality) which appears to address the case for deletion also. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:59, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

:{{lc|Members of the Liberal Party}}

{{{3|There was no such thing as a Liberal Party in Mexico. A liberal party, yes, but that was just a description for a group of people who happened to be liberal, it was not an organized political party where one could be a member of. (And apart from that there were really a lot more liberals than just Díaz) Mixcoatl 19:39, 15 April 2007 (UTC)}}}

• Delete too many Liberal parties to distinguish amongst. Carlossuarez46 03:03, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
• Rename, per these arguments, as {{cl|Mexican liberales}} or {{cl|liberales of Mexico}}. Please note spelling. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:23, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

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