From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< July 31 August 2 >

August 1

Category:Pan-European advocacy groups

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. There is consensus to rename, but not to what. Everyone seemed more interested in the "advocacy group" part of the title, much to the chagrin of the nominator, but whatever; sometimes that's how CFD's go. If I can point out, this category is currently in Category:Advocacy groups, which if that were so "American", someone presumably would have removed the multitudes of Australian, Bahamanian, British, Canadian, European, International, Japanese, Malaysian, Norwegian, Polish, Russian, and Swedish groups' articles currently in the category. Kbdank71 13:24, 7 August 2008 (UTC) reply
Propose renaming Category:Pan-European advocacy groups to Category:Advocacy groups at European level
Nominator's rationale: The advocacy groups listed in the "Pan-European advocacy groups" category have been set up by entities in >1 country to lobby the EU/EU institutions/EU&EEA. Their distinguishing characteristic is their intent in lobbying such bodies to gain advantage. So far, so good. The problem is the use of the "Pan-European" prefix in this context. It's a problem because Pan-European nationalism is an extremist political ideology advocating nationalism for a single-nation Europe. The use of the "Pan-European" prefix in this context is therefore misleading. The suffix "...at European level" (sometimes rendered as "...at a European level" or "...at an European level") is usually used for transnational bodies interacting with EU/EU institutions/EU&EEA (e.g. "parties at European level", "groups at European level", "foundations at European level", and so on). So unless anybody seriously thinks that the Europe a Nation and Quaker Council for European Affairs belong in the same category as each other, renaming "Category:Pan-European advocacy groups" to "Advocacy groups at European level" is probably a good idea. Anameofmyveryown ( talk) 04:12, 26 July 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Thank you for your reply above. Unfortunately, it was neither germane nor helpful, since the point under debate was whether the prefix "pan-european" or the suffix "...at European level" should be used for the category for groups set up to advocate a given cause to the EU/EU institutions/EU&EEA. You are correct in saying that "advocacy groups" is not a phrase much used in UK English: it may ease your mind to know that it's not a phrase much used in US/Australian/Indian English either, since the phrase usually used is lobby groups. Unfortunately, since "lobby groups" is usually used perjoratively (groups considered nasty lobby, wheras groups considered nice advocate), "lobby groups" can't really be used. "Interest groups" has a different meaning: the phrase "interest groups" (contracted to "intergroups") is used for sets of EC/EP insiders (e.g. MEPs) and outsiders (e.g. members of the public) coming together to find out more about a given subject (see here), wheras "advocacy groups" apply to those groups consisting wholly of EC/EP outsiders. So, given that "lobby groups" can't be used for perjorative reasons, and "interest groups" can't be used because it means something different, we're stuck with "advocacy groups".
  • Returning to the actual point, in order to demonstrate that the suffix "...at European level" should be used for the category for groups set up to advocate a given cause to the EU/EU institutions/EU&EEA, I have assembled some sources to uphold the contention. They are as follows: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], and [6]. You may wish to note that the latter source is an open letter from Nicolas Sarkozy (current President of France) and Gordon Brown (current Prime Minister of the United Kingdom).
  • I realise that to many Wikipedians this may come across as a rather obscure piece of EU bureaubabble, but since it has a precise technical meaning that matches the members of the category, it's eminently suitable and prevents confusion with other organizations that operate on a continental European basis that includes non-EU members (Norway, Switzerland, Andorra, the Vatican, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Kaliningrad, etc...). For those organizations, please feel free to combine any combinations of pan/trans/super/supra/para/whatever and Europe/Europa/European/continental/whatever. But for those organizations set up to advocate a cause to the EU/EU institutions/EU&EEA. the phrase "advocacy groups at European level" is precise, defined, and Wikisuitable. So the category should be renamed accordingly, as requested above. Regards, Anameofmyveryown ( talk) 22:28, 3 August 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I originally created the category, intended as an intersection of Category:European Union and Category:Advocacy groups (or Category:Lobbying), to keep down the size of Category:European Union. I am not particularly attached to the name. If it were to be renamed as proposed, I would prefer it with the indefinite article "a". I am a little worried that "at a European level" (as opposed to national) is OK in a known European context but is somewhat odd in an international context, where I would expect "European" up front. In this context, I didn't see a problem with unwanted political associations but am quite willing to believe that others might.-- Boson ( talk) 20:41, 4 August 2008 (UTC) reply
  • How about Category:Pan-European pressure groups. I see no objection to "Pan-European": this may be vague in its scope, but the scale of operation of differnet groups is likely to vary anyway, so that that does not matter. "Pressure groups" is less American. Peterkingiron ( talk) 00:09, 6 August 2008 (UTC) reply
  • See reply below.
  • Thank you both for your reply above. Your points are problematic as follows:
  • You seem to believe that "pressure groups" and "lobby groups" mean the same thing. They do not. There is a subtle but real difference. "Pressure groups" influence their chosen subject indirectly by influencing public opinion (via publishing papers, holding interviews and meetings, placing real/fictitious stories in the media, advertising and so on). "Lobby groups" influence their chosen subject directly by meeting with their chosen subject's representatives/committees and influencing their opinion (via reports, reason, arguement, bribery in some cases, and so on). The former are loud, the latter are quiet. The former have an informal/no relationship with their subject: the latter have a formal relationship with them. The former may never meet representatives of their chosen subject: the latter frequently meet them. SSJ is correct when he says that there is a large overlap between "pressure groups" and "think tanks" - unfortunately, we are not talking about "pressure groups", we are talking about "lobby groups" (or, to be less rude, "advocacy groups").
  • The problem with "Pan-European" (apart from the political overtones mentioned above, and those objections were not trivial) is the difficulty of definition: European Union National Institutes for Culture covers 19 countries, the Quaker Council for European Affairs covers just 10 (Belgium, Luxembourg, Britain, Denmark, France, Germany, Ireland, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland), 2 of which aren't in the EU. You'd be hard-pressed to describe the latter as pan-European (they don't cover Finland, Spain, Portugal, Poland, Italy, Greece, Malta, Cyprus, Czechia, Slovenia, Slovakia, Romania, Bulgaria, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, nor the microstates nor the rest of the Balkans).
  • The Americanness of the phrase "advocacy groups". I am not aware of the popularity or otherwise of the phrase in the US, nor the popularity or otherwise of the phrase elsewhere, and so cannot tell whether it is an Americanism or not. However, it is a neutral phrase, and so should be preferred on Wikipedia. I'm not devoted to the phrase and would accept "lobby groups" (since that is what they are), but the motive for choosing it was not Ameriphilia and the motive for rejecting it should not be Ameriphobia.
a) sidesteps the issue of whether the organization doing the lobbying is pan-European or not,
b) is a tight definition (are they based in Brussels/Strasbourg? Do they frequently/regularly meet with EU/EP reps? If "yes" to both then they're in, if not, not),
c) it meets your objection (mistaken IMHO, but heigh-ho) to the phrase "advocacy groups" as an Americanism.
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:Machine tooling

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. Kbdank71 13:05, 7 August 2008 (UTC) reply
Suggest merging Category:Machine tooling to Category:Machine tools
Nominator's rationale: These categories have very similar names, with very similar articles types. It seems redundant to keep both. Wizard191 ( talk) 20:31, 1 August 2008 (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:Religious organizations established in the 1100s

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/keep, based also upon the 1110's CFD below. Kbdank71 13:04, 7 August 2008 (UTC) reply
Category:Religious organizations established in the 1100s ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Duplicate category: there is already a category called Religious organizations established in the 12th century. - Eric talk 20:03, 1 August 2008 (UTC) reply
  • This is not a duplicate category. The 1100s refers to 1100-1109. The 12th century refers to 1101-1200. This is the general usage in wikipedia and there are many precedets for using the terms in this way. Johnpacklambert ( talk) 20:32, 1 August 2008 (UTC) reply
  • John, you may want to rethink that. The term 1100s refers to all years (after the year 119 and before the year 11,000) whose first two digits are 1. - Eric talk 20:47, 1 August 2008 (UTC) reply
  • It is how Wikipedia (not just John) has decided to refer to the decade beginning XY00 - the XY00s. So we are in the 2000s at the moment and will soon be in the 2010s. See for instance Category:20th century establishments. Occuli ( talk) 22:50, 1 August 2008 (UTC) reply
  • I dread to look. I think WP's categories are often out of control--far too many are ill-considered, are incorrectly spelled (e.g. 20th century above should read 20th-century), or don't follow naming conventions. If WP really does have a policy of defining 1100s as you claim, it's out of step with the rest of the English-speaking world. - Eric talk 23:34, 1 August 2008 (UTC) reply
  • (Responding to your above comment/question and to the similar one just below John Park's) Yes, I misunderstood that convention, or rather, it never occurred to me that someone would dream up such a convention. As I recall, my grandfather referred to the years 1901-1909 as the aughts. I always liked that, though I admit it would be a tough sell here. I think there is an underlying assumption on the part of many (or most) that it is useful to categorize every little thing into what decade it occurred in, was born in, had breakfast during, etc. I should reveal here that I do not hold that assumption. I certainly do not think that the mere existence of a poorly worded by-decade categorization scheme for a specific type of institution justifies that it be proliferated. I think that huge gobs of time and effort are wasted on WP dreaming up categories, making articles for simple dictionary words, making pages for various forms of a word (see the redirect page for Excavated), linking every date and most words in articles, etc, and then having hopeless discussions over how to clean up the mess. - Eric talk 14:38, 2 August 2008 (UTC) reply
  • You see it as a "mess"; others see it as a well-organized system in the making. Just a difference of opinion, I suppose. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:20, 3 August 2008 (UTC) reply
BUT, The 1100's is different from the 1110's. Because the zeros mathematically infer the whole century. Thus there is not the linguistic parallell as is the 1110's and the 1120's. Clarity would suggest ". . . between 1100 and 1110" OR ". . . the first decade of the 12th century CE". My second problem comes to light in the question, Why not a category "Organizations established between noon and 6:00 pm in 1109 CE???" I guess I don't feel strongly against such a category, if it were clear and someone wanted to do the research, but most organizations I know come into being over time and the marker event is only a moment in activity which often spans decades. John Park ( talk) 04:32, 2 August 2008 (UTC) reply
See my comment above. How does the rest of the world specify the decade if not this way? This is the way it's done in WP, and it seems more important to be internally consistent, which it is. The decade is 1100s; the century is the 12th century: see List of decades, articles on 1900s, 1800s, 1700s, 1600s, 1500s, etc.; and the categories Category:1900s, Category:1800s, Category:1700s, Category:1600s, Category:1500s, Category:1400s, etc., and the numerous subcategories that use the same naming system. This seems like a case of misunderstanding a WP convention more than anything. Why by decade and not some other arbitrary time period? Because it's common for our society to group time periods into decades. That's certainly not just WP that does it that way. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:47, 2 August 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Do whatever is the result of: Category:Religious organizations established in the 1110s, below. As for the xx00s, I think that these can presumably be considered clear due to the context/convention of all the others in the parent cat. - jc37 10:08, 2 August 2008 (UTC) reply
  • keep Category is correctly named by WP decade naming standards and contains articles that match the category name. They are 'religiuos organizations' as found by reading the articles and the common meaning of these two words. Hmains ( talk) 17:04, 2 August 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Keep My first reaction was that this should be upmerged to the 12th century category, but the better solution will be to distribute the contents of that category to their decades. I appreciate that "1100s" can be used as a synonym for 12th century, but the best practice among historians is to reserve it for the decade. Peterkingiron ( talk) 23:57, 5 August 2008 (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.

Lawyers and jurists from Cincinnati

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. Kbdank71 13:02, 7 August 2008 (UTC) reply
Suggest merging Category:Lawyers from Cincinnati to Category:Ohio lawyers
Suggest merging Category:Jurists from Cincinnati to Category:Ohio lawyers
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge, overcategorization by location. The only city-specific categories in the American lawyers and the American jurists category schemes. All of the jurist articles appear to be lawyers, not other kinds of jurists, but there might be other appropriate categories. Postdlf ( talk) 20:09, 1 August 2008 (UTC) reply
See also prior CFD deleting occupation by city categories. Postdlf ( talk) 20:12, 1 August 2008 (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:Religious organizations established in the 1110s

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. And can I suggest Eric and GO have a nice cup of tea and a sit down? Kbdank71 13:00, 7 August 2008 (UTC) reply
Category:Religious organizations established in the 1110s ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Over-categorization: WP does not need to categorize religious organizations by decade of establishment. Side note: the user who has mass-produced these by-decade categories has used them so far mostly for individual abbeys, which in any case should not be categorized as "organizations", since in most cases, multiple abbeys would come under one religious organization. - Eric talk 19:51, 1 August 2008 (UTC) reply
The fact that you are ignoring is that the category "Religious organizations established in the 12th century" had well over 200 entries when I began to break it up. Is there any reason to not break up a section that is this large. Beyond this, I am not the one who decided to categorize most of these abbeys as religious organizations. The categorization of them as religious organizations was done by others on the basis that an abbey is a religious body and to some extent operates independently. However, there are other issues in the argument for their classification as a religious organization, and as I said before the decision that individual abbeys are religious organizations was made by someone other than me. Johnpacklambert ( talk) 20:30, 1 August 2008 (UTC) reply
Well, would it be so difficult then to simply have subdivided by half of the century ("relgious organizations created from 1101-1150" and " ...from 1151-1200", say) rather than decades? My fear is that we would end up with a lot of minimally populated categories with little likelihood of growth. Daniel Case ( talk) 20:54, 1 August 2008 (UTC) reply
WP does not use a category system to divide establishments by half-century. It does, however, use such a system for centuries, decades, and years, so the creator's actions seem entirely justifiable as an extension of the already-existing categorization system. Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:05, 2 August 2008 (UTC) reply
  • The presentist bias in arguing we should get rid of medieval decade categories is unjustified. If we can place the establishment in a given year, as is done for many of these organizations, there is no reason why it is to precise to give it a decade. I would also point out I have tried to avoid placing anything in a specific decade even when it says "about 1160" since that is not clearly 1150s or 1160s. I have erred on the side of precision at times, however I have tried to avoid doing so. The second issue is some of these institutions have founding dates and many founding charters have been preserved. There are very clear records for the founding of many of these institutions, so placing them within a given decade is not impossible. Johnpacklambert ( talk) 20:30, 1 August 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Comment All: Johnpacklambert has created over 100 of these categories this month, many for individual years, spanning from the 800s to the present. Johnpacklambert: Previous not-well-thought-out use of a category is not a good reason upon which to base the creation and implementation of dozens of new subcategories. - Eric talk 20:35, 1 August 2008 (UTC) reply
Comment: I think we should refrain from assuming that the creation of the categories was "not well thought out". How does anyone know how much the creators of these categories thought about this? Just because you disagree with them and think the system is bad idea doesn't give you the right to say the existence and use of the categories are "not well thought out". As for Johnpacklambert, he has as much right as anyone to create categories, especially when his actions are an expansion of an already in-use categorization system. I think his actions were entirely within the scope expected behavior by a WPian, and he should not be criticised for his actions as if he has engaged in wholesale vandalism. Let's keep the discussion to the merits of the categories and not impugn the thought processes of those who created them. Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:10, 2 August 2008 (UTC) reply
I'm not here to impugn people's thinking, I'm trying to improve Wikipedia. To me it is obvious that these categories have not been thought out well. Many categories on WP strike me as totally unnecessary. I think that categories should be ideally created by consensus after consulting with many editors. I don't think that a system being already in use on WP constitutes justification for it to be continued. Wikipedia is the online encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Over-categorization and institutionalization of bad habits make that sometimes painfully evident. - Eric talk 14:04, 2 August 2008 (UTC) reply
If you're not here to impugn others' thinking, then stop doing it. By saying "to me it is obvious" that the categories are "not thought out well", you're quite probably impugning the thoughts of editors who perhaps did think them out, and think them out well. Of course, it's simply an opinion, and you disagree with the other editors who created the system, but that doesn't make them necessarily poorly thought out. Your own opinions on when and how categories should be created are not current policy or guidelines, they are your opinion, and when others have created categories in ways that are completely permitted but not in accordance with what you would personally prefer, I think it may be best to stick to the merits in making arguments and not assume that the way you think about something is "obviously" right. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:47, 3 August 2008 (UTC) reply
Key words: to me. - Eric talk 18:05, 3 August 2008 (UTC) reply
Exactly — which suggests it is an opinion; and when that opinion brings into question the thought processes of others', it's best kept to yourself, I think. I've repeated this same observation that it is your opinion numerous times above in an effort to get you to keep it to yourself when it involves assessments of others' thought processes. Make a substantive argument based on your opinion; opinions that just criticise what others have done as useless or not well thought out are unhelpful and unconvincing, and they may cause hurt feelings. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:44, 3 August 2008 (UTC) reply
Right, new opinions have no place when they challenge established implementations of earlier opinions, especially if the new opinions might call into questioning the reasoning behind the earlier opinions. I understand now. Wikipedia is the online encyclopedia that anyone can edit, as long as they don't ask others to take a new look at how they've been doing things. Thank you for schooling me. My spirit is broken. - Eric talk 21:57, 3 August 2008 (UTC) reply
? No, what I'm saying is broad, sweeping opinions of "these categories are ill-thought out" aren't really helpful. It's more useful to provide substantive reasons you think that. But simply arguing that other editors aren't thinking about what they are doing doesn't help much. My comments here are focused exclusively on your comments bringing into question the thought processes of others; your comment above misapplies those comments to all questioning of the appropriateness of a category system, which was not the intent of my comments. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:15, 3 August 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - I expected to find one or two but there are 20 articles, a perfectly respectable category, not even small. And of course an abbey is a religious organisation, possibly part of a larger organisation. (I would probably not support categories for a particular year.) Occuli ( talk) 23:05, 1 August 2008 (UTC) reply
  • There is Category:1577 establishments, subcat of Category:1570s establishments. Not sure what the fuss is about. Occuli ( talk) 23:08, 1 August 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Did you take a look at who categorized those articles and when?. You might take a minute to look at the histories of the articles in this category before you become impressed by how widely it's being used. By the way, questioning these microcategorizations is not "fuss"; it is bringing to attention that there is a ton of work to do to fix a unilateral and poorly thought-out implementation of a large number of changes that make Wikipedia look more cluttered and random than it already is. We who bring these categories into question do not relish the thought of having to do this kind of cleanup--there's plenty of other work to do. - Eric talk 23:24, 1 August 2008 (UTC) reply
Johnpacklambert did not create even close to the majority of the establishments-by-year or establishment-by-decades categories. His actions constituted an expansion of an already-existing system. Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:09, 2 August 2008 (UTC) reply
Good Ol, go to this category page's history, look at it, then change the decade and century digits one at a time and look at those histories. Am I getting something wrong? I spent time looking into this before I posted here--time I could have spent doing more interesting work. - Eric talk 14:04, 2 August 2008 (UTC) reply
Read again what I wrote — I realise he may have created these categories and their immediate parents and related categories of close years/decades/centuries, but he didn't create, as I said above, even close to the majority of the establishments-by-year or establishment-by-decades categories. Religious establishment categories are a very small part of the establishment-by-year system. With a little looking, it becomes clear that his actions constituted an expansion of an already-existing system. If you're bored by the work, you certainly don't have to do it! Gosh, do something you like to do, by all means! WP is not supposed to be a chore. ... Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:43, 3 August 2008 (UTC) reply
Right. So, by the this is the way it's already been done logic, I might unilaterally embark on the creation of categories for every decade of the past several thousand years with a naming convention such as, say, Category:Secular structures begun on even-numbered Tuesdays in the ###0s, which would naturally be a sub-category of Category:Secular structures begun on Tuesdays in the ###0s, which itself would be a sub-category of Category:Secular structures by day of the week upon which construction was begun, itself a sub-category of Category:Secular structures organized by any temporal period an editor can think of, regardless of whether it provides relevant, useful information to a WP user who is hoping to take the encyclopedia seriously; merely by virtue of the fact that other editors have used similarly contrived categorization schemes? - Eric talk 18:05, 3 August 2008 (UTC) reply
I see no previously-existing category schemes that categorize things begun on Tuesdays or begun on any other day of the week. You're proposing a hypothetical with no basis in reality. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:46, 3 August 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Try as I may, I just can't get too excited about this or see it as overcategorization. I don't think it "clutters" WP needlessly; the fact is, history is long and complex and quite cluttered itself — every decade and every year had a lot of stuff going on. This looks like one attempt to bring some sort of organization to things in religion that went on that decade. In short, I just don't see it as a problem, and though WP perhaps has not done this before, I see no reason that creator should not be permitted to have done so. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:05, 2 August 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Comment (And noting that a note was left on my talk page concerning this.) - The main point that concerns me in the discussion above is a fair one: the presumption of a specific year may not be accurate. However, as I believe was noted by Good Olfactory, we have the option of by decade and by century as well. Also, one thing that should be clarified is what an "organisation" is in terms of categorisation in these categories. As noted above, an individual abbey may be an individual "organisation", but it may actually be a part of a religious organisation. This should be clarified, else these categories should all be deleted due to vague inclusion criteria. And I think more discussion would be a good thing : ) - jc37 10:08, 2 August 2008 (UTC) reply
  • keep Category is correctly named by WP decade naming standards and contains articles that match the category name. They are 'religiuos organizations' as found by reading the articles and the common meaning of these two words. Hmains ( talk) 17:03, 2 August 2008 (UTC) reply
Giving this only a tiny bit of thought, I would suggest that establishment would be a better general term than organization for an abbey. - Eric talk 18:05, 3 August 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Keep -- My first reaction was to vote for upmerge, but the century category is a large one and can legitimately be split inot decades. However, single year categories should be avoided, as they are unlikely to be adequately populated. Peterkingiron ( talk) 00:01, 6 August 2008 (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:Kentucky painters

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: upmerge per nom. Kbdank71 12:51, 7 August 2008 (UTC) reply
Suggest merging Category:Kentucky painters to Category:Kentucky artists and Category:American painters
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge, overcategorization by location. This is the only state-specific subdivision of Category:American painters and the only subdivision of Category:Kentucky artists. Postdlf ( talk) 19:48, 1 August 2008 (UTC) reply
  • merge per nom which seems reasonable, given the existing category structure Hmains ( talk) 16:55, 2 August 2008 (UTC) reply
  • merge per nom Johnbod ( talk) 19:24, 3 August 2008 (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:Forested Areas in Oregon

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. Kbdank71 12:50, 7 August 2008 (UTC) reply
Category:Forested Areas in Oregon ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Vague, unnecessary category. Katr67 ( talk) 06:28, 1 August 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Delete or merge into Category:Forests of Oregon. Far too ambiguous or subjective of a category to be useful. Though at the very least, needs a rename to Category:Forested areas in Oregon. Aboutmovies ( talk) 07:01, 1 August 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Delete or merge per above. Unless "Forested Area" is some sort of official designation, this sort of naming invites subjectivity. Daniel Case ( talk) 20:26, 1 August 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Apparently this is for areas that are "rich in forest, but aren't classified as forests." What, you think that isn't precise? Delete or merge. Postdlf ( talk) 20:27, 1 August 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Not only is there no usable definition for the term "forested", there's also no definition for what constitutes an "area" -- so would this include, for example, a neighborhood, or a small island, or a particular hill? Notified creator with {{ subst:cfd-notify}} Cgingold ( talk) 23:08, 1 August 2008 (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:TV Asia shows

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. Kbdank71 12:50, 7 August 2008 (UTC) reply
Suggest merging Category:TV Asia shows to Category:TV Asia television series
Nominator's rationale: to harmonise with others in it's category ChiragPatnaik ( talk) 05:42, 1 August 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Rename per nom, seems simple enough. Keeper ǀ 76 20:22, 1 August 2008 (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:SAB TV Shows

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. Kbdank71 12:50, 7 August 2008 (UTC) reply
Propose renaming Category:SAB TV Shows to Category:SAB TV television series
Nominator's rationale: to harmonise with others in it's category ChiragPatnaik ( talk) 05:41, 1 August 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Rename per nom. Seems simple enough. Keeper ǀ 76 20:21, 1 August 2008 (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:Zee TV shows

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. The others in Television series by network should probably be renamed one way or the other for consistency, but that is out of the scope of this discussion. Kbdank71 12:49, 7 August 2008 (UTC) reply
Propose renaming Category:Zee TV shows to Category:Zee TV television series
Nominator's rationale: to harmonise with others in it's category ChiragPatnaik ( talk) 05:40, 1 August 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Rename per nom, seems simple enough. Keeper ǀ 76 20:22, 1 August 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: it looks like most members of Television series by network currently use the word "shows", but if they should all be changed (or just this one should, for reasons of its own) that's fine. Lenoxus " * " 01:54, 2 August 2008 (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:The Sarah Jane Adventures companions

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. Kbdank71 12:46, 7 August 2008 (UTC) reply
Category:The Sarah Jane Adventures companions ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete: This newly created category is largely redundant with Category:The Sarah Jane Adventures characters, and uses a term ("companions") which is used by reliable sources in relation to Doctor Who, but not in relation to The Sarah Jane Adventures. Prior discussion at the Doctor Who WikiProject favored deletion. — Josiah Rowe ( talk • contribs) 03:40, 1 August 2008 (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 trans

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: Out of process, but it did end with one category from three (Intersexuals and Transgendered people were already deleted as of this close), so keep. Kbdank71 12:45, 7 August 2008 (UTC) reply
Category:Fictional transgender, transsexual and intersex people ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Fictional intersexuals ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Fictional transgendered people ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Do something - these categories intertwine and overlap and fracture a small population of articles. There is no need for three separate categories so we need to decide what the category should be. I have no strong opinion. Otto4711 ( talk) 01:32, 1 August 2008 (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.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_August_1&oldid=1138389636"