|
[[Image:Mary-queen-of-scots full.jpg|thumb|200px|The Ridolfi plot was meant to put Mary Stewart on the throne of England.]]
{{Shortcut|[[WP:CFD]]}}
The '''Ridolfi plot''' was a [[Roman Catholic]] plot in [[1570]] to assassinate [[Elizabeth I of England|Queen Elizabeth I of England]] and replace her with [[Mary I of Scotland]]. The plot was hatched and planned by [[Roberto di Ridolfi]], who, an international banker, was able to travel between [[Brussels]], [[Rome]] and [[Madrid]] to gather support without attracting too much suspicion.
See [[Wikipedia:Categories for deletion policies]] for the official rules of this page, and how to do cleanup.
{{Deletiontools}}
== Background ==
The Duke of Norfolk, a cousin to the Queen and wealthiest landowner in the country, had been proposed as a possible husband for Mary ever since her imprisonment in 1568. This suited Norfolk who had greater ambitions and felt Elizabeth persistently undervalued him.<ref>Williams, Neville, ''The Life and Times of Elizabeth I'', (Book Club Associates, 1972), pg 91.</ref> In pursuit of this, he agreed to support the [[Northern Rebellion]], though quickly lost his nerve and tried to call it off. However, the rebellion was not under his control and went ahead anyway, with the Northern earls trying to foment rebellion among their Catholic subjects to prepare for a Catholic Spanish invasion by the [[Fernando Álvarez de Toledo, 3rd Duke of Alba|Duke of Alba]], governor of the [[Netherlands]].<ref>Starkey, David, ''Elizabeth I: Apprenticeship'', (Vintage, 2001), pg 322.</ref>
==How to use this page==
#Know if the category you are looking at needs deleting (or being created). If it is a "red link" and has no articles or subcategories, then it is already deleted (more likely, it was never really created in the first place), and does not need to be listed here.
#'''Read and understand [[Wikipedia:Categorization]] before using this page.''' Nominate categories that violate policies there, or are misspelled, mis-capitalized, redundant/need to be merged, not NPOV, small without potential for growth, or are generally bad ideas.
# Please read the new policy at [[Wikipedia:Categorization of people]] if nominating or voting on a people-related category.
#'''Unless the category to be deleted is non-controversial – vandalism or a duplicate, for example – please do not depopulate the category (remove the tags from articles) before the community has made a decision.'''
#<b>Add</b> the name of the new category and <b><nowiki>{{cfd}}</nowiki></b> to the category page for deletion. This will add a message to it, and also put the page you are nominating into [[:Category:Categories for deletion]]. It's important to do this to help alert people who are watching or browsing the category.
# Add new deletion candidates under the appropriate day '''near the top of this page'''.
#'''Make sure''' you add a colon (''':''') in the link to the category being listed, like <nowiki>[[:Category:Foo]]</nowiki>. This makes the category link a hard link which can be seen on the page (and avoids putting this page into the category you are nominating).
#'''Sign any listing or vote''' you make by typing <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki> after your text.
#'''Link both categories to delete and categories to merge into.''' Failure to do this will delay consideration of your suggestion.
After the rebellion failed, the leaders were executed and a purge of Catholic sympathisers in the priesthood carried out. Norfolk was imprisoned in the [[Tower of London]] for nine months and only freed under house arrest when he confessed all and begged for mercy.<ref>Williams, ''Life and Times'', pg 101-2.</ref> Pope [[Pius V]] issued [[Regnans in Excelsis]], a [[papal bull]] excommunicating Elizabeth, shortly afterwards, which commanded all faithful Catholics to do all they could to depose her, though the majority of Engish Catholics ignored the bull.<ref>Dures, Alan, ''English Catholicism, 1558-1642'', (Longman, 1983), pg 17.</ref> In response, Elizabeth became much harsher to Catholics and their sympathisers.<ref>Starkey, ''Elizabeth I'', pg 322.</ref>
we love you arsenal we do
==Special notes==
Some categories may be listed in [[:Category:Categories for deletion]] but accidently not listed here.
== Plot ==
Old discussions from this page have been archived to:
* [[/resolved]]
* [[/unresolved]]
[[Roberto Ridolfi]], a Florentine banker and ardent Catholic, had been involved in the planning of the Northern rebellion, had been plotting to overthrow Elizabeth as early as 1569.<ref>Elton G.R., ''England under the Tudors'', (University Paperback, 1978), pg 297.</ref> Observing the failure of the rebellion, he came to the conclusion that only foreign intervention could restore Catholicism and bring Mary to the throne, and began to contact potential conspirators. Mary's advisor, [[John Lesley]], the [[Bishop of Ross]], gave his assent to the plot as the only way to free Mary.<ref>Williams, ''Life and Times'', pg 102-3.</ref> The plan was to have the Duke of Alba invade from the Netherlands with 10,000 men, foment a rebellion of the northern English nobility, murder Elizabeth, and marry Mary to [[Thomas Howard, 4th Duke of Norfolk]]. Ridolfi optimistically estimated half of all English peers were Catholic, and could muster in excess of 39,000 men.<ref>Williams, ''Life and Times'', pg 102.</ref> Norfolk gave verbal assurances to Ridolfi that he was Catholic, though as a pupil of [[John Foxe]], he remained a Protestant all his life.<ref>Dures, ''English Catholicism'', pg 17.</ref><ref>Lockyer, Roger, ''Tudor and Stuart Britain, 1417-1714'', (Longman, 1964), pg 186.</ref> Both Mary and Norfolk, desperate to remedy their respective situations, agreed to the plot.<ref>Jenkins, Elizabeth, ''Elizabeth the Great'', (Phoenix Press, 1958), pg 176.</ref> With their blessing, Ridolfi set off to the continent to gain Alba, Pius V and King Philip II's support.
In light of various new policies, some [[/unresolved]] disputes will be re-listed here in the near future.
However, the Duke of Alba feared that if the plot should be successful, it would lead to Mary, Queen of Scots, a former Queen of France whose mother was a member of the prominent [[Guise]] family, occupying the throne of England. The consequence of this would be an England wedded to Mary's beloved France, an outcome which the Spanish feared.
See also meta-discussion going on at [[Wikipedia talk:Categories for deletion phrases]] regarding the content of the <nowiki>{{cfd}}</nowiki> template, and about advisory/non-advisory phrases to be used on this "Categories for deletion" page.
==November 10Discovery==
In 1571, Elizabeth's intelligence network was sending her information about a plot against her life. She was also sent a private warning by the Grand Duke of Tuscany, who had learned of the plot against her. William Cecil Charles Baillie, Ridolfi's messenger, was arrested at [[Dover, England|Dover]] carrying compromising letters, and revealed the existence of the plot under [[torture]]. The Duke of Norfolk was arrested on [[September 7]], [[1571]] and sent to the tower.<ref>Weir, ''Mary, Queen of Scots'', pg 493.</ref> Guerau de Spes, the Spanish ambassador, was expelled from the country in [[January]], [[1571]].<ref>Jenkins, ''Elizabeth the Great'', pg 179.</ref> Ridolfi was still abroad at the time the plot was discovered, and never returned to England, becoming a Florentine senator in 1600.
===[[:Category:Crime victims]]===
Only used for murder victims, redundant with [[:Category:Murder victims]] [[User:Susvolans|Susvolans]] 17:36, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Mary, when questioned, admitted to having dealings with Ridolfi, but denied any involvement with the plot.<ref>Weir, ''Mary, Queen of Scots'', pg 493.</ref> She was clearly implicated by the evidence, but Elizabeth refused to have her executed and vetoed a bill by Parliament that condemned Mary and removed her from the succession.<ref>Smith, A. G. R., ''The Government of Elizabethan England'', (Edward Arnold, 1967), pg 28.</ref> She feared that by executing a [[Divine Right of Kings|divinely appointed]] monarch, she undermined her own position.<ref>Lockyer, ''Tudor and Stuart Britain'', pg 190.</ref> Instead, she had the Duke of Norfolk executed for treason in [[June]], [[1571]].<ref>T.A.Morris, ''Europe and England in the Sixteenth Century'', (Routledge 1998), p334</ref> However, Mary's status in England was transformed from honoured guest to treasonous pariah, and she was universally condemned by the governing elite:<ref>Morris, ''Europe and England'', p334</ref> her continued conspiring, especially in the [[Babington plot|Babington]] plot, eventually led to her execution on [[February 8]], [[1587]].<ref>Weir, Alison, ''Mary, Queen of Scots and the Murder of Lord Darnley'', (Pimlico, 2004), pg 509.</ref>
===[[:Category:Honda Engines]]===
Bad capitalization - replaced with [[:Category:Honda engines]].--[[User:Sfoskett|SFoskett]] 15:03, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)
A very fictionalised version of the Ridolfi plot was featured in the movie ''[[Elizabeth (film)|Elizabeth (1998)]]'' which depicted Thomas Howard, the Duke of Norfolk, as the chief conspirator. However the film omitted the involvement of Ridolfi himself.
===Kazakhstan===
[[:Category:Kazakhstani people]] duplicates [[:Category:Kazakh people]] and
[[:Category:Kakazh people by occupation]] duplicates [[:Category:Kazakh people by occupation]]. [[User:Susvolans|Susvolans]] 11:06, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
===Towns of...=See also ==
*[[:Category:Towns_of_Connecticut]]
*[[:Category:Towns_of_Rhode_Island]]
These should follow the "Towns in..." convention for US states. -- [[User:Beland|Beland]] 06:25, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
* [[Throckmorton plot]]
===[[:Category:Fictional places]]===
* [[Babington plot]]
Redundant with [[:category:fictional locations]], and currently a redirect but category redirects effectively don't work. -- [[User:Rick Block|Rick Block]] 02:17, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
* [[Francis Walsingham]]
== References ==
===[[:Category:Computer workstations]]===
Argh, I was too quick with this one -- realised a couple of minutes later that [[:Category:Workstations]] was a better name for the cat ... --[[User:Wernher|Wernher]] 23:05, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
<div class="references-small" style="-moz-column-count:2; column-count:2;">
==November 9==
<references/></div>
== External links ==
===[[:Category:Programming language articles]]===
Redundant with the subcategorised and more comprehensive [[:Category:Programming languages]], which oddly is a parent of this one. -- [[User:Smjg|Smjg]] 16:57, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
* [http://www.marie-stuart.co.uk/England.htm Marie Stuart Society's account of the Ridolfi plot].
==November 8==
* [http://www.gunpowder-plot.org/ridolfi.asp The Gunpowder Plot Society's account of the Ridolfi plot].
* [http://www.elizabethi.org/uk/chronology/two.html Timeline of Elizabeth's reign from 1570 to 1603].
===[[:Category:The Get-Up Kids albums1570]]===
[[Category:Tudor rebellions]]
Mis-punctuated title. I already moved the one article to the corrected category. [[User:Lachatdelarue|Lachatdelarue [[User talk:Lachatdelarue|(talk)]]]] 14:58, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
[[de:Ridolfi-Verschwörung]]
===Misc naval ships===
* [[:Category:Russian naval submarines]] — duplicate of [[:Category:Russian Navy submarines]].
* [[:Category:Russian naval ships]] — duplicate of [[:Category:Russian Navy ships]]
* [[:Category:Soviet naval ships]] — duplicate of [[:Category:Soviet Navy ships]]
* [[:Category:US naval ships]] and [[:Category:U.S. Navy ships]] — duplicates of [[:Category:United States Navy ships]]
[[User:Gdr|Gdr]] 00:17, 2004 Nov 9 (UTC)
===[[:Category:Americans by national origin]]===
Redundant with [[:Category:American people by national origin]]. -- [[User:Rick Block|Rick Block]] 15:43, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
===[[:Category:Engine]]===
Rendundant & non-plural form of the [[:Category:Engines]]category should be removed. I've migrated the few child articles to their proper parents.--[[User:Hooperbloob|Hooperbloob]] 02:04, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
===[[:Category:U.S. Marine Corps]]===
Redundant sub-category of [[:Category:United States Marine Corps]]. -[[User:Aranel|[[User:Aranel|Aranel]] ("[[User:Aranel/Sarah|Sarah]]")]] 01:45, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
===[[:Category:Virtual pet games]]===
Redundant category with only one member. The more populated [[:Category:Virtual pets]] should be used instead. [[User:Norm|Norman Rogers]] 01:16, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
==November 7==
===[[:Category:Bond]]===
[[:Category:Bond]] should be renamed to its plural form, ''Bonds''--[[User:Hooperbloob|Hooperbloob]] 19:32, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
===[[:Category:recursion theory]]===
[[:Category:recursion theory]] should be merged with [[:Category:computability]]. I think both categories describe the same topic. According to my knowledge recursion theory is the old term used to describe computability and computable function due to historic reasons (computability defined as [[recursive function]]s). [[Computability]] is the current and more suggestive term.
I did not know of this page so I already depopulated the page and deleted the content. If the category is not deleted I will try to revert my changes.[[User:MathMartin|MathMartin]] 16:34, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
===Military equipment===
I'm not sure whether these childless orphans should be deleted...these categories seem to be in a state of flux. -- [[User:Beland|Beland]] 09:50, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
* [[:Category:American_tanks_(1940-1949)]] -> [[:Category:American_tanks]]
* [[:Category:Argentine_tanks]] -> Unused
* [[:Category:German_tanks_(1930-1939)]] -> [[:Category:World War II German tanks]]
* [[:Category:German_tanks_(1940-1949)]] -> [[:Category:World War II German tanks]]
* [[:Category:Supertanks]] -> [[:Category:Super-heavy_tanks]]
* [[:Category:Tanks_(1930-1939)]] -> [[:Category:World_War_II_tanks]]
* [[:Category:Tanks_(1940-1949)]] -> [[:Category:World_War_II_tanks]]
* [[:Category:World_War_II_American_tanks]] -> [[:Category:World War II American armored fighting vehicles]]
* [[:Category:World_War_II_British_tanks]] -> [[:Category:World_War_II_British_armored_fighting_vehicles]]
* [[:Category:World_War_II_French_tanks]] -> [[:Category:World War II French armored fighting vehicles]]
* [[:Category:World_War_II_Soviet_assault_guns]] -> [[:Category:World_War_II_Soviet_infantry_weapons]]
* [[:Category:World_War_II_assault_guns]] -> [[:Category:World War II infantry weapons]]
The problem with the above is that there are two competing philosophies about how to categorise militairy equipment at the moment. The first one insists on categorising by decade, the second one, which has my favour, has been arguing that it is pointless splitting World War II German tanks per decade, rather than include them all in a [[:Category:World War II German tanks]]. Some discussion of this problem has been posted to [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Weaponry]]. I would suggest leaving these categories alone for the moment
--[[User:Martin Wisse|Martin Wisse]] 07:46, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
==November 6==
===[[:Category:United States third political parties]] and [[:Category:United States minor political parties]]===
Strongly POV to separate these articles from the two "major" parties. Should be moved to [[:Category:United States political parties]]. [[User:Sarge Baldy|Sarge Baldy]] 15:11, Nov 6, 2004 (UTC)
:second the notion, third is just wrong (as there are over a hundred of them in the US) and minor (implies these parties opinions are less valid than the big two). [[User:Alkivar|Alkivar]] 02:56, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
::Not so much less valid as just less accepted. But because there are only two major parties I don't see any reason they can't all appear in the more generic "United States political parties". —[[User:Moverton|Mike]] 10:19, Nov 7, 2004 (UTC)
:I agree delete and move all to [[:Category:United States political parties]]. History has shown that the "main" parties do change...Vote in Whigs 2008! [[User:Ht1848|Ht1848]] 00:39, 2004 Nov 8 (UTC)
==November 5==
===[[:Category:Gulf states]]===
There is already a [[:Category:Persian Gulf states]], and the term [[Gulf states]] is ambiguous, as the corresponding article explains. [[User:Quadell|<nowiki></nowiki>]] – [[User:Quadell|'''Q'''uadell]] <sup>([[User_talk:Quadell|talk]]) ([[User:Quadell/Request for assistance|help]])</sup>[[<nowiki></nowiki>]] 19:34, Nov 5, 2004 (UTC)
===[[:Category:Chantal Kreviazuk albums]]===
*Perhaps the Beatles or the Beach Boys albums would merit a category, but does this? [[User:PedanticallySpeaking|PedanticallySpeaking]] 19:11, Nov 5, 2004 (UTC)
*Keep. Makes the albums reachable from [[:category:albums by artist]]. -- [[User:Rick Block|Rick Block]] 17:02, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
*'''Keep'''. It defeats the purpose of [[:Category:Albums by artist]] if album articles are wilfully left out of it. - 18:56, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC) [[User:ScudLee|Lee]] [[User Talk:ScudLee|<small>(talk)</small>]]
*Keep for above reasons. [[User:Tim Ivorson|Tim Ivorson]] 00:08, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' [[User:DCEdwards1966|DCEdwards1966]] 12:10, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC)
==November 4==
===[[:Category:Airports of Georgia, US State]]===
superseded by [[:Category:Airports of Georgia (U.S. state)]] [[User:Burgundavia|Burgundavia]] 18:26, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)
===[[:Category:Fantasy writers/to do]]===
Created in a misguided attempt to make it easier to navigate from [[Category talk:Fantasy writers/to do]] to [[:Category:Fantasy writers]]. Sole content was
#REDIRECT [[:Category:Fantasy writers]]
but the REDIRECT fails to operate. If the first colon is removed it appears as a sub-category.
Sorry. --[[User:Phil Boswell|Phil]] | [[User talk:Phil Boswell|Talk]] 14:45, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)
*Forgot to mention: '''very important ''not''''' to delete the associated [[Category talk:Fantasy writers/to do|talk page]]. --[[User:Phil Boswell|Phil]] | [[User talk:Phil Boswell|Talk]] 14:51, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)
==November 3==
===[[:Category:Ashlee Simpson albums]]===
She has only one album, so this category is useless, and I refuse to allow the article [[Autobiography (album)]] to be so ridiculously categorized (as has been attempted before). [[User:Everyking|Everyking]] 20:35, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)
*Agreed. Delete. [[User:Lowellian|<nowiki></nowiki>]]—[[User:Lowellian|Lowellian]] ([[User talk:Lowellian|talk]])[[<nowiki></nowiki>]] 12:45, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)
*Keep. How is it ''ridiculous'' to categorize [[Autobiography (album)]] in this category (which makes it findable starting from [[:category:albums by artist]])? [[User:Rick Block|Rick Block]] 14:55, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
**Because she only has one album and this category, by its very title, implies she has more than one, thus misleading the reader. [[User:Everyking|Everyking]] 15:07, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
***The naming convention for list categories is to use the plural form ([[WP:CG#Special conventions for lists]]). I wasn't in on the creation of this convention but I suspect the point is to accommodate categories with one or more entries, i.e. the category name should be understood as [[:category:Ashlee Simpson album(s)]]. -- [[User:Rick Block|Rick Block]] 04:50, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
****Well then, I suppose we'll just keep a category that isn't categorizing anything. I suppose eventually she'll have a second album and then it will serve a purpose. [[User:Everyking|Everyking]] 04:49, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' and more importantly '''re-add''' to ''[[Autobiography (album)|Autobiography]]'' (regardless of Everykings "refusal"). It defeats the purpose of [[:Category:Albums by artist]] if album articles are wilfully left out of it. - 18:56, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC) [[User:ScudLee|Lee]] [[User Talk:ScudLee|<small>(talk)</small>]]
**Well, you try it, then. I suppose you think you can just dictate categorization, but I won't accept useless, misleading categories being added to articles I work on. [[User:Everyking|Everyking]] 20:32, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
***Please don't make this ugly. I've voted keep, you've voted delete, that's all. Nobody is trying to dictate anything. Implicit in any keep vote is that the category should be used, I only stated it explicitly because your last comment seemed to ignore the implicitness in [[User:Rick Block|Rick Block]]'s vote. You are not the sole arbiter of what is and isn't useful, and if there is a consensus to keep ''and use'' this category, then I trust you will respect that. - 22:00, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC) [[User:ScudLee|Lee]] [[User Talk:ScudLee|<small>(talk)</small>]]
*Keep. It's good for [[:category:albums by artist]]. [[User:Tim Ivorson|Tim Ivorson]] 00:13, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
**Which is more important: categorizing, or properly informing the reader? Because if we include this category, we are effectively including a falsehood in the article. [[User:Everyking|Everyking]] 02:44, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
*Keep. Disagree that applying the category includes a falsehood. It's an Ashlee Simpson album, so it should go in the category called "Ashlee Simpson albums". [[User:Rhobite|Rhobite]] 02:57, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC)
**''Albums'' doesn't imply to you "more than one album"? Because it sure does to me. Moreover, I think people are carrying categories way too far when they feel they have to categorize things even when only one of them exists. [[User:Everyking|Everyking]] 02:54, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
***No, I don't think most people would assume the plural means there's more than one. It's simply a naming convention for categories. It's better to categorize now than later, and it's better to have the names consistent. And I also think you're underestimating the benefit of categories for purposes such as extraction and visualization. [[User:Rhobite|Rhobite]] 02:59, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' and use [[User:DCEdwards1966|DCEdwards1966]] 12:13, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC)
*'''Keep'''—I think it's proper to have categories that will ''eventually'' be filled. For example, we have a category for Secretaries of the U.S. Dept. of Homeland Security even though thus far there has only been one, because we know there will be more, and there will likely be more Ashlee Simpson albums. If she were to die tomorrow, however, tragically cutting short her glorious career, the category should be deleted. [[User:Postdlf|Postdlf]] 00:41, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
**OK, well, I don't agree with you, but the consensus seems pretty clear that we ought to have the category, so I'll drop it. [[User:Everyking|Everyking]] 03:15, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
==November 1==
===[[:Category:State parks in the United States]]===
A duplicate of [[:Category:U.S. state parks]], which is to be preferred for brevity and format (in parallel with its subcategories, e.g., [[:Category:Idaho state parks]], etc. -- [[User:Decumanus|Decumanus]] 17:51, 2004 Nov 1 (UTC)
===[[:Category:BBS software]] and [[:Category:BBS]]===
Unnecessary abbreviation, the proper categories are [[:Category:Bulletin board system software]] and [[:Category:Bulletin board systems]]. [[User:Rhobite|Rhobite]] 02:57, Nov 1, 2004 (UTC)
:better known by the abbreviation BBS than "Bulletin Board System" (3 720 000 results) vs "BBS" (32 300 000 results) which is the case in some rare cases like "NASA" for example [[User:Alkivar|Alkivar]] 03:30, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
::I also think ''BBS'' is more clear than ''Bulletin Board System'' for general consumption [[User:132.205.45.148|132.205.45.148]] 15:46, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
::See RAM (20,300,000 on google) vs. Random Access Memory (400,000 on google) for precedent. Even though "RAM" is more widely used, the article here is [[Random access memory]]. This isn't a jargon file, we should not use initialisms. This especially applies to categories, which are self-descriptive. [[User:Rhobite|Rhobite]] 18:17, Nov 5, 2004 (UTC)
===[[:Category:States of Brazil]] vs [[:Category:Political divisions of Brazil]]===
These categories are almost the same: the only political division which isn't a state is the Federal District. Both categories are populated. I'd be happy to merge the contents to one or the other if I could get some guidance here which way to go.-[[User:Gadfium|gadfium]] 00:33, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
* You might just follow the convention of [[:Category:Political divisions of the United States]] and make one a subcategory of the other. -- [[User:Beland|Beland]] 10:00, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
===[[:Category:World_War_II_stub]]===
Has not expanded since its creation. --[[User:AllyUnion|[[User:AllyUnion|AllyUnion]] [[User talk:AllyUnion|(talk)]]]] 05:40, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
===[[:Category:World War II equipment stub]]===
Same reason as [[:Category:World_War_II_stub]]. --[[User:AllyUnion|[[User:AllyUnion|AllyUnion]] [[User talk:AllyUnion|(talk)]]]] 05:43, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
* This should be merged with [[:Category:World War II stub]] if anything. Thus the decision solely remains with the former category. [[User:132.205.15.4|132.205.15.4]] 01:59, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
==October 31==
===[[:Category:Gods]] and [[:Category:Goddesses]] ===
These should be merged into [[:Category:Deities]] (and then probably sub-categories by type, affiliation, or whatever, due to the sheer number of members) for the following reasons:
* The new policy on [[Wikipedia:Categorization of people]] prefers gender-neutral category names. (This example was specifically mentioned on [[Wikipedia talk:Categorization of people]].)
* They are of themselves too big to be much more useful than an uncategorized [[:Category:Deities]] itself.
* Cross-referencing all subcategories of [[:Category:Deities]] by gender is too messy.
* The gender classification of some deities is ambiguous or otherwise problematic.
-- [[User:Beland|Beland]] 23:48, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
* Excellent reasons. Delete. [[User:VeryVerily|Very]][[User talk:VeryVerily|<font color=green>Verily</font>]] 03:20, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
*I'm against gender-categories for real individuals, but in the case of deities I think it makes sense. Gender was such a defining characteristic of the characters and forces in mythology that it makes sense to classify them as such. Male and female were very different powers from one another. [[User:Postdlf|Postdlf]] 03:45, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
*Why not just have a third category for ''Godlings of indeterminate gender, intersexed, or alternate non-male, non-female gender'' [[User:132.205.15.4|132.205.15.4]] 23:20, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
*Keep as is. Deleting these will just end up cluttering Deities. [[User:Alkivar|Alkivar]] 02:10, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)
*Merge into relevant subcategories and delete. I don't see how this would create clutter, rather than clearing it up. -[[User:Gtrmp|Sean Curtin]] 04:18, Nov 3, 2004 (UTC)
:perhaps because everyone wants to merge it into the parent group Deities of which Gods/Goddesses are sub-groups? [[User:Alkivar|Alkivar]] 03:31, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
::To be clear, these deities shouldn't be just dumped at the top level. That would certainly be cluttered. They should be re-sorted not by gender, but by type or mythology and whatnot, since there are other deities that are already sorted that way. -- [[User:Beland|Beland]]
:::Exactly. I thought that that would have been obvious upon looking at the current categorization hierarchy. The only individual articles in these two categories are [[God]], [[Goddess]] and a few articles with no obvious specific parent categories beyond these two. -[[User:Gtrmp|Sean Curtin]] 04:10, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)
:'''Merge'''--[[User:Yoshiah ap|Josiah]] 14:48, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Postdlf is right. Alternately God is a generic term including both, as Man means the entire human race so if merged it should be into Gods (deity is a clumsy word & is not the first choice people looking for gods or indeed goddesses will type in anyway).
Neil Craig
Whether it is the word people would be looking for is not as important for categories. Anyone who is not familiar with Wikipedia is unlikely to type in "Category:Gods", but if they do, they can still navigate to [[:Category:Deities]] very easily from that page and the notice at the top should explain clearly what is going on.
How about this scheme?
[[:Category:Deities]]
[[:Category:Deities by association]]
[[:Category:Deities by culture]]
[[:Category:Deities by gender]]
[[:Category:Gods]]
[[:Category:Goddesses]]
[[:Category:Fictional deities]]
[[:Category:Singular God]]
The sub-categories of these could all be broken into gods and goddesses (as is the current system), which would also go into the Gods/Goddesses parent categories. Thus there would still be a lot of dual categorization of sub-categories (but not so much of articles), but I don't really have any problem with having parallel distinct categorization schemes. This would make it easy for folks to browse deities by association/type, culture of origin, ''or'' gender. We could introduce a third "by gender" category for cases where the gender is ambiguous. -[[User:Aranel|[[User:Aranel|Aranel]] ("[[User:Aranel/Sarah|Sarah]]")]] 18:03, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
===[[:Category:Strongly-typed programming languages]] and [[:Category:Weakly-typed programming languages]]===
These two categories are fundamentally bad ideas for the reason that you could make an argument for almost any programming language that it is strongly-typed ''and'' that it is weakly-typed. See the [[strongly-typed programming language]] article for why this is so. These categories should not exist, and therefore should be deleted. (Judging from their comments on [[Category talk:Weakly-typed programming languages]], users [[User:K.lee|K.lee]] and [[User:Danakil|Danakil]] agree with me on this.) [[User:Lowellian|<nowiki></nowiki>]]—[[User:Lowellian|Lowellian]] ([[User talk:Lowellian|talk]])[[<nowiki></nowiki>]] 18:14, Oct 31, 2004 (UTC)
===[[:Category:Observer's 50 Funniest]]===
Far too specific, a contest in one year run by one newspaper in one country. Replaced by article [[Observer's 50 funniest]]. [[User:Riddley|Riddley]] 00:39, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
==October 24==
===[[:Category:Nigerian political parties]]===
===[[:Category:Nigerese political parties]]===
*should be [[:Category:Nigerien political parties]] if anything; "Nigerese" isn't a word. And the cat only contains [[List of political parties in Niger|a list]], which is just redlinks. --[[User:Whosyourjudas|Whosyourjudas]] [[User talk:Whosyourjudas|(talk)]] 03:13, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
** ''Niger'' vs ''Nigeria'', how do you keep them separate? Should be '''Political parties of Nigeria''' and '''Political parties of Niger'''. [[User:132.205.15.42|132.205.15.42]] 17:51, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
***"Nigeri''e''n" for "of Niger" and "Nigeri''a''n" for "of Nigeria". But your suggestion also is great. --[[User:Whosyourjudas|Whosyourjudas]] [[User talk:Whosyourjudas|(talk)]] 03:27, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
****When I was 13, my father was the first American chief of diplomatic mission in Niamey (i.e., setting up the embassy before the arrival of our first ambassador). We all ran into this problem constantly. In French, it's properly ''nigérois'' (Niger) and "nigérien" (Nigeria); in English, we were using "Nigerese" (Niger) and "Nigerian" (Nigeria). — [[User:Bill Thayer|Bill]] 22:27, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
**** According to ''dictionary.com'' http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=nigerien Nigerien means the same as Nigerian, and pertains to Nigeria, so using the ''e'' is not clear. [[User:132.205.15.4|132.205.15.4]] 02:06, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
*****KEEP, but why not just change the name into Niger political parties and Nigeria political parties. This keeps the alphabetical order with the sister categories. --[[User:Wilfried Derksen|Gangulf]] 07:21, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
****** How about [[:Category:Niger's political parties]] [[:Category:Nigeria's political parties]] or [[:Category:Niger political parties]] [[:Category:Nigeria political parties]] then? ''Nigerien'' is just too fraught with ambiguity. [[User:132.205.45.148|132.205.45.148]] 15:52, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
*Delete or replace by a category political parties of Niger, as I thought was supposed to be the format? --[[User:Martin Wisse|Martin Wisse]] 07:38, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
===[[:Category:US-Iraqi relations]]===
rename [[:Category:U.S.-Iraqi relations]] per MoS. --[[User:Jiang|Jia]][[User talk:Jiang|'''ng''']] 02:13, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
===[[:Category:Defunct railroad companies of the United States]]===
Found linked to RfD, should be here. [[User:Jnc|Noel]] 00:09, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
*KEEP. There are hundreds of possible entries in here eventually. I can think of several that belong here: [[Little Miami Railroad]], [[Middletown and Cincinnati Railroad]], [[New York Central]], [[Pennsylvania Railroad]]. I know there is a category of defunct companies and perhaps it should be a sub-category of that. [[User:PedanticallySpeaking|PedanticallySpeaking]] 15:00, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)
*'''Keep'''--[[User:Yoshiah ap|Josiah]] 23:38, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
==October 23==
===[[:Category:Ohio county namesakes]]===
I think this is setting a bad precedent. If all the similar entities were to have such categories, then articles such as [[Andrew Jackson]], [[John Adams]], [[George Washington]], etc., will quickly become overwhelmed with categorizations that do little to enhance that article. This purpose is better served by a list article than a category. [[User:Bkonrad|older]]<font color=blue>'''≠'''</font>[[User talk:Bkonrad|wiser]] 18:59, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)
*'''DELETE''' with extreme, extreme, extreme prejudice. I agree entirely. Especially since I'm sure most states are likely to have a Washington County, an Adams County... Do we really want articles cluttered with 30 or so [[:Category [state] county namesakes]]? [[User:Postdlf|Postdlf]] 03:44, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
*KEEP. Aside from the Presidents, few of these are well known, e.g. [[Andrew Holmes]], [[William Crawford (soldier)]], or the captors of Andre ([[David Williams (soldier)]], [[Isaac Van Wart]], and [[John Paulding]]. The category shows connections between people that would not be obvious and I think it fascinating how things are connected. One could make the same argument as Bkonrad in re the births/deaths categories [[User:D6]] has been adding. They don't really contribute anything to the article, but it is interesting nonetheless to see who else is in that category. Does it contribute anything to know that Lincoln and Darwin or John Major and one of the Monty Python blokes (Eric Idle, I think) were born on the same day? Not really, but it's neat to know all the same. [[User:PedanticallySpeaking|PedanticallySpeaking]] 14:57, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)
**While I agree that the birth/death categories are largely tangential in the information provided about the subject, they have the saving virtue of being self-limiting. A person is born and dies only once. However, there are dozens, possibly hundreds, of sets of places that could claim Washington or Adams or Jefferson as a namesake. How many states have a county named for them? And then what is to stop someone from making a similar category for cities and townships and high schools. Where does it stop? [[User:Bkonrad|older]]<font color=blue>'''≠'''</font>[[User talk:Bkonrad|wiser]] 15:19, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)
*Delete before a large number of famous person articles get drowned in categories. [[User:Rmhermen|Rmhermen]] 22:57, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)
*Delete; this would be better served by a list or (better still) a series of lists. -[[User:Gtrmp|Sean Curtin]] 01:00, Oct 26, 2004 (UTC)
*Delete. Should be list. -- [[User:Decumanus|Decumanus]] 06:49, 2004 Oct 26 (UTC)
*A PROPOSAL: How about for the much-honored people such as [[George Washington]], the category tag go on one of the associated pages, e.g. [[List of places named for George Washington]], instead of the underlying article, so "famous person articles (are) drowned in categories"? Again, I would point out there are only a handful of people who would have many namesake counties and that most of the people, e.g. [[Samuel Finley Vinton]], are pretty obscure. [[User:PedanticallySpeaking|PedanticallySpeaking]] 15:37, Oct 26, 2004 (UTC)
:Delete [[:Category:Ohio county namesakes]], create single article [[Ohio counties/names]]; second [[User:PedanticallySpeaking|PS]]'s proposal. Each state would have its own article, members of say, [[:Category:U.S. toponymy]], in turn members of [[:Category:Toponymy]]. The actual subject is of interest, of course. — [[User:Bill Thayer|Bill]] 09:44, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
==October 22==
===[[:Category:GNU images]]===
The category name implies ''images from the GNU project'' but actually contained ''images licensed under GNU licences'' so I moved all the subcategories up to [[:Category:Free images]] and flagged this for deletion. [[User:Gdr|Gdr]] 13:02, 2004 Oct 22 (UTC)
===[[:Category:Other conditions that may be a focus of clinical attention]]===
Poor use of categories, vague and long name. Rename to "Miscellaneous disorders". -- [[User:Sj|+sj]][[User Talk:Sj|<font color="#ff6996">+</font>]] 12:17, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
*'''Rename''' I agree with Sj. This category name is too long. [[User:NeoJustin|NeoJustin]] 22:40 Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)
==October 21==
===[[:Category:Swiss people by occupation]]===
Redundant, use [[:Category:Swiss people]] instead. -- User:Docu
:Not at all redundant. By clearing the easy categories of "occupations" out of the way, we open up the capability of having the harder and equally useful [[:Category:Swiss people by period]], [[:Category:Swiss people by canton]], etc. The same goes for all the "people by occupation" categories, of course. Considering how far Wikipedia has come in so little time, this in turn by way of preparation for Categories like [[:Category: 18th-century painters from Zug]] which will allow researchers to zero in on things much better. (No, I haven't been creating any of these latter double-tiered cats yet.) — [[User:Bill Thayer|Bill]]
::It possible to create [[:Category:Swiss people by canton]] there without needing to subcategorize everything else. There isn't much need to create categories by period as we can select biographies based on years of birth/death. -- User:Docu
===[[:Category:Slovakian people]]===
Redundant with [[:Category:Slovak people]]. -- [[User:Rick Block|Rick Block]] 02:05, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
This has already been nominated. Delete [[:Category:Slovak people]] and keep
[[:Category:Slovakian people]], for my reason see further down the page.[[User:GordyB|GordyB]] 20:57, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
==October 19==
===[[:Category:Towns in Hungary]], [[:Category:Hungarian towns]]===
Obsolete, use [[:Category:Cities in Hungary]]. [[User:Markussep|Markussep]] 10:18, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
:Does Hungary not distinguish between towns and cities? In many places, putting a community called a "town" into the cities category would be factually incorrect. [[User:Aranel|[[User:Aranel|Aranel]] ("[[User:Aranel/Sarah|Sarah]]")]] 14:17, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Could someone please explain the justification for making Hungarian towns the same as cities? --[[User:Wayland|wayland]] 12:08, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
The distinction between towns and cities is an Anglo-Saxon thing. I doubt Hungarians make any such distinction.[[User:GordyB|GordyB]] 23:01, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
===[[:Category:Minister presidents of Turkey]]===
Empty orphan at this point. [[User:beland]] suggested on [[:Category:Orphaned categories]] using [[:Category:Turkish politicians]] instead, and all articles have apparently been moved. -- [[User:Rick Block|Rick Block]] 14:29, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
==October 18==
===[[:Category:Towns of England]], [[:Category:Towns of Yorkshire]], [[:Category:Towns of Wiltshire]], [[:Category:Towns of North Yorkshire]]===
Should be Towns ''in'', not ''of''. Almost all these categories have only one occupant. [[User:Warofdreams|Warofdreams]] 17:54, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
*Not surprising, people keep changing the county boundaries. If the regional assemblies bill gets through there will be no 'North Yorkshire' anyway.[[User:GordyB|GordyB]] 11:08, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
**Why would that make people use of instead of in? [[User:Warofdreams|Warofdreams]] 15:30, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
***Dunno that it applies to the Yorkshires, but what I found, by and large — there's always the exception — before I got started was "in" countries, "of" subnational entities. So I've been following that ever since: [[:Category:Towns in Italy]], [[:Category:Towns of Umbria]]. ''If there's an automated way of transferring them all to one or the other, that would get my vote.'' (Similarly for ''American'', ''United States'', and ''U.S.''; and ''X of Y'' vs. "Y-ian X".) — [[User:Bill Thayer|Bill]] 22:24, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I meant it's not surprising the category is empty. English countie aren't like American states with fixed borders. They are prone to being carved up and renamed every few years. I didn't see much point arguing about North Yorkshire towns when the county might have disappeared (looks like this won't happen). 'In' is better than 'of' [[User:GordyB|GordyB]] 23:01, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
*'''Delete'''. Replaced by Towns in North Yorkshire etc [[User:Knaggs|Jeff Knaggs]] 11:16, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
===[[:Category:Goddesses of hunting]], [[:Category:Celtic Goddesses]], [[:Category:Goddesses by type]]===
Should be [[:Category:Hunting goddesses]], [[:Category:Celtic goddesses]], [[:Category:Deities by association]]. [[User:Aranel|[[User:Aranel|Aranel]] ("[[User:Aranel/Sarah|Sarah]]")]] 17:52, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
: Shouldn't that be [[:Category:Goddesses of the hunt]]? ''Hunting goddesses'' a patron goddess of hunting need not actually hunt, while a hunting goddess, is a goddess that does hunting, and not necesarily the goddess of the hunt either. [[User:132.205.15.4|132.205.15.4]] 17:47, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
::Yes, that's more accurate. — [[User:Bill Thayer|Bill]] 10:17, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
::As a parallel to the other goddess categories ([[:Category:Sky and weather goddesses]], [[:Category:Lunar goddesses]], etc.), it's fairly clear that the intent is to imply goddesses associated with hunting. The adjectival forms work better for most of the other categories; can't there be goddesses who are associated with hunting but could not properly be called "goddess of the hunt"?. Although I didn't create any of these categories so I would not be heartbroken if the scheme were changed. [[User:Aranel|[[User:Aranel|Aranel]] ("[[User:Aranel/Sarah|Sarah]]")]] 03:36, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
:I think [[:Category:Goddesses by type]] should be kept to ease navigation. Take a look at [[:Category:Goddesses]]—the subcategories of goddesses by culture are mixed in with the subcategories of goddesses by type. Why not separate these out? [[User:Postdlf|Postdlf]] 03:52, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
===[[:Category:Olympic tennis players of India]]===
This is a very narrow category. There's not much potential for growth. I proposing to delete this category. [[User:Alren|Alren]] 22:54, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
*Delete [[:Category:Olympic_tennis_players_of_Switzerland]] as well. Empty since I removed Federer. -- User:Docu
==October 17==
===[[:Category:Icelandic people by occupation]]===
Redundant with [[:Category:Icelandic people]] -- User:Docu
:This is actually in keeping with other such categories (see [[:Category:American people by professions]]—whether it is profession or occupation seems to be somewhat random), although I admit that in this case it's unnecessary. [[User:Aranel|[[User:Aranel|Aranel]] ("[[User:Aranel/Sarah|Sarah]]")]] 12:43, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)
::I'm not sure if the other category is of much use either, I think it's rather the ones remaining in [[:Category:American_people]] that could use some grouping. -- User:Docu
<br>
'''Opose''' to delete both categories. How many Icelanders do you know? How many sagas? How many [[Settler|settlers]]? I am happy that I found this category. See [[Egill Skallagrímsson]]. [[User:Gangleri|Gangleri]] 19:30, 2004 Oct 31 (UTC)
:It's less a question about potential than about not being able to find the articles in too many layers of subcategories. (BTW in the meantime [[:Category:Icelandic people]] has 2nd direct subcategory). -- User:Docu
===Presidential redirects===
*[[:Category:U.S. presidential candidates]] -> [[:Category:United States presidential candidates]]
*[[:Category:United States Presidential Candidates]] -> [[:Category:United States presidential candidates]]
:The talk page discussions should be moved over, BTW, because they document the formation of the inclusion policy. -- [[User:Beland|Beland]] 03:45, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)
==October 16==
===[[:Category:US_naval_ships]]===
Seems to be redundant with [[:Category:United_States_Navy_ships]]. -- [[User:Beland|Beland]] 22:59, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)
:There's also [[:Category:U.S. Navy ships]]. I've been trying to figure this out (without much success) at [[Category talk:United States Navy ships]]. I think "United States Navy ships" is to be preferred. [[User:Aranel|[[User:Aranel|Aranel]] ("[[User:Aranel/Sarah|Sarah]]")]] 00:14, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)
::Unresolved; see [[Category talk:United States Navy ships]] and [[Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ships]]. -- [[User:Beland|Beland]] 02:06, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
===Problematic childless orphans===
Please help decide whether these childless orphans should be deleted; or kept, parented, and populated with articles. If you are voting to keep, please suggest a good parent category. -- [[User:Beland|Beland]] 22:59, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)
====People====
* [[:Category:Finns]]
**'''keep''' parent categories: [[:Category:People]] [[:Category:Finland]] [[User:Pedant|Pedant]] 02:41, 2004 Nov 9 (UTC)
**But see [[:Category:Finnish people]], which follows the conventions of [[:Category:People by nationality]]. Is "Finnish people" incorrect? [[User:Aranel|[[User:Aranel|Aranel]] ("[[User:Aranel/Sarah|Sarah]]")]] 03:48, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
* [[:Category:Foo_Fighters]]
**'''keep''' parent categories: [[:Category:American musical groups]] [[:Category:Grunge groups]] [[:Category:Rock music groups]] [[User:Pedant|Pedant]] 02:41, 2004 Nov 9 (UTC)
* [[:Category:Foo_Fighters_members]]
**'''keep''' parent:[[:Category:Foo_Fighters]] [[User:Pedant|Pedant]] 02:41, 2004 Nov 9 (UTC)
** See (4) [[:Category:Foo_Fighters_albums]]
***'''keep''' parent:[[:Category:Foo_Fighters]] [[User:Pedant|Pedant]] 02:41, 2004 Nov 9 (UTC)
* [[:Category:Global_Party_of_Canada_Leaders]]
* [[:Category:Heart_surgeons]]
* [[:Category:Health-care_providers]]
** See (23) [[:Category:Healthcare]]
** See (12) [[:Category:Healthcare_practitioners_and_technical_occupations]]
====Heavy Equipment====
* [[:Category:Aircraft_by_manufacturer]]
** See (25) [[:Category:Aircraft_manufacturers]]
** See (25) [[:Category:Aircraft]]
====Misc from 24 Sep 2004====
* [[:Category:Breweries]]
* [[:Category:Buildings_in_Haarlem]]
* [[:Category:Ceará_cities]]
* [[:Category:Ceramics]]
* [[:Category:Civilization]]
* [[:Category:Commonsense_philosophers]]
* [[:Category:Detective_fiction]]
* [[:Category:Digital_art]]
* [[:Category:English_pronounciation]]
* [[:Category:Free_radicals]]
* [[:Category:Governments]]
** See [[:Category:Government]], [[:Category:Government_of_Hawaii]], etc.
* [[:Category:Heart_cells]]
* [[:Category:Heart_tissue]]
** See (1) [[:Category:Heart]]
** See (5) [[:Category:Human_cells]]
** See [[:Category:Cardiovascular_system]]
* [[:Category:Houseboats]]
* [[:Category:Jazz_rap]]
** See (33) [[:Category:Jazz]]
* [[:Category:Long_distance_footpaths_in_the_UK]]
* [[:Category:Mechanical_failure_modes]]
* [[:Category:Menopause]]
* [[:Category:Mughal_Empire]]
* [[:Category:Museums_in_Columbus,_Ohio]]
** See (5) [[:Category:Museums_in_Ohio]]
* [[:Category:NASA_facilities_in_California]]
** See (15) [[:Category:NASA_facilities]]
* [[:Category:National_memorials_in_the_United_States]]
* [[:Category:Nestorianism]]
* [[:Category:ODP]]
* [[:Category:Pink_Floyd_Songs]]
** See (17) [[:Category:Pink_Floyd]]
** See (24) [[:Category:Pink_Floyd_albums]]
* [[:Category:Places]]
** See (4) [[:Category:Place_names]]
** See (4) [[:Category:Populated_places]]
* [[:Category:U.S._Marine_Corps_exercises]]
** See (1) [[:Category:U.S._Marine_Corps]]
* [[:Category:U.S._Marine_Corps_programs]]
** See (1) [[:Category:U.S._Marine_Corps]]
* [[:Category:U.S._Naval_history]]
** See [[:Category:United States Navy]]
====Misc from 2 Oct 2004====
* [[:Category:Dahomey_mythology]]
** See (19) [[:Category:Dahomey]]
* [[:Category:Districts_of_Uplandia]]
* [[:Category:French_resistance]]
** See (4) [[:Category:French_Resistance_members]]
* [[:Category:Gävleborg]]
** See (10) [[:Category:Municipalities_of_Gävleborg_County]]
===[[:Category:Art]]===
It boggles the mind that [[:Category:Arts]] and [[:Category:Art]] both exist, and that one is a subcategory of the other, but they both cover the territory of all art(s). Some people think of "visual art" when they say "art", so perhaps "arts" should be used to mean art-in-general, and "visual art" (not merely "art") to mean visual art. I therefore propose the following:
* Merge [[Arts]] into the contents and introductory text of [[:Category:Arts]] (redirecting there after the merge).
* Create [[:Category:Visual art]] under [[:Category:Arts]], and move appropriate subcategories and articles there.
* Merge [[:Category:Art]] into [[:Category:Arts]] and [[:Category:Visual art]] (redirecting to [[:Category:Arts]] after the merge).
-- [[User:Beland|Beland]] 21:44, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Also note reorganization discussion(s) on [[Category talk:Art]] which should be preserved if they have not been implemented. -- [[User:Beland|Beland]] 21:47, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)
'''Keep''' - I'm not surprised if you are confused, but it is probably best to leave alone. [[:Category:Art]] is in practice [[:Category:Visual art]], but you don't want to call it that because some of what contemporary artists get up to isn't purely visual any more. [[:Category:Arts]] is the umbrella which includes all the arts, including music and theatre. -- [[User:Solipsist|Solipsist]] 01:25, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)
* Keep [[:Category:Art]]. I've been thinking [[:Category:Arts]] should be changed to [[:Category:The Arts]], however. [[User:Postdlf|Postdlf]] 02:39, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)
::Renaming [[:Category:Arts]] to [[:Category:The Arts]] sounds like a good idea to me. -- [[User:Solipsist|Solipsist]] 15:57, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' - If it could be reduced to something too logical it would lose the quality which makes art valuable. --[[User:Wayland|wayland]] 14:27, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
*'''Keep both'''. They make sense this way. [[User:Filiocht|Filiocht]] 14:39, Oct 18, 2004 (UTC)
*'''Keep both'''. A more descriptive name for [[:Category:Arts]], relative to [[:Category:Art]], would be nice. [[User:Walden|Walden]] 00:25, 2004 Oct 19 (UTC)
*'''Keep both'''. --[[User:Ssd|ssd]] 19:15, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
*'''Keep both''' [[Juggling]] is ''an Art'', but is not usually considered ''Art'' for instance.[[User:Pedant|Pedant]] 02:22, 2004 Nov 9 (UTC)
===[[:Category:Genera]]===
*Is it really a good idea to list all genera, regardless of how closely related (or not) they are? - [[User:UtherSRG|UtherSRG]] 20:23, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)
**'''Keep'' I think having a list of all the genera in one place organizes them better. [[User:NeoJustin|NeoJustin]] 22:37 Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)
***If it is kept, then they should atleast make sure it's subcategoried by [[phylum]] . (or ''kingdom'' or ''___domain'' (ie. Virii, Archea, Mimivirii, Prokaryota, Eukaryota) )[[User:132.205.15.42|132.205.15.42]] 17:51, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
*** seems backward to me to have Phyla be a subcategory of genus... but it would be useful to be able to look up a genus without knowing what class or order etc. it was in, so I think each specific genus should be a member of the category, and nothing but genus names should go in it IMO. Would be handy for reference use. '''Keep'''[[User:Pedant|Pedant]] 02:19, 2004 Nov 9 (UTC)
===Comics people===
Is it just me, or do these need to be merged? -- [[User:Beland|Beland]] 19:44, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)
* (39) [[:Category:Comic_book_artists]]
* (13) [[:Category:Comics_artists]]
* (1) [[:Category:Comics_book_artists]]
* (53) [[:Category:Comic_book_writers]]
* (8) [[:Category:Comics_writers]]
* (2) [[:Category:Comics_book_writers]]
----
How about this:
Comics
Comics people
Comic book artists/writers
Comic strip artists/writers
[[User:Neutrality|[[User:Neutrality|<b>Neutrality</b>]] ([[User talk:Neutrality|hopefully!]])]] 19:53, Oct 16, 2004 (UTC)
I've depopulated [[:Category:Comics_book_artists]] and [[:Category:Comics_book_writers]] so they can be summarily deleted. For what it's worth, I vote for [[:Category:Comic_book_artists]] over [[:Category:Comics_artists]] and I think artists and writers should have different categories, even if there is some overlap. Also, using a term like artist/writer in a category may cause confusion as people who do both tasks are usually called writer/artists, so putting non-drawing writers or non-writing artists in that cat might make people think they do both tasks. [[User:Gamaliel|Gamaliel]] 20:03, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)
:And I would also dispose of the "Comics people" category since there should not be very many subcategories and there shouldn't be any articles within that category. —[[User:Moverton|Mike]] 20:41, Oct 16, 2004 (UTC)
:And please note that there is also [[:Category:Cartoonists]] to consider, a heavily populated category. It could easily take the place of the "Comic strip artists/writers" subcategory suggested above. [[User:MisfitToys|MisfitToys]] 18:58, Oct 18, 2004 (UTC)
:: Do you need separate comic book, comic strip, graphic novel artists (and also writers) categories? Why not one each for penciller/artist, inker/colorist, scenarioist/editor, and dialogist/writer? [[User:132.205.15.4|132.205.15.4]] 17:55, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
:Delete [[:Category:Comics artists]] and [[:Category:Comics writers]] and instead use [[:Category:Comic book artists]] and [[:Category:Comic book writers]], respectively, adding crossreferences to [[:Category:Cartoonists]] to both for the cases of notable writer-artists. -[[User:Gtrmp|Sean Curtin]] 01:32, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)
::Works for me -- the hierararchy Neutrality suggested, delete the 2 depopulated/defunct categories, '''Keep:''' ; [[:Category:Comics]]; [[:Category:Comic book artists]]; [[:Category:Comic book writers]]; [[:Category:Cartoonists]]. I'm neutral on [[:Category:Comics people]], if someone feels it's needed, it won't bother me, but doesn't seem too useful to me, if it was just me I'd delete that one.[[User:Pedant|Pedant]] 05:30, 2004 Nov 10 (UTC)
:::Is the idea that all comic strip writers and artists should go under [[:Category:Cartoonists]]? -[[User:Aranel|[[User:Aranel|Aranel]] ("[[User:Aranel/Sarah|Sarah]]")]] 17:53, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
===[[:Category:Beach volleyball players]]===
Category too specific with not enough articles, use [[:Category: Volleyball players]] —[[User:Moverton|Mike]] 18:36, Oct 16, 2004 (UTC)
*But these are two different sports! Might as well merger Rugby union footballers with Rugby league players! [[User:Jongarrettuk|jguk]] 20:49, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)
**I'm sure some people would merge rugby with rugby with football as well. '''KEEP''' they are different sports, you can tell by the playing surface, and number of players on court [[User:132.205.15.4|132.205.15.4]] 17:57, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
**Indeed, I did create a parent category [[:Category:Rugby]] to contain both [[:Category:Rugby league]] and [[:Category:Rugby union]], because there were also the related sports of [[Wheelchair rugby]] and [[Tag Rugby]]. I'm not sure that players need to be similarly grouped, however. I have no opinion about volleyball.-[[User:Gadfium|gadfium]] 21:08, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
===Slovak vs. Slovakian===
Convert Slovakian to Slovak in the titles of the following categories:
* [[:Category:Slovakian_people_by_occupation]]
* [[:Category:Slovakian_composers]]
* [[:Category:Slovakian_musicians]]
See [[Slovakia]] and [[:Category:Slovakia]] regarding usage. -- [[User:Beland|Beland]] 18:22, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Surely Slovak=ethnicity Slovakian=nationality. Many Slovakians are ethnic Hungarians or ethnic Gypsies and not therefore Slovaks, an ethnic Slovak might live outside Slovakia and therefore not be a Slovakian. In the light of this I think 'Slovakian' is correct.[[User:GordyB|GordyB]] 22:44, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)
:That is an analogy from some places further south. But nearer to home, Czech means both nationality and ethnicity. You wouldn't use *Czechian. --[[User:Henrygb|Henrygb]] 19:05, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
==October 13==
===[[:Category:Pediatrics]]===
Was created to be a redirect to [[:Category:Paediatrics]] "to avoid confusion". But category redirects don't really work, and it's even more confusing as a redirecting sub-category. Needs to be deleted or else there needs to just be a message pointing to (but not redirecting to) the correct category. [[User:Aranel|[[User:Aranel|Aranel]] ("[[User:Aranel/Sarah|Sarah]]")]] 21:50, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
:Note that articles "in" [[:Category:Pediatrics]] don't currently show up under [[:Category:Paediatrics]]. [[User:Rick Block|Rick Block]] 01:41, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Does anyone know how to prevent insertions into [[:Category:Pediatrics]], because people are bound to try this (especially Americans?) [[User:Jfdwolff|JFW]] | [[User_talk:Jfdwolff|<small>T@lk</small>]] 11:40, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I'd say put a note on [[:Category:Pediatrics]] to see [[:Category:Paediatrics]], and if articles show up in the former category, move them to the latter. [[User:Lachatdelarue|Lachatdelarue [[User talk:Lachatdelarue|(talk)]]]] 03:56, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
:I suppose it is naïve to think that if you put [[:Category:Pediatrics]] on [[:Category:Paediatrics]] and vice versa it would work? - [[User:Nunh-huh|Nunh-huh]] 04:14, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
::It doesn't quite work that way. They would look like sub-categories of each other. I removed the CfD notice and added a note that specified that articles should ''not'' be placed in this category. How's that? [[User:Aranel|[[User:Aranel|Aranel]] ("[[User:Aranel/Sarah|Sarah]]")]] 23:50, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
==October 12==
===[[:Category:Dead people]]===
Is this a joke? [[User:Gamaliel|Gamaliel]] 05:31, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
:Keep. - Isn't it a common denominator of the two subcategories? Besides, the description reads: "Do not add articles directly to this category; instead, add them to the appropriate subcategory.". -- User:Docu
:: Three subcategories now.
:Name seems kinda trite, but with above listed qualifications, I see no reason to not keep it. --[[User:Ssd|ssd]] 12:29, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
::Delete - what next? Category: Alive people???? [[User:Jongarrettuk|jguk]] 23:00, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
:Keep ''only'' if it is restricted to those subcategories. Delete on sight if it metastisizes beyond that. [[User:Postdlf|Postdlf]] 23:14, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
:'''Delete''' - The two categories could easily be part of the parent category (People), and thus eliminating an uneeded level of catagorization. [[User:Ht1848|Hobie]] 02:54, 2004 Oct 14 (UTC)
:Keep: useful parent for other categories and not intended to be used for categorization of individual articles. -[[User:Gtrmp|Sean Curtin]] 03:37, Oct 14, 2004 (UTC)
:Should we also have a [[:Category:People who have lived]] as a parent to [[:Category:Births by year]], and any hypothetical [[:Category:People born by Caesarian section]] and [[:Category:People born in strange places]] categories? This is not a vote.-[[User:Gadfium|gadfium]] 05:01, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
:Delete. --[[User:Gary D|Gary D]] 06:29, Oct 14, 2004 (UTC)
:Delete. It's a[gainst common sense. [[User:Etz Haim|Etz Haim]] 20:48, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
*'''delete'''. [[User:NeoJustin|NeoJustin]] 01:08 Nov. 2, 2004 (UTC)
*'''delete'''.--[[User:Hooperbloob|Hooperbloob]] 02:50, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' if and only if ''only'' if its content is '''restricted to subcategories'''. Could contain[[:Category:Historic Crucifixions]], [[:Category:Amusement Park deaths]], [[:Category:Musicians who died alone choking on their own vomit]], [[:Category:Persons elected to office after their death]], etc.
===[[:Category:Photojournalism]]===
Use instead: [[:Category:Photography]] -- [[User:Beland|Beland]] 06:16, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
*[[Photojournalism]] is a proper subtopic of photography and journalism(both of which it is...or was...a subcategory)—not all photographers are photojournalists. [[User:Postdlf|Postdlf]] 01:07, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
**Looking at the current category structure, [[:Category:Visual journalism]] is what should go. Photography and graphic design are in no way subtopics of journalism. Photojournalism is the obvious overlap between photography and journalism, it is the subject of its own article, and there are many photographers and works of photography properly classified as photojournalists and photojournalism, in a manner separable from photography in general. [[User:Postdlf|Postdlf]] 01:16, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
**[[:Category:Graphic Design]] fits nicely in [[:Category:Visual journalism]] but not in [[:Category:photojournalism]], so I can't agree. --[[User:Ssd|ssd]] 12:45, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
***It doesn't fit in either, because not all graphic design is for a journalistic purpose. I wasn't suggesting that photojournalism replace the function that visual journalism serves now—[[:Category:Visual journalism]] simply isn't a discrete category in the sense it is being used, and the topics within it now are hardly mere sub-subtopics of journalism. [[User:Postdlf|Postdlf]] 23:16, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' perfectly good category, no reason at all not to have categories be members of more than one parent category, think [[Venn diagram]] and [[Boolean algebra]], not [[Dewey Decimal Classification|Dewey Decimal System]] [[User:Pedant|Pedant]] 01:57, 2004 Nov 9 (UTC)
*'''Keep''', sensible category, although there may not be many articles to populate it with. There should be a subcategory [[:Category:Photojournalists]], which can be populated from [[List of photojournalists]].-[[User:Gadfium|gadfium]] 00:18, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
==October 10==
===[[:Category:Eccentrics]]===
Removed cfd notice from category and this discussion to [[category talk:eccentrics]].
Reason: No form of discussion had taken place on that discussion page, prior to CfD listing. The category definition seem pretty much OK and ''workable'' (referring to definition on [[List of notable eccentrics]]). All the rest to be done before re-listing here is described in [[wikipedia:categorization of people]].
--[[User:Francis Schonken|Francis Schonken]] 10:16, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Definition cited above:
"Eccentricity is necessarily a relative definition. An eccentric is someone whose behaviour, beliefs and/or hobbies deviates in significant way from the accepted norms that the rest of the society that defines that person recognizes as proper or as traditional. He or she may be regarded as strange, odd or at least unconventional, irregular and erratic. Other people usually regard the eccentric with apprehension but also with considerable amusement."
Although I am an eccentric, (by this definition most wikipedians are -- who does this kind of thing for free but an eccentric?) I might be offended to find that an article about me was listed at the bottom as being part of [[:Category:Eccentrics]], but it might not bother me to see
[[:Category:Notable eccentrics]], and any article on any eccentric in wikipedia is likely to be a ''notable eccentric''. Maybe we could '''change the category name'''?[[User:Pedant|Pedant]] 01:52, 2004 Nov 9 (UTC)
===[[:Category:Towns in Japan]]===
Duplicate of [[:Category:Japanese towns]]. [[User:Rick Block|Rick Block]] 17:28, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
: Oops (although not maybe completely oops): I created this one, on the model of other cats in other countries. The category in many other countries is "Towns in X"; others (most?) have "Cities in X" (but villages of 200 people are hardly cities); some few had both — before I did anything — and I took a useful cue from [[:Category:Coastal cities]] where a city is reasonably defined as >100,000); France has "[[:Category:Cities, towns and villages of France]]; and the provinces of Canada and some few others have "Communities in X" ... A uniform scheme would be good, grandfathering maybe some few categories with very large populations. Inconsistent nomenclature is going to have to be dealt with at some point, probably via robot. ("U.S." vs. "American", etc.) — [[User:Bill Thayer|Bill]] 21:28, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
:: On looking a bit closer at [[:Category:Japanese towns]]: most of the subcategories are of the form Towns of X, and as the number of town articles increases, they could usefully be moved into cats for each prefecture, and the prefectures into (Towns in Japan/Japanese towns) by prefecture — suddenly making the top category navigable for visible categories like "Coastal towns", "Town planning", "Town governments", etc.? — [[User:Bill Thayer|Bill]] 21:35, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
'''Merge and move'''[[:Category:Japanese towns]] to [[:Category:Towns in Japan]] Note though, that the number of people does not define the difference between a town and a city[[User:Pedant|Pedant]] 01:44, 2004 Nov 9 (UTC)
==Oct 3-8==
{{Wikipedia:Catagories for deletion/Galaxies by Constellation and subcategories}}
{{Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Objects in the extrasolar system and subcategories}}
==Sept 2004==
===Possibly unnecessary categories===
These seemed to have more potential for disagreement. They were all childless orphans when I found them. -- [[User:Beland|Beland]] 06:20, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)
* [[:Category:Medical_conditions]] -> [[:Category:Diseases]]
** I'm not so sure. Could [[pregnancy]], [[old age]], and [[hermaphrodism]] be non-disease medical conditions? [[User:Quadell|<nowiki></nowiki>]] – [[User:Quadell|'''Q'''uadell]] <sup>([[User_talk:Quadell|talk]]) ([[User:Quadell/Request for assistance|help]])</sup>[[<nowiki></nowiki>]] 19:53, Sep 29, 2004 (UTC)
**I might have supported [[:Category:Medical conditions]] had it been populated, but it has clearly been abandoned. I say delete it, and it can be recreated if a need arises.-[[User:Gadfium|gadfium]] 00:01, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Delete all of them. [[User:Maurreen|Maurreen]] 05:12, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
:All of what? [[User:Quadell|<nowiki></nowiki>]] – [[User:Quadell|'''Q'''uadell]] <sup>([[User_talk:Quadell|talk]]) ([[User:Quadell/Request for assistance|help]])</sup>[[<nowiki></nowiki>]] 13:13, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)
::Since no one has put anything into [[:Category:Medical conditions]], should we delete it, or put it in [[:Category:Underpopulated categories]]? -[[User:Aranel|[[User:Aranel|Aranel]] ("[[User:Aranel/Sarah|Sarah]]")]] 22:35, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
===Colleges and universites in Canada===
* [[:Category:Universities_in_Quebec]] -> [[:Category:Universities_and_colleges_in_Quebec]] (The latter is currently a childless orphan.)
* [[:Category:Universities_in_Alberta]] -> Zzt. (currently a childless orphan)
*:Unless there are no universities in Alberta, I don't see any point ind eleting this. --[[User:Ssd|ssd]] 23:04, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
* [[:Category:Alberta_universities]] -> [[:Category:Universities and colleges in Alberta]]
Is "universities and colleges" appropriate Canadian terminology? It is pretty standard for Wikipedia; see [[:Category:Universities_and_colleges]].
:In Quebec, a "college" is sort of in-between "high school" and "university" (which are each a year shorter to leave room for two years of college) . "Universities in Quebec" is correct. Even schools that are called "colleges" in, say, the U.S., are referred to as "universities" in Quebec. See [[CEGEP]], which is a Quebec phenomenon not shared by the rest of Canada, so it wouldn't affect the Alberta category. [[:Category:Canadian universities]] does seem to include colleges. [[User:Aranel|[[User:Aranel|Aranel]] ("[[User:Aranel/Sarah|Sarah]]")]] 01:05, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
: "Universities and colleges" is appropriate Canadian terminology; however, would something like "Postsecondary education in Canada" or better "Canadian postsecondary institutions" be better?
: [[User:Aranel|Aranel]], I think that including CEGEPs on Wikipedia as 'colleges' is borderline; one could argue they are effectively senior high schools. Are all colleges in Quebec really CEGEPs? --[[User:Saforrest|Saforrest]] 23:46, Sep 30, 2004 (UTC)
: I should add to [[User:Aranel|Aranel]]'s comments that there is a pretty sharp distinction between colleges and universities in Ontario, at least, and probably in the rest of Canada too. The ambiguity in American usage does not exist here, so if there are colleges under [[:Category:Canadian universities]], they should not be there (or better yet, the category should be renamed to something inclusive). --[[User:Saforrest|Saforrest]] 23:52, Sep 30, 2004 (UTC)
: '''CEGEP'''s are not senior high schools. It's the combination of a technical school, pre-university prep-school, community college and liberal arts college. They should not be place in any high school category, since registration and class performance are judged by university and not highschool standards (IOW, it's up to you to pass, they will fail you, if you can't get the class you need to graduate, tough luck, try another semester, inter-CEGEP registrations are permitted, just like inter-university ones). They are also not univesities though... In Quebec, official ''college'' type of school is a CEGEP, but any school can call itself a college. As such there are elementary schools with ''college'' in their names, as there are middle schools (junior high school), senior highs, technical schools, etc. There are ofcourse subdivisions of universities that are also called college, as there are everywhere. [[User:132.205.15.4|132.205.15.4]] 05:20, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
We also have now:
[[:Category:Universities_in_Ottawa]] (childless orphan)
[[:Category:Universities_and_Colleges_in_Ottawa]]
[[:Category:Universities_and_Colleges_in_Toronto]] (Populated, but wrong capitalization.)
[[:Category:Universities_in_Toronto]] (a childless orphan)
-- [[User:Beland|Beland]] 07:04, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
:[[:Category:Universities and colleges]] specifies all instutions of post-secondary education. My understanding is that Quebec CEGEPs are considered post-secondary (although they would overlap with the last year of secondary education in many other regions, they also overlap with post-secondary in those regions). So it would be perfectly reasonable to use "universities and colleges in..." for Canada (as far as I can tell, all Canadian "colleges" are at least partially post-secondary), but I think it would also be appropriate to subdivide those into "universities in..." and "colleges in...", at least for Quebec, since in some cases those are entirely different types of institutions. Or perhaps it would make more sense to have [[:Category:Universities and colleges in Canada]] and then put two categories for eahc province (as appropriate), one for universities and one for colleges? Comments? [[:Category:Canadian colleges]] specifies local community colleges. -[[User:Aranel|[[User:Aranel|Aranel]] ("[[User:Aranel/Sarah|Sarah]]")]] 21:38, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
===[[:Category:Union Navy officers]]===
===[[:Category:Union Navy admirals]]===
Recommend keeping these to be consistent with Confederate Navy categories. While technically part of the United States Navy, this was a unique time in the Navy's history. Breaking them out helps clarify where people fought. The alternative is dumping everyone into "American Civil War people" which is less helpful. [[User:Jinian|Jinian]] 17:56, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
*Works for me. [[User:Maurreen|Maurreen]] 05:28, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
*Delete both. I don't think keeping these creates any consistency with the Confederate categories, because the U.S. clearly continued to exist during the Civil War, and the Confederacy was a government in opposition. That the U.S. had another nickname during this time does not justify a separate category for that nickname—it's merely going to be confusing to those not familiar with the topic, who are going to think that the U.S. and the Union were two separate things. But it is reasonable to try and subcategorize [[:Category:American Civil War people]], so the problem is more the name. We need something more along the lines of [[:Category:U.S. military officers during the American Civil War]]. Cumbersome, but a more clear designation. Another thing to keep in mind is that we don't need categories for ''every'' relationship and ''every'' bit of information about a subject. But let's come up with a better solution than "Union" categories. [[User:Postdlf|Postdlf]] 23:42, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
** How about making the Union Navy a subcategory of the US Navy? Or perhaps "Military officers during the American Civil War", with subcategories of "Confederate" and "Union"? Of course, that new category would be a subset of "American Civil War people" which would also contain politicians, activists, journalist, etc. [[User:Jinian|Jinian]] 17:09, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)
***It's ok to have a category or article be a member of more than one category, completely ok, no problem with that. '''Change to''' [[:Category:U.S. military officers during the American Civil War]] since that seems like a good name if we aren't quibbling about the '''American''' part... and since we have [[American Civil War]] I guess it makes sense for consistency. ...and break out the Union and Confederate as well. I don't think we need a separate category for naval officers and for admirals... do we?[[User:Pedant|Pedant]] 01:22, 2004 Nov 9 (UTC)
****I'm afraid that someone might object to putting [[:Category:Confederate Army officers]] into that scheme. What about [[:Category:American Civil War military officers]]? Both sides considered themselves Americans but I don't know about the U.S. part. Some folks would probably object to classifying Confederate Army officers under "U.S.". -[[User:Aranel|[[User:Aranel|Aranel]] ("[[User:Aranel/Sarah|Sarah]]")]] 22:32, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
==Reincarnated==
===[[:Category:Olympic athletes]]===
Noting that "athletes" means "track and field athletes" in British
English, should we rename this Category:Olympians or
Category:Olympic_sportspeople?
Subcategories would also need re-treatment. We currently have two
styles:
* Athletes at the 1900 Summer Olympics
* Olympians at the 2004 Summer Olympics
Could I interest you in one of these instead?
* 2004 Summer Olympians
* Sportspeople at the 1900 Summer Olympics
These renames could be done by a bot. -- [[User:Beland|Beland]] 05:33, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
: ''Sportspersons at the 1960 Winter Olympics'' seems like a nice pattern, or Sportspeople. ''Atheletes at the xxx Summer Olympics'' also needs to be changed to the ''Track and Field Atheletes at the ...'' [[User:132.205.15.42|132.205.15.42]] 00:49, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
::In this context, in British English 'Olympic athletes' is synonymous with 'Olympians', so I don't see a need to change from 'Olympic athletes'. Using the word 'sportspeople' is distinctly American, and should therefore be avoided if at all possible in an International encyclopaedic. It can be avoided here, so it should be. [[User:Jongarrettuk|jguk]] 20:10, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
:Possibly "Olympic competitors" as an alternative? [[User:MisfitToys|MisfitToys]] 23:25, Oct 14, 2004 (UTC)
::I like [[:Category:Olympic competitors]]. Completely unambiguous. Also makes it clear that this category inclues all who compete the in the Olympics, whether or not they win anything. Could theoretically also contain teams. -[[User:Aranel|[[User:Aranel|Aranel]] ("[[User:Aranel/Sarah|Sarah]]")]] 02:05, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
:: I like '''Olympic competitors''' for exactly the same reasons as stated by all of the editors above. this wording seems to satisfy the requirements.'''Keep'''[[User:Pedant|Pedant]] 01:12, 2004 Nov 9 (UTC)
=Cleanup overhead=
== Discussions moved off-page ==
Please see:
* [[/resolved]]
* [[/unresolved]]
* [[Category talk:Ireland]]
* [[Category_talk:Women_of_Pakistan]]
==Empty me/Move me==
The below meet the eligibility requirements for deletion at the top of this page. These categories need to be de-populated. Discussion on these items should still be listed above.
([[User:Pearle]] will automate article reassignment if she is approved. -- [[User:Beland|Beland]] 05:22, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC))
* [[:Category:Cleanup]] -> [[:Category:Wikipedia cleanup]]
* [[:Category:ToL Cleanup]] -> [[:Category:ToL cleanup]]
==Delete me==
The below meet the eligibility requirements for deletion at the top of this page. These categories have been de-populated, and any documentation of this decision taken care of. Admins may delete these categories at will. If there is a particular category which is replacing the deleted category (if redundant, misspelled, etc.) as noted below, that should be mentioned in the deletion log entry.
The category to be deleted is listed first, followed by the proper category that renders it obsolete.
*[[:Category:Scottish towns]] should be deleted. Was merged into [[:Category:Towns in Scotland]]. --[[User:Whosyourjudas|Whosyourjudas]] [[User talk:Whosyourjudas|(talk)]] 20:57, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
* [[:Category:United States Minor Outlying Islands]] should be delete. Was merged into [[:Category:Insular areas of the United States]]. --[[User:Whosyourjudas|Whosyourjudas]] [[User talk:Whosyourjudas|(talk)]] 21:56, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
<!-- ADD NEW ENTRIES under the correct date near the TOP of this page -->
<!-- DO NOT DELETE THE LINES BELOW! -->
[[Category:Wikipedia maintenance]]
[[Category:Wikipedia categorization|Deletion, Wikipedia:Categories for]]
| 