The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Delete One constituent article can (and is now) linked in main article Kim Campbell. Person was prime minister of Canada for less than 5 months and there's not much prospect of expanding category. Snocrates23:35, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Two constituent articles are linked to in main article Christopher Dodd. Not much potential for expansion now that he has dropped out of race for U.S. president. Snocrates23:30, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Weak, shading toward regular old, keep - this strikes me as akin to a television episodes by series category. I haven't checked every article but a few chosen more or less at random indicate that many of these films were created specifically for the P.O.V. series. Listification may be a solution as well. Otto4711 (talk) 02:11, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Does some good and little if any harm. But the name should be changed to "Category:Films featured on P.O.V."; "P.O.V. films" could be misunderstood as referring to films shot from a character's point-of-view -- and while I don't know it's the case, I would be surprised if there is not a film studio called "P.O.V.". I don't fancy disambigging catpages. --7Kim (talk) 20:00, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This seems no different than the episode of series category, it just needs to be renamed to eliminate the ambiguity. Either of the above rename suggestions seem appropriate. Sarilox (talk) 05:49, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
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 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Rename, or Delete; it seems almost a people by opinion but if these are the activists for the movement then retaining or renaming the category is in order because "ideologues" is POV and either "people" or "activists" is more normal neutral WP style. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:07, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Delete another category created exclusively for the to-be-issued book by the guy; the book's article is at afd, the author's eponymous category at cfd below. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:05, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Delete meant to contain any train song, folk song, etc... by its creator; suffers from all the ills of "songs about" categories; how much about railroads must the song be and what RSes tell us it's at least that much about them. Here, we have the further mess of basically any song that mentions a railroad seems to merit inclusion which makes this even more problematic. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:55, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is such a standard for folksongs that the song "Folksingers are Boring" parodies the concept. Besides the obvious ones now listed, there is a train raga by Ravi Shankar , used in the movie Ghandi, and a percussion piece by Olatungi. The sounds of a moving (steam) train are often mimicked by the music, as in the two pieces I just mentioned.Pustelnik (talk) 23:36, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - There is a genre of railroad / train songs, but this category as defined is not that genre, but rather a "theme/subject"-based category. If deleted, it should be without prejudice for creating a genre-related category. If kept, it should be repurposed so it's not about theme or subject of the songs, but collects songs in that genre -- and then it needs to be weeded and repopulated correctly. --Lquilter (talk) 15:51, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I thought about that when I looked at the contents. As long as the genre can be clearly identified in the introduction, I would not object to the recreation you are suggesting. I'm not convinced that we need it, but if there is a consensus... Vegaswikian (talk) 20:38, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I don't know if it's needed either -- I'm not familiar enough with the genre to check and see if those songs are here, and it doesn't appear to be in Category:Songs by genreorCategory:Folk songs. Maybe we could ping someone at some relevant music project? Is there a folk or western music project? --Lquilter (talk) 03:09, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: Can some explain why these articles exist. I looked at two an the only source was a government report which essentially lists all villages in the country.
Strong Keep First, villages are inherently notable per WP standards of inclusion. Second, sourcing from a government source is reliable for whether a village exists, where it is, its population and the like - in fact some of the best sourcing one may expect. Third, even if you don't trust the government of Botswana, for whatever reason, the fact that the articles in a category are unsourced is no reason to delete the category. See WP:DELETE. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:11, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Associations in the United States by state[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Rename and repurpose. These categories seem to be intended to hold non-profit organizations. However, the name "associations" is confusing, and does not obviously refer to non-profits. The categories seem to have been often used without regard for non-profit status, and a couple categories for "non-profit organizations..." also exist as subcategories of these. The name "organizations" is really used to cover this topic in many, many other categories. These categories should therefore be emptied into new ones covering "organizations" in general, and specific "non-profit" categories should be created in instances where there is need for subcategories. --EliyakT·C23:07, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's okay to include companies as a subset of organizations; companies can still also be categorized in the top-level of the state as desired. Is there a downside to that? --Lquilter (talk) 23:52, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support rename - "Organizations" is a good generic term. "Associations" has a slightly different set of meanings, and while one of them is synonymous with "organizations", other meanings are slightly different -- for instance, looser "associations" that are not, per se, organizations. See Association for a sense of the various terms. --Lquilter (talk) 23:52, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose rename - Associations conveys professional associations and voluntary associations, which are all non-profit or not-for-profit (which is slightly different, but more or less the same, would all mostly have fairly public-minded purposes and engage in the same causes. Organizations is vague and would naturally include all for-profit businesses, not be a useful category. doncram (talk) 01:00, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Companies is a subcat of organizations. How is that a problem? (And I'm not sure that "associations" doesn't include commercial -- there are certainly for-profit associations and legal structures that are associations for-profit.) --Lquilter (talk) 02:47, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The proposer seems to be saying that the categories appear to have been created to list non-profits mainly. Seems proposer would prefer some name like Non-profits, but that may not be so simple, because in fact there are many public-minded associations that are not-for-profits or technically mutual benefit corporations that are technically different than charitable nonprofits. Associations does group together a lot of pretty similar organizations, and excludes the very different for-profit companies. It doesn't seem logical or helpful to go to Organizations, contrary to apparent purpose of the categories. I am not really that interested, shouldn't have entered in at all. doncram (talk) 03:17, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, don't go away just when it's getting interesting! For more organization fun see Category talk:Non-profit organizations and the 12/31 CFD. Substantively -- I agree that associations feels squishier, but when you start picking it apart, it turns out that both orgs and assns are relatively squishy and have a set of overlapping implications and associations. I've tended to go for "organizations" rather than "associations" as the generic, because it seems there are while both assns and orgs have squishy meanings, assns has several non-squishy meanings, but it's not clear which of them would apply at any time. So Orgs as top, with subcats for legal/profit status, purpose, and so on. --Lquilter (talk) 03:23, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename/Merge per nom; yes an association is a form of organization but alas so is a society, a partnership, a corporation, a band, a sewing circle, an investment club, and myriad others. Other than businesses (generically) really is there sufficient distinction to make that distinction notable between association and organization? I think not. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 02:37, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kbdank7115:42, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Given that the trend appears to be for the rename, someone needs to check the introductions after the rename. They probably will all need to be modified. This would also be a good time to make sure that all of them have the same parent categories. Vegaswikian (talk) 08:45, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Merge It's fine with me to have it merged, I actually was meaning to link to Ohio University alumni instead of Alumni of the University of Ohio. It was a mistake on my part. CoolKid1993 (talk) 21:02, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my quixotic but perpetual belief that alumni categories are almost never defining. I'd like to propose them all for deletion, but that would be a hell of a job. Snocrates22:30, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Tallest buildings in Jacksonville, Florida[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: Better dealt with by a list. Only one building will ever be the tallest, unless I suppose there is a tie. Is this category going to hold the top 5, the top 10. the top 13? How do we decide whether a building is a "tallest building" in a non-arbitrary way? Also, some of the tallest buildings probably don't have articles, which again suggests listifying as a better alternative. LeSnail (talk) 14:57, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Delete. How do we define this? And even if we can, I would expect this is so widespread in societies that it is not defining. Snocrates09:42, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There are so many varieties of psychological mistreatment that could be considered abusive, and so many degrees of such abuse (ranging from very slight to very severe) that this is far too broad to be a useful category. In all seriousness, is there anybody alive who wouldn't qualify? Cgingold (talk) 12:27, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Rename. Pre-Reformation there was no entity known as the United Kingdom. Use of "British" is supported by category definition, in that it states it is including bishops in England, Wales, and Scotland. Snocrates09:15, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are a number of problems here. Firstly, neither the Catholic nor post-Reformation churches combined England (and Wales), Scotland or Ireland as provinces. Given all the dozens of categories that split the UK very inconveniently between the nations it seems crazy to have these joining them together for no advantage. The parent cats for them are all split by England & Wales, Scotland and Ireland. Secondly, nearly all the sub-cats contain pre- and post Reformation bishops together for a diocese, so the name is fundamentally misleading. SplittoCategory:Bishops of English pre-Reformation dioceses (or "medieval" or "old") plus Scottish & Irish categories (the Scots are all already in Category:Pre-Reformation bishops in Scotland & only one Irish diocese is included here). Johnbod (talk) 03:38, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support split and Rename as suggested by Johnbod. Even Britain was not a single polity at the Reformation. Perhaps it should be Category:Pre-Reformation bishops in England and Wales, according to the Scottish precedent. The post Reformation Catholic category presents no difficulty because there were none until the mid 19th century. The one Irish item should be removed to a similar Irish category, which probably needs to be populated, or possibly merged with another existing Irish one. All of these could conveniently be subcategories of British bishops (possibly except the Irish one), and that could conventiently also include post-Reformation Anglican dioceses. Sorry, I have not investigated in detail what categories exist already. However, I supect the whole categfory tree needs some tidying up. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:15, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Roman Catholic cathedrals in Hong Kong[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Rename. The Catholic Church only has one cathedral in Hong Kong, but it has a number of parish churches that are currently not properly categorized. By renaming the cat, they can be included in the existing category, and we won't have a category that can only have one member article. Gentgeen (talk) 08:01, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Rename - The current name should eventually be a parent to the proposed name, also containing articles about the company, equipment, etc; but, since the only articles so far belong in the proposed (sub)cat, a rename makes sense. Neier (talk) 23:28, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:City districts and microdistricts built in the Soviet Union[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Rename usually we don't tinker with various forms of English spelling, but we ought to use the spelling used in Mumbai for the word, so the -ourhoods is OK to change to. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:15, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Merge. Per category definition, "countryside" category is for small villages and towns in the district. Snocrates04:29, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Rename. Change to usual naming convention. Category seems to apply to entire district of Guntur, not just the city of Guntur. Snocrates04:26, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Rename. Change to usual naming convention for tourism sites. Category seems to apply to entire district, not just the city of Guntur. Snocrates04:24, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.