Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 June 22

< June 21	June 23 >

June 22[edit]

Category:Hip hop Releases[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 result of the debate was No Consensus. --Xdamr^talk 13:54, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - I see no organizational utility in this categorization scheme. Otto4711 23:32, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge into Category:Hip hop, it's children will need to be reparented. -- Prove It ^(talk) 00:21, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename to Category:Hip hop Media or similiar to house books, magazines, videos and music, etc. "Releases" seems vague (and biological). Benjiboi 22:31, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Hip hop media is an existing subcat of this category. Otto4711 02:10, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think Hip hop media should be the lead category with articles under current categories of media and releases under it. Benjiboi 06:15, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:M.O.P[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 result of the debate was Delete. --Xdamr^talk 13:58, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - eponymous category that is not required for the material in it. Part of a nest of interwoven categories under Category:G-Unit that may amount to a walled garden but in any event needs to be cleaned up and streamlined. Otto4711 23:27, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:DJ Whoo Kid[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 result of the debate was Delete. --Xdamr^talk 14:00, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - eponymous category that is not required for the material in it. Part of a nest of interwoven categories under Category:G-Unit that may amount to a walled garden but in any event needs to be cleaned up and streamlined. Otto4711 23:25, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Best Drama Actor Golden Globe winners[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 result of the debate was Merge to Category:Best Drama Actor Golden Globe (film). --Xdamr^talk 14:04, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Best Drama Actor Golden Globe (film), convention of Category:Golden Globe Awards. -- Prove It ^(talk) 23:24, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Mazaradi FOX[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 result of the debate was Delete. --Xdamr^talk 14:00, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - eponymous category that is not required for the material in it. Part of a nest of interwoven categories under Category:G-Unit that may amount to a walled garden but in any event needs to be cleaned up and streamlined. Otto4711 23:23, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

"Mixtapes" to "albums"[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 result of the debate was Merge per Otto4711 and to Category:Mixtape albums. --Xdamr^talk 15:05, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:50 Cent mixtapes to Category:50 Cent albums

Suggest merging Category:DJ Whoo Kid mixtapes to Category:DJ Whoo Kid albums

Suggest merging Category:Kanye West mixtapes to Category:Kanye West albums

Suggest merging Category:Lil Wayne mixtapes to Category:Lil Wayne albums

Suggest merging Category:Mazaradi FOX mixtapes to Category:Mazaradi FOX albums

Suggest merging Category:Lloyd Banks mixtapes to Category:Lloyd Banks albums

Suggest merging Category:Young Hot Rod mixtapes to Category:Young Hot Rod albums

Nominator's rationale: Merge - per the outcome of the June 16 discussion, merge all "mixtape" categories to the artists' "albums" category per the convention of Category:Albums by artist. Otto4711 23:15, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. -- Prove It ^(talk) 00:22, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all, and all below. Mixtapes are clearly albums.--Mike Selinker 05:01, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom, but additionally I think all the articles should also be merged with Category:Mixtape albums. I proposed at the 40 Glocc CfD that we start sorting the mixtape articles by year, not by artist, per the Single/Song/Album convention. But now that I see that Category:Greatest hits albums/Category:Remix albums is just a giant cat of that specific format, it may be ok just to have the main mixtapes category for now (no need for by year subcats yet). My point is that I think we should retain the parent "mixtape" category on the articles affected by this CfD.-Andrew c 05:03, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - no objection to a second merge to Category:Mixtape albums. Otto4711 05:50, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed.--Mike Selinker 11:35, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Young Buck Mixtapes[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 result of the debate was Merge to Category:Young Buck albums. --Xdamr^talk 14:05, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Young Buck Mixtapes to Category:Young Buck albums

Nominator's rationale: Merge - per convention of Category:Albums by artist. See June 16 discussion of the "mixtapes" vs "albums" issue. Otto4711 23:13, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, per nom. -- 13:24, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

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

Category:The Game mixtapes[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 result of the debate was Merge to Category:The Game albums. --Xdamr^talk 14:06, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:The Game mixtapes to Category:The Game (rapper) albums

Nominator's rationale: Rename - per convention of Category:Albums by artist. See June 16 discussion on the "mixtapes" vs "albums" issue. Otto4711 23:11, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Correction - Merge Category:The Game mixtapes to Category:The Game albums. Target category already exists, although because of the generic nature of the name "The Game" we still might want to consider adding "(rapper)" to the name. Otto4711 00:38, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:G-Unit mixtapes[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 result of the debate was Merge to Category:G-Unit. --Xdamr^talk 14:07, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:G-Unit mixtapes to Category:G-Unit

Nominator's rationale: Merge - a single discography article does not require separate categorization. Otto4711 23:08, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Christian festivals[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 result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 16:52, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Christian festivals and Category:Christian holy days to Category:Christian festivals and holy days (i.e. merge both together in the newly named cat)

Nominator's rationale: Rename, I have tried to contact the editors of Christianity and Liturgical Year and the Christianity WikiProject. However, I have not received a definitive answer on what the difference between a "holy day" and a "festival" is. If you go through the category (and Category:Liturgical calendar and to a lesser extent Category:Christian liturgy, rites, and worship services) you will find a great number of overlap. Articles like Lazarus Saturday, Zacchaeus, Nativity Fast, and Paschal cycle will have up to 4 of the same categories that seem to cover the exact same purpose. While I think there needs to be a major cleanup throughout all of these categories, and more restrictive guidelines to help editors choose what categories are the more appropriate to use, I think as a start, we should merge the festival and holy day categories into one big category. If anyone has any other ideas on how to categorize these subjects, or what to do with the liturgical calendar and worship services categories, feel free to through out ideas on those as well (thought they are not listed as part of this CfD merger). -Andrew c 21:10, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom.

Comment: Hi Andrew! The traditional distinction between holy days and festivals is fasts and feasts. Good Friday (death of Jesus) is a fast, Easter (Jesus back from dead) is a feast. The 1662 Anglican Book of Common Prayer has a table of feasts and fasts. Denominations differ in which days are celebrated, and probably even about whether they are feast or fast. They are traditions rather than doctrine. Gathering everything into one category sounds like a very helpful move. Small, finite, unchanging groups like Paschal cycle should probably have a navigation template rather than a category. This is harder for editors to produce, so they just help us by making the small categories. I wonder if someone could make a tool to convert small categories into a default nav template? I bet it would get a lot of use and aid productivity and Wiki user interface. Just a thought. Alastair Haines 21:23, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename both per both above ~~(but why is the redlink cat in the nom twice?)~~ sortedJohnbod 21:53, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment in Roman Catholicism there is a saint (often several) for every day: the feast of St. whomever is a daily event. Is that really distinguishing? Carlossuarez46 22:22, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not, but there are well under 365 articles in these categories. Put that deletion gun away. Johnbod 22:29, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: LoL, fair comment John. I'd love to see a list of Saints' days. Isn't there one already? Alastair Haines 02:08, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Check out the articles listed at Category:Liturgical calendars and pick your denomination. No shortage of saints and their days. And, Johnbod, I guess we'll wait to delete this if it gets populated? Carlossuarez46 21:52, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy to vote at AfD for deletion of any NN articles, though of course a feast may be huge in one country & totally unknown elsewhere - see Saint Lucy's Day etc. Plus Day of the Dead effectively has at least 4 articles, which I think is fair enough. Johnbod 22:08, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For example, August 15 is a Christian feast day, a big one in the Roman Catholic rite (The Assumption), so it gets added, and January 25 (the conversion of Paul the Apostle). In John Delaney's "Dictionary of Saints", he describes that following Vatican II the Roman Catholic Church divvied up the calendar into Solemnities (these are 17 or so biggies, like Christmas and The Assumption, plus regional add-ons), Feasts (like January 15), Memorials and Optional Memorials. Nearly every day is spoken for; and then there's the Byzantine rite and various other denominations of Christians with festivals and feasts (Anglicans have Principal Feasts and Principal Holy Days, Festivals, Lesser Festivals, and Commemorations), there is even such a holy day as Reformation Day, which of course we never discussed in (Roman Catholic) Sunday school. (:-O) What is this category meant to contain: the various days of the year? The event commemorated? The commemoration itself? The saint's biography? I see the actual contents are a little of all these. Carlossuarez46 23:29, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the above should be included in the tree somewhere, except article essentially just about a saint, with his day mentioned. These should be done by lists, which already exist. I think an article on an event, like the Assumption of Mary, which is a big feast, is ok here. It certainly is messy, which is partly because some feasts, like Ascension, have articles which have Eastern and Western sections (as I think they should), and end up in a number of sub-categories and also the parent categories. This seems to be inevitable when there are clergy about! There is a sub-cat Category:Catholic holy days, in theory fine, but of course not many of these are only Catholic holy days. Then there are a few like Feast of Tabernacles (Christian holiday) really only related to Armstrongism and similar groups. Plus there are ones like Nativity of the Theotokos a one line Orthodox stub for one of the Twelve Great Feasts, but (?) surely not just an Othodox one. Then there are things like Koliva, a liturgical food. Most of these are in the ultimate head cat Category:Liturgical calendar , and in Category:Christian festivals and Category:Christian holy days and often Catholic etc ones for good measure. I haven't seen any clearly NN articles, but the whole area needs a good clear-out - some new sub-cats for Orthodox only and other types, and ruthless pruning of duplicate categorising (the same article in 3 places). I think the present nomination a good start to the process, since, as it says, there seems to be no real difference between the two categories involved, which largely duplicate each other. . I note, btw, that the rather scary Category:Eastern Orthodox liturgical days is not integrated into any of the above categories (PS it has now been added). Also, the nom should specify it is for a merge, I think.(done) 00:39, 25 June 2007 (UTC)forgot to sign Johnbod 16:31, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Targums[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 result of the debate was no consensus --Kbdank71 16:49, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal: Rename and move Category:Targums to Category:Targumim. See article Targum for plural. It is common for English to form the plural of cherub as cherubs, but the correct plural is cherubim, and has a long history in English. The -im ending is the standard Hebrew masculine plural. English currently has two conflicting tendencies. There is a tendency to reflect respect for cultural origins and hence prefer, for example, Mumbai to Bombay. (Ironically, Indians move in the other direction, hence Bollywood from (Bombay-Hollywood) and people still say Munich not Muenchen.) On the other hand, English also tends to allow formulas and octopusses rather than formulae and octopodes. In fact, we still say Athens, not Athenai, which involves both issues. We are currently using Latin plural forms in manuscript categories — papyri (for papyruses) and codices (for codexes). For Hebrew manuscripts, we should probably be equally precise in our usage. Readers interested in ancient manuscripts either know or are willing to learn old and foreign plural forms. If there are no strong objections, I'll try the move. If someone reverts it, I won't object. Alastair Haines 19:01, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The website dictionary.com gives both "targums" and "targumin" as acceptable plural forms. Most other web dictionaries do not give the plural form of the word. Given these results, I am really uncertain as to which one would be better. (I also wonder if this discussion will be as inflammatory as the one for the category about people who play the tuba.) Dr. Submillimeter 20:03, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Johnbod 19:56, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: thanks for feeback. That makes three out of five undecided so far (dictionary.com, Dr Submillimeter and I); two in favour (Wiki article and Johnbod). This is just a matter of nicety and consistency, it's amazing what can become controversial though. I'll have to have a look at the tuba playing category, lol. More thoughts? Alastair Haines 20:46, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment this is reminiscent of the ninja/ninjas debate. If both are correct plurals, its supposed to be the more common usage if I recall the closure (rather than for Britishisms vs Americanisms, where it's who's first). Google scholar shows 1400 hits for Targumim and 1450 for Targums (seems too close to call and therefore not much help, I'm afraid). Carlossuarez46 22:32, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: more helpful research, thanks. I guess I'm not really looking for a right/wrong call, this is more of a context issue. We use Old Testament in Christian contexts, Hebrew Bible in others, and Tanakh in Jewish contexts, for example. We're not looking for Wiki policy on which is correct, just which is "nicer" for the Category. It's a sub-category of Category:Jewish texts. Perhaps that's the decisive issue? Alastair Haines 02:16, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Frankly CfD is not the place for these tender scruples; I would get out quick before someone decides to rename them to Category:Aramaic biblical manuscripts - so much more accurate, you know. I was going partly by Haggadah/Haggadot (if I've got that right), which seems established, though there is no category as yet. Johnbod 02:32, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Haggadah/Haggadot is correct. :) Thanks for the tip John, I'm still new at how the discussion process works. It's helping me get a feel for what the issues are for people. The software recommended the steps. I'm glad it did. I'm assuming a bot or an admin will close the discussion, is that how it goes? Alastair Haines 10:45, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Someone not involved will - not a bot, nor necessarily an admin, though very often closers are. Sometimes nominators withdraw the nom & close it themselves, though I don't think they can do that if things are heading in a direction they don't like. Johnbod 19:16, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conditional keep: if both choices are equally valid, then I think we should defer to the creator, just as we do with British vs. American. On the other hand, I have no idea if they are equally valid, so I'll defer to domain experts on that. (But I would like to see stronger arguments than any that have been presented so far before endorsing a rename.) Xtifr _tälk 12:11, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that there are two authors at Wiki who have made different decisions. The writer of the Targum article (cited in proposal above) states the plural of targum is targumim and uses it in the article. So which author do we defer to? One or both need correction.

But here's some more evidence. Wiki articles with Hebrew plural endings: masculine (-im) Nevi'im, Ketuvim, Purim, Urim and Thummim; feminine (-ot) Mitzvot, Megillot, Sukkot. Then, there is this outstanding template.

Britannica usage: "Targumim and Midrashim (plural of Targum and Midrash)." 'Biblical literature', Encyclopædia Britannica's Guide to Shakespeare, 2007.

The difference between targumim and targums is not a matter of right or wrong, but of 'register'; that is, like formulae and formulas, both are acceptable, but formulas is more common in less formal language and formulae in more formal language. The single word of the category doesn't give much context. I would argue that its context is the other words in Category:Jewish texts. These are distinctly Hebrew and quite formal — Category:Talmud, Category:Tanakh, Category:Torah. Most notably, these categories include Category:Midrashim. Google will show you midrashes, dictionary.com will not.

Whether we have a policy for it or not, I think the guiding principle here should probably be "consistency in context".Alastair Haines 16:39, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Mitzvot redirects to Mitzvah (the singular); some of the other words come to the English only in their plural forms - e.g., Purim and Sukkot, which are Jewish holidays. I am unaware of any English language usage of the singular forms of Purim, or use of the singular of Sukkot outside of the holiday observances, indeed few people probably know the singular of Purim (probably fewer than know the singular of data or ravioli). I would think that common English usage would add "-s" to make plurals from these words: "We went to Israel four Purims ago", "How may Sukkots did we celebrate at the old synagogue", which is not unusual for words that come to English in plural form: "Our table ordered two pastas and three raviolis". Carlossuarez46 22:04, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The mishnah template lists titles of tractates, which of course will be in their plural form, as they always are in Hebrew/Aramaic. --Eliyak T·C 07:01, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the article: the article name does not (and should not) use the plural, so that's not an issue. And the article can (and probably should) be modified to list both plurals. We have redirects at both Targumim and Targums (both tagged by me as {{R from plural}}). As an aside, I stronly doubt that "formulae" is more common in formal writing, though I suspect that it is less uncommon in formal writing than in informal. Your arguments about consistency with other similar categories are more on-point, IMO, but not quite convincing. As I say, I'm not a domain expert, and would like to hear the opinion of others, but the plural in "others" is important there. :) Xtifr _tälk 22:50, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with all Xtifr's points. As I noted in the proposal, it's not a major issue, it's not a correction it's just a minor improvement. As you note, unless a convincing argument is made by more than one domain expert, there is no substantial case. There has not been even one domain expert against the proposal. John, who does contribute in this domain, both recognizes hebrew plural forms, and supported the proposal. Wiki and Britannica both use midrashim and targumim. An argument that something is permissable is not an argument that something is preferable. The current name was not reviewed, just created, and reflects the choice of only one editor. So far there is no domain expert or substantial argument for the current name being preferable to the proposed "refinement". Alastair Haines 04:04, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, since "Targums" is the plural more likely to be understood as such by more people. --Eliyak T·C 06:38, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. Eliyak T 06:53, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename/move per nomination. Targumim is the correct form and thus we should use that one. --Rabbeinu 07:07, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: just discovered Wiki does have a policy on this. Alastair Haines 07:15, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

“

Some cases are less clear-cut. There is a trend in part of the modern news media and maps to use native names of places and people, even if there is a long-accepted English name. For example, US newspapers generally refer to the Olympics in Torino even though most English texts still call the city Turin. However, newspapers in other parts of the English speaking world still use Turin. One should use judgment in such cases as to what would be the least surprising to a user finding the article. Whichever is chosen, one should place a redirect at the other title and mention both forms in the lead.

At the same time, when there is no long-established history of usage of the term, more consideration should be given to the correctness of translation, rather than frequency of usage (in a typical example of testing the usage by counting Google hits, if one version gets 92 hits, while another one gets 194 hits, it can hardly be decisive).

”

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.

US foreign relations[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 result of the debate was Rename all per Tim!. --Xdamr^talk 14:08, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to clarify scope and to be consisent with other foreign relations categories. Tim! 16:47, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Why Franco-American rather than French-American, but not Turko-American? This rename doesn't create any more consistency in the US foreign relations tree, where for instance the parent of the France category is not Euro-American relations but Category:United States-European relations. I also don't understand why these categories are singled out and not, for instance, Category:Mexico and the United States or Category:United States-Iranian relations (which, like all its Middle East sibling categories, is neither here nor there grammaticallly).-choster 04:28, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Mexico was not noticed, it was not a case of "singling out" particular categories. I shall nominate it now. Tim! 16:39, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Criminal law in France[edit]

Category:Criminal law in Islamic Republic of Iran[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 result of the debate was Rename all per Honbicot. --Xdamr^talk 14:09, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Criminal law in France to Category:French criminal law

Propose renaming Category:Criminal law in Islamic Republic of Iran to Category:Iranian criminal law

Nominator's rationale: Rename, per parent, convention of Category:Law by country, and siblings. In the case of the Iranian category, the chronological restriction should be removed as much of the law is likely to have been carried over. Also, the existing name is missing a "the". Honbicot 16:22, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename both per nom. Alex Middleton 12:04, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename both per nom and per conventions of Category:Criminal law by country and Category:Law by country. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:15, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename both per above--Sefringle^Talk 22:15, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Islands named after holidays[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 result of the debate was Delete. --Xdamr^talk 14:00, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as categorization by name. -- Prove It ^(talk) 13:40, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Trivial intersection. Resolute 13:42, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Aside from the names, the islands have little else that distinguishes them from all other islands. (I look forward to deleting other categories for places named after holidays.) Dr. Submillimeter 13:49, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. -Andrew c 14:47, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete as categorisation by name, per WP:OCAT#Unrelated_subjects_with_shared_names. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:43, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not defining; many islands "discovered" by Christian sailors were named for the holiday or saint's day on which they were discovered. Carlossuarez46 22:35, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Alumni by university in Bangladesh[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 result of the debate was Rename all to 'university or college' form. Being bold and sorting the whole lot out in one go. These renames are speediable anyway. --Xdamr^talk 14:23, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Alumni by university in Bangladesh to Category:Alumni by university or college in Bangladesh

Nominator's rationale: The categories "Alumni by university" and "Alumni by college" has already been merged in a previous consensus, and the reasons discussed for that case still remain valid. Colleges and universities are overlapping in identity around the world, and in Bangladesh there also are bodies known as "university colleges". On top of that the colleges of Bangladesh, like the "Dhaka College" also has a formidable collection of alumni, it's not just the universities. Aditya Kabir 07:25, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. Ravenhurst 10:03, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. I didnt know about the standardization when I created the "by university" category.Baka man 15:41, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom and per convention of Category:Alumni by university or college. However, note that there are several other sub-categories which need renaming. If anyone has the energy, a group nomination would be a good idea. -BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:47, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, here goes some other categories that'd need renaming:

It seems that the standardization went largely unnoticed. We need to take a long hard look at Category:People by university, too. And, oh, in case any of you are wondering, here is the link to the original discussion. That was pretty short. Right? But the even earlier discussion was not so short. Neither was the Reorganization|even earier discussion. Cheers. Aditya Kabir 16:12, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- If this is to be expanded to a group nomination, then all the other categories should be tagged. However, it would probably be better to close this one and start a fresh group nomination: I don't really like tagging a whole bunch of extra categories onto an existing nomination. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:18, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - How do I do a group nomination? Aditya Kabir 02:30, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Actors from Oklahoma[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 result of the debate was Rename to Category:Oklahoma (state) actors. Personally, I think that using the 'Actors from XXX' form would help us avoid all these problems, but that's just me ... --Xdamr^talk 15:12, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Actors from Oklahoma to ~~Category:Oklahoma actors~~Category:Oklahoma (state) actors

Nominator's rationale: Rename, to convention used for all other states. Alex Middleton 05:19, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: While renaming per convention makes sense, I believe a similar category once got some people confused about whether it concerned the state Oklahoma or the musical Oklahoma. Doczilla 07:00, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was in fact this category that was renamed to avoid that ambiguity. Otto4711 13:35, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Oklahoma (state) actors then? Though given that reason, the current category name may be preferable. Resolute 13:44, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge both unto Category:Oklahoma (state) actors as hath been suggested by Resolute, so that the consistency of word order which doth be found in Category:American actors by state shall be preserved, yet without the hazard of ambiguity which hath been reported unto us by Doczilla. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:41, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge both unto Category:Oklahoma (state) actors Æthelwold 15:49, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge both unto Category:Oklahoma (state) actors per BHG Johnbod 21:50, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Adding (state) following Oklahoma is awkward, and several other states have movies or tv shows or musicals named after them as well, so are we bound to always add (state) following each? Because performer by performance is a taboo basis on which to categorize we shouldn't have the confusion we may have had in the past. Carlossuarez46 22:40, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename per the original nom., adding "state" or "U.S. state" is silly and makes this stand out from all other states; and as the musical has an exclamation point there is no really reason to dab in this manner. Carlossuarez46 23:15, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- NOTE TO CLOSING ADMIN; the nomination has changed somewhere along the way, so be careful in reading through these to see which version of the nomination people are OKing or rejecting. As I process point I think that changing the proposition after prople have commented on it is very bad form and leads to a mess when trying to figure out where the consensus lies. Carlossuarez46 23:15, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Both categories cover the same topic so there is no reason to not merge them since both cover the same topic. The issue of the need to rename can be addressed at a later date if we get to the point where we need a category for actors in the musical. However in that case it would probably be better to dab at that time and maybe only the production at Category:Oklahoma (musical) actors. Vegaswikian 05:06, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I will add that if this is perceived as a real problem, the solution should involve renaming everything in the parent Category:American actors by state. But as I said, that can be decided, if needed, in the future. Vegaswikian 05:11, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I knowest not of any other state the name of which doth also apply to a dramatic work of such renown as that of Oklahoma!. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:26, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Amended to merge both to Category:Oklahoma (state) actors. It's real a problem because when you see it at the bottom of a page you don't necessarily know which meaning applies. Alex Middleton 12:05, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Category:Oklahoma (U.S. state) actors. The precedent for this disambig form for states is the universal use of Georgia (U.S. state), e.g. Category:Georgia (U.S. state).-choster 04:31, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but the "U.S." is not needed here, as it is with Georgia, to distinguish it from the country. Johnbod 15:00, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Possible Replacements for Anchor Steve Bartelstein[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 result of the debate was Delete. --Xdamr^talk 14:00, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - Speculative category for a local television station reporter. -- Gogo Dodo 04:58, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete speculative, non-defining, non-notable. Doczilla 07:02, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete as trivial, speculative, and non-notable. I hope that this was a joke category. -BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:44, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 22:41, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. How can we get verifiable information that subjects are members of this category? Speculative and potentially subjective. —C.Fred (talk) 23:10, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Totally inappropriate. Alex Middleton 12:07, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Soccer templates[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 result of the debate was speedy rename. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 10:05, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Soccer templates to Category:Football (soccer) templates

Nominator's rationale: English Wikipedia convention is to use "football (soccer)" for global categories. Conscious 04:02, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related page moves. slυмgυм [ ←→ ] 11:41, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Football (soccer) is the unambiguous term. slυмgυм [ ←→ ] 11:35, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speede rename, soccer not representative. --Mariano(t/c) 11:40, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per convention. ArtVandelay13 18:45, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename as per above.♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk 20:49, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. WATP ^(talk) • _(contribs) 11:46, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Schlock Mercenary[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 result of the debate was Delete. --Xdamr^talk 13:59, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - eponymous cat for a webcomic. The material is interlinked and does not require an eponymous category. Otto4711 03:29, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. 2 articles plus 2 images doth not a category need. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:36, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Women's wrestling championships[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 result of the debate was Rename to Category:Women's professional wrestling championships. --Xdamr^talk 14:10, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Women's wrestling championships to Category:Women's professional wrestling championships

Nominator's rationale: Rename, This category is concerned with professional wrestling, ie the showbiz type of wrestling, not sport wrestling, ie the serious kind of wrestling as featured at the Olympics. Craig.Scott 01:42, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename to Category:Women's professional wrestling championships - this is an appropriate subcategory of the Category:Professional wrestling championships parent and the rename addresses any concerns that someoen might mistake this as having to do with sport wrestling. Otto4711 02:11, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Former magazines[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 result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated. Category:Defunct magazines was not tagged or listed, so nothing was done with that. --Kbdank71 16:43, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Former magazines to Category:Defunct magazines

Nominator's rationale: Self-explanatory, other then we may want to consider whether Former or Defunct is more standarized wording. For the record, Former has 3 entries and Defunct hundrets. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 01:38, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge I think this is a simple case of a user not realizing the category already existed. It was only created earlier this month.-Andrew c 03:04, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge but I really dislike "Defunct" in the way WP often uses it: "Defunct buildings" etc. I would prefer Category:Magazines that have ceased publication Johnbod 03:22, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually if renamed in a new direction, Category:Magazines no longer published might be a better choice. Anyone know what the publishing industry uses to describe these publications? Vegaswikian 05:22, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - First thing that came to mind was "Out of print magazines", but I think that connotes something that we probably don't want to convey.-Andrew c 06:14, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Out of print is certainly the normal industry term for books, and I think magazines, but as Andrew says, may be not right for a category (old issues of an existing magazine are of course also "out of print"). Vegas' alternative is fine by me, and shorter, so better. Johnbod 11:11, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This nomination is only dealing with the cat with 3 articles that was created earlier this month. We should list the other cat and the 5 subcats on here individually if we want to consider renaming the existing categorization tree from "defunct". One thing we could do, if this is what others want, is to rename the header for this CfD to "Former/Defunct Magazines" and place CfD headers on the other 6 articles which point back to this discussion. I, however, think the word "defunct" works adequately.-Andrew c 14:45, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom to Category:Defunct magazines. I don't think that any particular advantage is to be gained by possible greater accuracy of the longer names. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:35, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a question of accuracy; I feel the use of "defunct" for inanimate things is a rather barbarous misuse of the word. Johnbod 19:52, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Category:Magazines no longer published per Vegas. Carlossuarez46 22:43, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Category:Discontinued magazines - Both "former" and "defunct" are not quite right for describing these magazines, and "magazines no longer published" seems long and cumbersome. However, "discontinued" seems like an accurate term for any periodical that has ceased publication, and it is much shorter than the "no longer published" option. Dr. Submillimeter 20:16, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Just a process question. Assume that the closing ends up being a merge to a new name, what happens then? We'll still just have a newly created category with only 3 articles while the bulk of the articles in this classification are in the defunct categories which are not up for CfD. I think we should just speedy delete this newly created, redundant cat, and then relist the other "defunct" categories as a group for renaming. -Andrew c 21:29, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, that would seem right. The tree goes back to Category:Defunct publications - this is a sub-cat of Category:Former entities which is fine. I must admit I had not realised how many of them there are - there is a "defunct newspapers by country" set. Johnbod 21:39, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - Hopefully, the administrator will set up the new category to contain all of the articles in the "former" and "defunct" categories, not just the three in the "former" category. This is in spite of the fact that the "defunct" category is not tagged. If this does not happen, I will renominate the relevant categories for renaming/merging. It may be worth having a CfD nomination for the other defunct publication categories if a word other than "defunct" appears to be more popular following this discussion. Dr. Submillimeter 21:20, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Canadians by X descent[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.

Closer's note: For the most part this nomination is straightforward. However I have difficulty in determining any consensus for Category:Canadians of Sindhi descent and Category:Canadians of Tamil descent. The '&/or' formulation of the nomination, combined with the failure of contributors to directly address the issue of which they prefer, makes closing this debate problematic. As a result I do not feel able to do anything more than regard the debate, as regards these two categories at least, as being a case of 'No Consensus'. I would suggest that these are renominated, and that editors express their views with greater clarity.

Closing administrators can and will use their judgement to remedy a flawed nomination, but they will not, and cannot be expected to, unilaterally choose between various options as a consequence of inadequate debate.

The result of the debate was Merge per User:Bakasuprman, with the exception of Category:Canadians of Sindhi descent and Category:Canadians of Tamil descent which are No Consensus. --Xdamr^talk 14:56, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The rationale for merge is obvious. Category:Indian Americans is not split by descent, immigration status (which is unprovable) or other various methods of fragmentation. The Canadian cats however are hopelessly fragmented into a manner in which the greater Indo-Canadian community is not visible and where immigration status and mixed blood are supposedly better identifiers than a sound minority umbrella. Indians are not a race, Anglo-Indian is already a mixed race, Jat is a caste (consensus at WT:INB agreed on the deletion of all caste categories), Parsi is a religious identifier. The Sinhala and Sindhi (and Jat) communities of Canada are minute and are better served by using a Category:Sindhi people and category:Pakistani Canadians combination, rather than fragmenting the sound and useful umbrella cats (Category:Indo-Canadians, Pakistani, Sri Lankan, etc) into numerous subcats split up on dubious identifiers. Baka man 16:01, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom.--D-Boy 18:19, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nomination. Let us focus on the things that unite us, not things that divide. Buddhipriya 19:38, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all ethnic categories as POV, subjective, non-defining, and just not needed. Carlossuarez46 22:44, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge esp since the category is not big enough, personally I think narrow categorization gives more info to the reader without requiring him/her to go into details and info dispensation is the main goal of Wikipedia. Pls note if nationalty wise/descent wise categorization don't divide then further narrowing the category will also not divide. Vjdchauhan 12:45, 23 June 2007 (UTC).
Delete all, divisive and do not further Wikipedia in any manner. Wikipedia is not a free webhost for soapboxing. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 12:52, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all and delete, what utcursch said. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 12:13, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
question Looking at the sister subcats in Canada (in Category:Canadian people by ethnic or national origin), nearly all are named 'Canadians of Fooian descent' This proposal changes that naming convention. Why? For what benefit to WP reader? Looking at the cousin subcats at the international level (in Category:People by ethnic or national origin), there is a mixture among different countries. Some have subcats named 'Fooian1s of Foo2ian descent'; some have subcats named 'Foo2ian Fooian1s' or something close to that. Why the mixture? What is the agreed upon target standard? Hmains 16:47, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I was waiting for someone to ask this. Why? Indian is not a race, so Indian descent is meaningless. The move to fooian descent was done by one user, Mayumashu (talk · contribs). Category:Indian diaspora and Category:People of Indian descent run the same thing but all subcats are Foo Fooians such as Category:Indian Americans, Category:Indian Singaporeans, etc. The X descent is confusing and rather illogical for many nationalities.Baka man 21:43, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe these categories are 'by country', not 'by nationality', race or ethnic group--a very big difference. Hmains 17:14, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all and Delete. Unnecessary overcategorization. utcursch | talk 08:22, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all and distribute categorized pages into mother categories as appropriate. Reason: Over-categorization + illogical mixing of citizenship, nationality, ethnicity, caste and religion. Abecedare 01:55, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all as spam. Anwar 13:57, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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