Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 September 27

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< September 26 September 28 >

September 27[edit]

Category:ChristianMedia.ca[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. After Midnight 0001 23:18, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:ChristianMedia.ca (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete as eponymous overcategorisation for a wiki that includes 127 members (according to the article); there is not sufficient content related to ChristianMedia.ca to justify its own category. Black Falcon (Talk) 19:04, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as eponymous category for small entity. --Alksub 20:22, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per "epony" reasoning. Rich Uncle Skeleton (talk) 23:54, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do NOT Delete. There are over 2000 Canadian Christians involved in media in Canada. As the ChristianMedia.ca web site grows, there will be more members who join. The genres of Christian music, gospel music, Christian Radio and Christian television are growing significantly in popularity and useage. If Wikipedia is to truly represent all facets of society, then this Category should remain as more ChristianMedia.ca members add their listing to Wikipedia. The Category:ChristianMedia.ca will become very useful for radio stations looking for Canadian musicians and churches looking for Christian media workers. DavidSpencer.ca 10:09, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The real issue here is that the only conceivable purpose for this category would be to duplicate the information that will presumably be available at ChristianMedia.ca. That's expressly contrary to the intended function of Wikipedia. Cgingold 14:08, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom & others. I note the main (ok the only) article is tagged for notability too. Johnbod 15:46, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Cgingold. Snocrates 08:14, 30 September 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:African American Economic Organizations[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 relisted on oct 4. Kbdank71 14:29, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This nomination also includes Category:Economic Organizations of the United States

These categories need to be made to conform to the convention of Category:Organizations based in the United States, but I have no preference as to which of the two suggested pathways is chosen. Black Falcon (Talk) 18:13, 27 September 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:African American Establishments[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. After Midnight 0001 02:19, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:African American Establishments (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete as non-standard categorisation and a trivial intersection in the form of Establishment by establishing group. I also think we should set a precedent against this type of category structure, which would undoubtedly become a haven for ethnic and nationalistic POV-pushing. If kept, rename to Category:African American establishments. – Black Falcon (Talk) 17:51, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. This seems to me like non-notable intersection. Rich Uncle Skeleton (talk) 23:54, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per both. The only member is Freetown, which was established for, rather than by, AAs - and other black groups. Johnbod 15:50, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Johnbod's apt observation. Carlossuarez46 22:23, 28 September 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:Muslim music[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. After Midnight 0001 02:21, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Muslim music to Category:Islamic music
Nominator's rationale: To conform to the title of the main article: Islamic music. – Black Falcon (Talk) 17:38, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename. "Muslims" are people; "Islamic" is the adjective. Also for consistency per nom. Rich Uncle Skeleton (talk) 23:52, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom because Islamic is the adjective. Kyriakos 02:02, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. Johnbod 15:50, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom and Rich Uncle Skeleton. Snocrates 08:15, 30 September 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:Seattle cemeteries[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. After Midnight 0001 02:22, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Seattle cemeteries to Category:Cemeteries in Seattle, Washington
Nominator's rationale: Per the convention of Category:Cemeteries by city and to standardise with Category:Seattle, Washington (and the main article, Seattle, Washington). – Black Falcon (Talk) 16:46, 27 September 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:World War II self-propelled anti-aircraft of Germany[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. After Midnight 0001 02:23, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:World War II self-propelled anti-aircraft of Germany to Category:World War II self-propelled anti-aircraft weapons of Germany
Nominator's rationale: Per the completion of this debate, this should add "weapons".--Mike Selinker 16:36, 27 September 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:Bridges in Harrisburg[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. After Midnight 0001 02:54, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to conform to the title of the parent category (Category:Harrisburg, Pennsylvania) and the main article (Harrisburg, Pennsylvania), and to avoid any potential confusion with the 10 or so other communities with the name "Harrisburg" listed at Harrisburg (disambiguation). While the Harrisburg in Pennsylvania is the most notable, category titles should have a minimum of ambiguity. – Black Falcon (Talk) 16:30, 27 September 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:Millionaires of Kerala[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. After Midnight 0001 02:32, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Millionaires of Kerala (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete, see discussion of April 28th, the term Millionaire doesn't work very well in an international forum. A million of what currency? -- Prove It (talk) 15:48, 27 September 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:2006 United States Senate elections[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: speedy delete per WP:CSD G4. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:56, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:2006 United States Senate elections (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Wrong name. I should have used category:United States Senate elections, 2006, which I later created. Suggest speedy delete. It's empty. —Markles 14:00, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Footballers by club and subcategories[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 Category:Footballers by club to [[:Category:Football (soccer) players by club], do not rename subcats. Kbdank71 14:27, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the category tree uses the term "Football (soccer) players", not "footballers". Suggest renaming for standardization. >Radiant< 16:33, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rename this category only per nom, keep subcategories unchanged. The categories for individual clubs should, I believe, use national conventions ("Soccer players" for places like the US that prefer that term, "Footballers" for the rest of the world). However, for supra-national categories (which "by club" is), it makes sense to use "Football (soccer) players". At least, that's my understanding of how this is supposed to work. We should probably check with the appropriate Wikiproject to confirm, so feel free to ignore me if I'm wrong. Xtifr tälk 09:50, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kbdank71 13:56, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. --Daemonic Kangaroo 04:49, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename Category:Footballers by club to Category:Football (soccer) players by club, and leave the rest alone. The umbrella should be multinational, and the subcategories should use national convention.--Mike Selinker 16:12, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Football (soccer) players by club per the parent category, Category:Football (soccer) players. Oppose rename. The subcategories shouldn't be renamed because they aren't tagged and I disagree with renaming the parent as long as most of the subcategories use "Footballers". Moreover, I find the "football (soccer)" phrasing to be terribly clumsy (not the nom's fault, of course). I have no issue with renaming to Category:Football players by club, but still think that any rename should include all (or at least most) of the subcategories as well. Black Falcon (Talk) 16:14, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Most of the sibling categories (categories at the international level) use "Football (soccer)", starting with Category:Football (soccer) itself, so I don't see the problem with using it here. "Football players" is used nowhere in Wikipedia, except in the longer phrase "American football players", which is an entirely separate set of categories pertaining to an entirely separate game. We could leave this one alone, but then it would be the lone inconsistently-named international football (soccer) category, which would be silly. If we can't attain peace and happiness and international harmony, along with perfect grammar and spelling, we can at least shoot for a little consistency.  :) Xtifr tälk 07:06, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • But the expression "football (soccer)" is just so awkward and artificial. Yes, I know I'm whining, but it's just so... I can't understand why... How!? Gah! ............. ;) Since my argument can't really progress beyond that at this point (and probably until the main article is renamed), I suppose you're right that short-term consistency can be preferable to long-term accuracy/elegance/harmony. Black Falcon (Talk) 18:19, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep on the whole, or rename per Xtifr. Gridiron players are never footballers, are they? Johnbod 01:54, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I too was under the impression that Gridiron players are called (football) players, not footballers. The term Football (soccer) is ugly and inconvenient, but this isn't the place for discussion about that. I'm of the opinion that Category:Footballers by club & Category:Footballers in England by club etc wouldn't cause confusion to anyone except Americans that call gridiron players footballers (few?) and in the second case Americans that call gridiron players footballers, and are under the impression that American football is popular outside the US. Changing them would be doing so for a tiny minority of English language users. King of the North East (T/C) 08:24, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename top category but leave the rest alone as per Xtifr. Qwghlm 09:16, 1 October 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:Indoor soccer players in the United States by club[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 14:20, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the category tree uses the term "Football (soccer) players", not "soccer players". Suggest renaming for standardization. >Radiant< 16:33, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment what about Futsal and corresponding cats like Category:American futsal players ? Neier 01:07, 22 September 2007 (UTC) Strike as irrelevant. I had forgotten about the professional indoor soccer leagues, which are not futsal. Neier 10:50, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose: I think the convention is to use "soccer player" for footballer cats in countries like the US where that's the standard term, "footballer" for most of the rest of the world, and "football (soccer)" for categories above the national level. See (for example) Category:Football (soccer) players by country. There's probably some Wikiproject which could offer a more definitive opinion. If it turns out I'm wrong, then ignore this comment. :) Xtifr tälk 09:38, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kbdank71 13:55, 27 September 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:John Peel[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. Kbdank71 14:23, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:John Peel (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - eponymous overcategorization, also person by project overcategorization. Everything in it is a radio show or project Peel worked on and these are all extensively interlinked through his article. Category is not warranted. Otto4711 13:02, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nom. Onnaghar talk ! ctrb ! er 15:24, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Wittgenstein is one thing, this is another. Johnbod 01:37, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom & ample precedent. Carlossuarez46 22:24, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per precedent and per nom. Snocrates 08:17, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. John Peel's career was much more diverse than the usual DJ, which makes this well-populated category much more useful than others. In response to Johnbod, this a question of Culture and Value: how many musical careers did Wittgenstein launch? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:05, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a question of "Culture and Value", but the usual issues around eponymous categories. There are a few articles, no sub-cats. Try getting Category:Musical careers launched by John Peel through a discussion here. Johnbod 22:42, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and listify contents if useful. Peel & Peel Sessions launched many careers, sure, but categories don't make the relationship clear. It's a use of a hierarchical system for a non-hierarchical relationship and it's confusing. Are members of the category people who appeared on the show even once? People with a significant career advance? People that John Peel pushed in ways other than on the show? People whose band-members he slept with? With no denominations or descriptions it's impossible to say what the relationship might be. If a list of careers launched by appearing on Peel Sessions would be helpful then someone could make it, and that would be *much* more helpful than simply categorizing them with John Peel. --lquilter 16:02, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a valid navigational aid concerning a major figure in rock & pop. I first noticed this category when British radio DJ categories were being trimmed a month or two ago, and it seemed to me that this was a good example of an eponymous category that should be retained. Since then I believe it has already been somewhat depopulated, but it remains helpful and encyclopedic. (Disclosure: I do not think I have made any contributions to it myself.) - Fayenatic (talk) 22:35, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep: we've gotten rid of some Peel-related categories before (and I endorsed those deletions), but looking through this one, it seems to tie together articles that really are about Peel and his career for the most part. May need to be policed to avoid turning into a clone of the "Peel sessions artists" cat (which was a very valid deletion), but as it is, this looks like a moderately valid example of an eponymous category. Xtifr tälk 15:20, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As documented above, there is precedent for deleting this category. If there is a need for navigation help, then listify, or a better solution in my opinion, create a navigation template. 19:28, 2 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vegaswikian (talk • contribs)
  • Delete. Eponymous categories for individuals rarely make sense, except perhaps as parent categories only, but then they generally constitute overcategorisation. For instance,The Perfumed Garden (radio show) is an instance of a British radio programme; however, it is not (and cannot be) an instance of John Peel, and therefore should not appear in this category. The situation with the other members is similar. Black Falcon (Talk) 19:35, 2 October 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:Peace and Security Council[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. After Midnight 0001 02:33, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Peace and Security Council (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Serves no real purpose other than to categorise membership which is documented on the article page, and is dynamic anyway. Rich Farmbrough, 09:09 27 September 2007 (GMT).
  • Delete - per nom. Onnaghar talk ! ctrb ! er 15:25, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Too dynamic to guarantee that category will even be maintained. Snocrates 08:18, 30 September 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:Foreign films shot in Canada[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. Kbdank71 14:19, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Foreign films shot in Canada (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Rename category to Category: Films shot in Canada for accuracy and to remove non-Canadian bias in wording. The names of the subcategories make it clear that this is only about location. Wryspy 08:17, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment They were deleted, the discission over ruled via a deletion review, but never recreated. A slight flaw in the DRV there...Lugnuts 10:53, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Any links to the DRV? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:13, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Here you go: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 July 18 Lugnuts 16:34, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Looks to me like all except one of the categs listed at that CfD was restored. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:17, 30 September 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.

North American athletes[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 keep. Kbdank71 14:15, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rename per all other nations in Category:Athletes by nationality, the track and field designation is unnecessary. Unlike football, where American category names differ from other countries' (soccer), the term "athlete" is non-controversial, and there is no reason to create the ambiguity. Neier 07:51, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mild oppose. Americans tend to use the term Athletes as a synonym for sportspeople, see for example the discussion of September 25th. The category American athletes was deleted in August of 2004, to prevent people from categorizing American sportspeople as American athletes. -- Prove It (talk) 13:06, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning to oppose per ProveIt. I think ambiguity would be a problem with the proposed names. However, this is going to come perhaps at the cost of consistency, so the case against the proposal is not overwhelming. Rich Uncle Skeleton (talk) 23:49, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per ProveIt and Rich Uncle Skeleton. Guaranteed to cause future problems, even if header is included. Snocrates 08:20, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per ProveIt and Rich Uncle Skeleton. Despite my general preference for consistency, this seems like a case to make an exception, because the ambiguity would cause endless misuse of the category. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:08, 1 October 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:WikiProject Psychedelics, dissociatives and deliriants articles[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. Kbdank71 14:07, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:WikiProject Psychedelics, dissociatives and deliriants articles (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Merge into Category:WikiProject Psychedelics, Dissociatives and Deliriants articles, to match Wikipedia:WikiProject Psychedelics, Dissociatives and Deliriants. -- Prove It (talk) 05:28, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. Wryspy 08:18, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect. No need for a duplicate categories, but the use of title case is likely to be non-intuitive, so the categ is likely to be recreated unless there is a category redirect. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:10, 27 September 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:Businesses in Kuwait[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. After Midnight 0001 02:35, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Businesses in Kuwait (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Merge into Category:Companies of Kuwait, convention of Category:Companies of Asia. -- Prove It (talk) 03:58, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom as duplicate. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:12, 27 September 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:Italian football club logo patches[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. After Midnight 0001 02:33, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Italian football club logo patches to Category:Italian football club logos
Nominator's rationale: Merge, Duplicate. Alksub 03:48, 27 September 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:Templates for WikiProject Florida State Roads[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. After Midnight 0001 02:35, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Templates for WikiProject Florida State Roads (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Rename to Category:WikiProject Florida State Roads templates, convention of Category:WikiProject templates. -- Prove It (talk) 03:46, 27 September 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:The Church of Jesus Christ[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. Kbdank71 13:54, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:The Church of Jesus Christ to Category:Church of Jesus Christ (Bickertonite)
Nominator's rationale: Two basic problems here: (1) ambiguity : having a category by this name is inherently ambiguous; see Church of Jesus Christ (disambiguation) for the start of possible confusions. "Bickertonite" is often used in publications to differentiate this church from other churches of the same or similar names. Subcategories have been created (by me) that incorporate the useful disambiguator. (2) The article "The" : simply not needed, unless it's being used as a back-door means of disambiguating from other "Church of Jesus Christ"s, but this probably isn't a good idea and won't be understood by all if that is its purpose. Rich Uncle Skeleton (talk) 03:24, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per the nominator's commendably clear reasoning. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:04, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • OpposeManual of Style (Latter Day Saints) clearly demonstrates that the official name should be used. Bickertonite is a term to be avoided by editors on Wikipedia because of its offensive nature to the membership of The Church of Jesus Christ. It is in direct opposition to the views of that organization, which would also be a violation of the Naming Conventions. Jcg5029 14:51, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Manual of Style does not dictate a need for a disambiguator, but if one is to be used it should not be "Bickertonite" as that is considered offensive to the church and a better one could be found. This is similar to the use of Mormon for the CoC and should be taken into account. By the way the use of "The" is needed as it is part of the official name, "The Church of Jesus Christ" JRN 16:21, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The" is not currently used as a disambiguator but as part of the official name. It needs to stay in the title of the church whether or not you want to add a disambiguator at the end
    • Incidentally the main article page was previously named Church of Jesus Christ (Bickertonite) almost 8 months ago and the page was moved several times with concensus to it's current name. I don't see how going back in time is good for the page JRN 19:13, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I believe, along with the individuals above, that it would be offensive to those who belong to the aforementioned church if the category in which their church's article falls was named using the term Bickertonite. This is just unnecessary, and it is simply a ploy for the nominator to put articles he has contributed heavily front and center. The category needs to remain the same, and I urge the nominator to withdraw his nomination to have the category renamed. Carterdriggs 22:56, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? (nominator) : I resent those suggestions as to my motivation and would have hoped that my edits and suggestions could be regarded with the good faith that they are made in. As for your substantive reasoning, see my comment below Rich Uncle Skeleton (talk) 23:05, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, there's no basis to cast aspersions here. This is a good faith proposal, though I happen to oppose. COGDEN 23:58, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support a move somewhere. If Bickertonite is thought offensive, "(William Bickerton)" should be more acceptable; however, I agree with the nom that using "The" as a disambiguator is not sufficient. At least with the article, there's a hatnote to the disambiguation page; with the category, people might well accidentally drop articles into it that have nothing to do with this particular denomination. (Though I think that the article should be moved to "(William Bickerton)" as well, mind). SnowFire 18:09, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (nominator) : those who have opposed have cited a MOS suggestion, but they have failed to address the main purpose of the nomination, which is to resolve ambiguity. "The Church of Jesus Christ" is ambiguous, as I think anyone uninvolved in the minute details of the Latter Day Saint movement would agree. Category names should be helpful—this one is not. I agree with SnowFire that if the concern that "Bickertonite" is offensive is so overwhelming that it cannot be used (and a quick internet search doesn't come back with any references to it being an offensive term, and it's widely used in the academic literature), then at least something needs to be done to solve the ambiguity problem. Those who are opposed to -(Bickeronite) should propose something equally recongizable and workable, because the status quo is about as inherently ambiguous in Christianity as you can get. (One final word: in terms of "offensiveness", it's probably on the same level as member of the LDS Church getting upset over the use of the term "Mormon fundamentalism"—members of the church don't like it because they like exclusive use of the word "Mormon", but it's use is nevertheless common and the exclusivity claims of the church are basically ignored by media and academia.) Rich Uncle Skeleton (talk) 22:39, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. The main article is redirected from Church of Jesus Christ (Bickertonite) and these two articles have similar names; Primitive Church of Jesus Christ (Bickertonite) and Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ (Bickertonite). So if there is a problem with the name, then rename the articles and the categories to match. So for now, rename as nominated. Vegaswikian 23:05, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom, or if name is really considered offensive, rename to Category:Church of Jesus Christ (Monongahela, Pennsylvania). The Church cannot possibly claim prime use of the simple name over all those on the disam page. Johnbod 01:45, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The main article is at actually at The Church of Jesus Christ, and as discussed above, using "The" as a disambiguator is not sufficient. Whatever solution is agreed here on a clearer disambiguator needs to be applied to both the category and the article. Category:Church of Jesus Christ (Monongahela, Pennsylvania) seems fine to me, but if anyone has a problem with that, then they should suggest a better disambiguator ... but "The" is too ambiguous to be retained. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:45, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support a change to The Church of Jesus Christ (Monongahela, Pennsylvania) for the articles and category listing. Again "The" was not a disambiguator but was part of the official name of the organization. There is no reason not to include it in the name. JRN —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 16:26, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment (nominator) "The" should not be included as part of the category name, as it's an article and simply unnecessary if it's not being used as a disambiguator. A comparable situation—the official name of the university is "The George Washington University", but the category is Category:George Washington University. Same principle.
  • Comment. Since the article's title has come up as being relevant, I've opened a related requested move of the article itself on the talk page. SnowFire 17:57, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. It would appear that there are too many Categories for just a small group. Couldn't the categories be combined into the Category in question here? One nice Category would take care of business I think. Also for the other two smaller groups with the disambig (Bickertonite) already - those were created, like the categories with them, by the person who nominated this move (who in all due respect has disrespectfully ignored the fact that the term is offensive). I would agree in my research the term appears roughly as offensive to membership as the LDS Church's membership does Mormon. For those pages we simply do not see The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormon). Although the term is mentioned in the introduction. Very similar to The Church of Jesus Christ's article here in question to the term Bickertonite. Jcg5029 02:28, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment (nominator) : That's not very offensive if it's the equivalent of "Mormon" for LDS Church, as the LDS Church uses "Mormon Tabernacle Choir" and "mormon.org" without too much angst. Anyway, you still haven't addressed the ambiguity problem. If "Bickertonite" is too "offensive", that's fine, but we still need some other disambiguator. I don't care particularly what it is, but I think it's clear that there needs to be one. Johnbod and SnowFire have both proposed reasonable alternatives. I chose "Bickertonite" because of its widespread use outside of WP, not because of I was trying to offend the delicate sensitivities of Bickertonites or anyone else. Rich Uncle Skeleton (talk) 08:23, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • support: the apapellation is the academic usage - using the google test, i can find informaiton about the church by typing bickertonite, but i can't by findng "The Church of Jesus Christ". I'd support a move to either "Bickertonite" or "William Bickerton." Although the term may 'seem' offensive to some adherent, so is Mormon, Lutheran, Strangite and other terms to their adherents. But we have to disabiguate, and using an article is not the best way to do it. Until there is a better suggestion, Wikipedia should go with scholarly and academic norms. Its what the rest of the world does, and what we've done in Latter Day Saint and Mormonism articles in the past, which makes it consistent. Plus we have precedence with Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (Strangite), Church of Christ (Temple Lot), Rigdonite, Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ (Bickerton) and more. The other alternative is the renaming the category to "Rigdon/Bickerton movement." -Visorstuff 13:31, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Church of Jesus Christ (Bickertonite) per nom and Visorstuff. The primary purpose of categorisation is to aid navigation, which suggests that we should use the title that is most commonly used. – Black Falcon (Talk) 17:02, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename (category creator) As the original creator of this category, I must support the rename to "Church of Jesus Christ (Bickertonite)" or something similar. In retrospect, I really should have called it that when I created it, but I avoided doing it because I knew it would have caused a s***-storm among those editors who are dedicated to preserving "The Church of Jesus Christ" as the only name associated with the org. However, it's terribly ambiguous, and I think the time has come for everybody to just suck it up and realize that with such a generic name we need to add a disambiguation to it. I support the renaming proposal, and would like to see the main article renamed to reflect the change as well. SESmith 22:48, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support of rename per nom and many of the other comments. The current name is simply too ambiguous. My understanding is that (Bickertonite) is the most common term used to disambiguate outside of WP, and I think it should be used. However, even if this one is not selected, I agree that something else must be used to clear up the ambiguity. —Ubi Terrarum 05:22, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly support rename per nom to resolve obvious ambiguity problem. The only real argument against renaming that I can see is that it may be contrary to what is currently in Latter Day Saints WP Manual of Style. Common sense should override this and those in LDS project should consider revising their guidelines. Article name should also be changed to conform with whatever disambiguation term is chosen. Snocrates 08:24, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pseudo-Support I was involved in a similar discussion quite some time ago. The offical name of the church is "The Church of Jesus Christ" The "the" is officially part of the church's name. According to the MOS, The definite article "the" should definitely be part of the church's name. I think that that's something that should be noted. I would also like to note that I opposed (and still oppose) the use of the name "The Church of Jesus Christ" to refer to the church, because that phrase doesn't refer to the church founded by William Bickerton "much more than any other" (WP:D#Primary topic). There needs to be something to disambuguate that church from the other churchs sometimes referred to as "The Church of Jesus Christ" They will claim there aren't any, but as others have pointed out, it's impossible to find information about the church based in Monongahela PN, without further information. McKay 16:12, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Although the term Bickertonite is the most commonly-used term, as I understand it, it is offensive to members of that denomination. The category might have to be disambiguated at some point, but it's difficult to know what the disambiguator should be, and I think it's premature right now, since there is no other category vying for that name. COGDEN 23:58, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It's not premature and there are plenty of other contenders vying for the name; see Church of Jesus Christ for the many, many other options. The only reason that the category seemingly has no competition is because the others have been disambiguated already. I think the only reasonable way to deal with a situation like this is to require them all to have disambiguation and let none have primacy over the name, just as with the disambiguation page; if we were to let one of the options have primacy over the plain category name, I'm not sure that this church would even be it. SnowFire 00:27, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment And as was pointed out in original nom, the only reason there is not competition for the name is because "The" is used with this one. This, in essence, means that "The" is being functionally used as the disambiguator. Snocrates 03:54, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename. This needs disambiguation; I have no opinion on what that disambiguation should be. >Radiant< 09:31, 3 October 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:Kabanalbanalang Iglesia ng Dios kay Kristo Hesus[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. After Midnight 0001 02:36, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Kabanalbanalang Iglesia ng Dios kay Kristo Hesus (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Rename to Category:Most Holy Church of God in Christ Jesus, to match Most Holy Church of God in Christ Jesus. -- Prove It (talk) 03:05, 27 September 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:Dravidian[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:Dravidians. Kbdank71 13:30, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Dravidian (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete; Note that Dravidian is itself a disambiguation page. It seems to me that this category was created merely to parent all things known as Dravidian, and is therefore Categorization by name. -- Prove It (talk) 02:44, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but possibly rename. It seems to me that although there is not currently an overarching article about things Dravidian, that there could be, perhaps along the lines of this article ... and this category clearly serves a useful purpose in grouping together related concepts. The concepts are linked, not just the name, so this does not look to me like categorisation by name. However, the category name seems odd: it's an adjective without a noun, but I'm not sure whether or how to rename it. We have adjective-only category names for languages (French, English etc), but I'm not sure how to name a category like this where there appears to be no Dravidland. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:03, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How about Dravidian culture? Wouldn't that encompass both people and language? Or maybe just Dravidians. Cgingold 14:59, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Dravidian culture" doesn't seem to me to include people, but Dravidians sounds good. Not perfect, but better than "Dravidian". Unless someone comes up with something better, I'd go with that. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:00, 27 September 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:Radio stations serving State College[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. After Midnight 0001 02:37, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Radio stations serving State College to Category:Radio stations in State College, Pennsylvania
Nominator's rationale: For consistency with all of other geographical radio station categories in the United States (all are of the form "Radio stations in geographical-location") JPG-GR 02:42, 27 September 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_September_27&oldid=1138389339"