Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 July 29

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< July 28 July 30 >

July 29[edit]

Category:Trials against war criminals after the end of World War II[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: rename. Kbdank71 13:19, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Trials against war criminals after the end of World War II to Category:World War II war crimes trials
Nominator's rationale: Rename to something. Kind of a ponderous name, which can surely be shortened into something better. It also makes the mistake of supposing all those who were tried resulted in convictions of war criminals; this is not true—a number of defendants were acquitted, so it's not correct to refer to their trial as a trial of a "war criminal". However, war crimes were charged in all of the trials, so it would not be incorrect to call them "war crimes trials". Category:World War II trials is a possibility (there is Category:World War II trials films), but does it have the connotation of referring to trials that occurred during the war? Suggestions welcome, mine is above. Notified creator with {{subst:cfd-notify}} Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:30, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. The relevant issue is that the trials related to the war, not whether they were held during or after the war. --Soman (talk) 15:57, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. This is the usual description and a better category Category:World War II trials, which would cover any trial during WWII, deown to prosecutions for traffic offences and breach of rationing regulations. If anything the film category might be renamed. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:28, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per sound reasoning of Good Olfactory. The name does need to include a reference to "war crimes" to eliminate unintended ambiguity. Cgingold (talk) 23:24, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Legacy of Kain characters[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: merge. Kbdank71 13:20, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:Legacy of Kain characters to Category:Legacy of Kain
Nominator's rationale: Merge. This category now contains only two articles and is not likely to expand. I suggest upmerging the articles into the parent category. Shiva Indis (talk) 23:29, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Low cost cars[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: delete. Kbdank71 13:20, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Low cost cars (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Highly subjective category that takes USD 5,500 out of the blue as a limit for "low cost". No article to base definition on, and does not try to specify any trait such as country the value should be based on etc, or assert academic support for this limit. Impossible to use this article in a constructive way in an encyclopedia. Arsenikk (talk) 23:08, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Renewable energy companies on the stock exchanges[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: rename to Category:Renewable energy companies. Kbdank71 13:27, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Renewable energy companies on the stock exchanges (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: OCAT - being listed on a stock exchange and being in a specific business is not defining for me. These companies are already listed for the most part in the actual stock exchange category and in other energy categories so a delete should be fine rather then a rename or a merge. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:55, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
After looking at Category:Renewable energy organizations I suppose that a rename of this category to Category:Renewable energy companies might help organize Category:Renewable energy organizations so maybe we should consider that as an alternative to deletion. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:07, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Asymmetric-key cryptosystems[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: keep. Kbdank71 13:23, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Moved from speedy. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:37, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with this renaming for two reasons. First of all, the main article is named Public-key cryptography with a dash, and that dash was the result of extensive discussions. So if the category should be renamed then the new category name should have the dash too. Secondly, as far as I know all public-key cryptography systems use asymmetric keys, but not all asymmetric-key cryptosystems have public keys. Thus Category:Asymmetric-key cryptosystems is the broader name including more algorithms and systems. That is, even if we do make a Category:Public-key cryptography we would still need the Category:Asymmetric-key cryptosystems for some articles. (But I don't know if we currently have any articles on such asymmetric but non-public algorithms.) But there is one advantage with the name Category:Public-key cryptography: I know from when I taught crypto that beginners have an easier time with that name since they tend to mix up "asymmetric" and "symmetric". --David Göthberg (talk) 14:49, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In any case it's certainly not a candidate for speedy renaming. A full CfD should be proposed, if desired. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:02, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Here I largely agree with the idea behind the renaming (but it does need the dash), but it probably should be fully discussed. I'm sure this was brought up on the project page but since I'm just a bad member I haven't looked in a while. Protonk (talk) 20:11, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OPPOSE: Absolutely not a candidate for speedy renaming. DG's discussion of the structure of the field above is correct. There exist asymmetric key algorithms for which neither key may be made public, but which otherwise share operational behavior with what are, unfortunately, called public key algorithms. That none are known (certainly not to me) to have any practical use alters nothing. The naming history is, like so many terms in English, not very tidy nor helpful. A dog's breakfast, to use another colorful English term taken, it seems, from the air. Sure dogs' breakfasts, like most dog meals are somewhat messy, but then I've known cats who...
Beginners who manage to grasp the difference between symmetric and asymmetric (not easy I agree from my own instructional experience) have grasped an important point; those who key in on public key have set themselves up for a long wrestle over the difference between one kind of private key and another sort of private key.
The correct term, from a content perspective, is asymmetric key or alternatively, non-shared key. Why the latter is not more widely used surpasseth my comprehension. Whatever is done, or not done, WP should not make the confusing tendency of the common term more pervasive. WP can do its bit for clear thought by refraining from doing the tempting, but dumb, thing. ww (talk) 17:58, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Additional discussion on CfD:
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:Economic theories[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: keep. Kbdank71 13:17, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Moved from speedy. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:33, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Additional discussion on CfD:

Note -- This is still tagged for speeddy Peterkingiron (talk) 21:40, 31 July 2008 (UTC) [reply]

  • Keep as is --Notoriously, the questions in economics exams remain the same, but the answers change. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:40, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Types of military forces in the Napoleonic Wars[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: delete. Kbdank71 13:17, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Types of military forces in the Napoleonic Wars (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: This kind of category would set a more or less unmanageable precedent. If articles like artillery or cavalry were to be added to categories representing all the wars they've been used in, it would have no practical benefit. Even fairly obscure types of forces like horse artillery would automatically be included in dozens of categories with little or no benefit to readers. Peter Isotalo 20:14, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. This category is far too broad to be a useful classification, and a list would do the job better. Nick Dowling (talk) 10:46, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I can see the point of categorising specific units that served in the Napoleonic Wars but this is too broad Kernel Saunters (talk) 10:53, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. The article Types of military forces in the Napoleonic Wars serves the list function quite happily, and as per the nominator's rationale, it would be a completely unmanagable precedent. Buckshot06(prof) 14:07, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Categories are there to bring together articles that are a part of the same subject area per categorisation criteria. If anyone can point to something in the editing guideline that prohibits this, I will certainly consider it, however, it is a guideline, and not a policy.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 05:42, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - If this category is too broad then can you point to a precedent where similar categories were deleted on this rationale? It is not appropriate to create a list for what is thirty articles. The existing article Types of military forces in the Napoleonic Wars serves as the main article for the category, something many categories lack, and currently does not include links to all the category articles as it is another of my (unless help is offered) ongoing projects. The category is expressly conforming with the requirement not to include specific units, as per the parent category, so I'm not sure what User:Kernel Saunters is basing his opposition on--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 05:42, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm pretty sure there are precedents for this, but whether there are or not Wikipedia is still not a bureaucracy. This actually appears to be an attempt to set a precedent, so it would be prudent to present arguments that weren't entirely confined to gaming the rules. Why should we start a trend of categorizing types of military units according to the conflicts (or group of conflicts) that they were in? What benefit to readers would it be if articles like cavalry were sorted into an almost endless number of categories? It just doesn't seem as if a category like this would be an improvement. Peter Isotalo 09:33, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Because cavalry changed through history! What "bureaucracy"? What "attempt to set a precedent"? What "gaming the rules"? Its a categorisation of articles! I suspect you need to read up on the period--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 07:10, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. If we take say Military engineer, I don't see how it can possibly be argued that 'Napoleonic Wars' (not mentioned in the article) is a defining characteristic of the profession. (Military engineer would be in a category for nearly every campaign since Roman times.) Occuli (talk) 10:12, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Its Types of military forces in the Napoleonic Wars, not which types were defined by the period!--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 07:10, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. It is so broad as to be useless. Narson (talk) 11:15, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How can it be too broad when its specification is a period of 20 years?--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 07:10, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Organisations based in Finland[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: keep. Kbdank71 13:15, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging to Category:Non-profit organizations based in Finland, or vice versa. I do not see much difference between this category (Category:Organizations based in Finland) and its subcategory Category:Non-profit organizations based in Finland. By far the most of the organisations would be non-profit anyway, wouldn't they? Otherwise they'd be called companies, right? (BTW, please fix the spelling. One category using British spelling and another using American spelling simply won't do.) JIP | Talk 20:10, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • keep as is. Looking at the Category:Organisations based in Finland, one can readily see the many valid organizations that are not non-profit. Hmains (talk) 04:06, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, part of a wider scheme. --Soman (talk) 15:56, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Can you show examples of for-profit organisations other than companies? I tend to only see government institutions, research groups, political parties, movements to promote ideas, and free-form communities. None of these strike me as trying to make a profit. JIP | Talk 18:20, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep there are many types of organizations, and whether they are for profit or not is only one way to categorize them; a lot more interesting way would be by their motivation, and sometimes their organizational structure. Directly under the category lays for instance political parties, trade unions, universities and colleges, and research institutes, to name some. Taking a look at Category:Organisations based in Norway there are several organizational types that would hail both to profit and non-profit, for instance cooperatives, sports clubs, foundations and youth organizations. It is inevitable that the Finnish category may one day include such organizations too. Arsenikk (talk) 20:23, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: If this is the case, the category should be kept. But it still needs two things: All organisations that strictly do not seek profit should be moved to its subcategory Category:Non-profit organizations based in Finland. Second, the spelling should be consistent. Both categories should use either the British or the American spelling. Preferably the British one. JIP | Talk 18:24, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Photovoltaic module manufacturers[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: merge. Kbdank71 13:15, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:Photovoltaic module manufacturers to Category:Photovoltaics manufacturers
Nominator's rationale: Merge, as both categories consist of companies operating in the same sector; not clear, what makes these categories different. Beagel (talk) 20:06, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Biomass (Heating)[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: merge. Kbdank71 13:14, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:Biomass (Heating) to Category:Biomass
Nominator's rationale: Merge, Consists of only one article. Currently has only one parent directory, which is a same as for Category:Biomass, so the different categories also doesn't needed for matrix-style categorization. Beagel (talk) 18:17, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge since (if I remember correctly) biomass is something that you use to heat something, so the (Heating) isn't necessary. Pie is good (Apple is the best) 23:57, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Guardian journalists[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: keep. Kbdank71 13:28, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Guardian journalists to Category:The Guardian people
Nominator's rationale: The category contains both columnists and journalists, so journalists is not quite the right name. Similar categories are named "... people", eg: Category:The Times people, Category:Wired magazine people. --h2g2bob (talk) 17:37, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify and delete - people can and do work for multiple employers over the course of a career. This is similar to the many deleted categories for broadcasters by network that went last year, a variety of performer by performance or performer by venue overcategorization. The proposed rename is also vague as it encompasses everyone from the editor-in-chief the the paperboys. Otto4711 (talk) 18:44, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments - 1) I would agree that most print journalists write for more than one newspaper during their careers. But I have to say that I've been struck repeatedly by the great disparity with the special treatment accorded to sports personalities, who are given categories for every team they've ever played for. (I don't know if that's true for all sports, but it is the case for American baseball and football players, among others.) -- 2) As for columnists, they are indeed rightly considered to be journalists, too -- in fact, most columnists start out and "prove themselves" first as reporters before being rewarded with a regular column. So there's no reason to exclude them them from categories for journalists. Cgingold (talk) 21:34, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename - per nom and per Category:Newspaper people by newspaper in the United Kingdom. The comparison with a sports team seems apt or with the faculty of a university. Occuli (talk) 21:06, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Qualify - I would also go along with the Cgingold remedy below - I expect there are non-journalist people (eg John Edward Taylor, the founder, doesn't sound like a journalist to me). Do not delete is my main concern. Occuli (talk) 11:50, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename - per nom and precedent. Johnbod (talk) 01:59, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - What's being overlooked here is the higher level parent cat, Category:Journalists by publication. Nobody has disputed the fact that (as I explained) columnists are indeed a type of journalist, so there's no reason to change the name on that score. The real problem is that these intertwined category structures are a big mess. The only purpose for Category:Newspaper people and Category:Newspaper people by newspaper is to include non-journalists such as publishers and perhaps other occupations on the business side of things. But we don't really have all that many of those articles -- by far the majority of articles are, in fact, about journalists. So renaming this category would be a step in the wrong direction. If there actually are any articles about non-journalists connected with The Guardian, that might perhaps suggest creating Category:Guardian people as a parent to Category:Guardian journalists. Cgingold (talk) 02:23, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Cgingold. Having a category for journalists, i.e. the people that write the paper, is useful, rather than lumping them in with others such as the owner, CEO etc. Ty 04:02, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Ligat Ha'al players[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: no consensus. Kbdank71 13:30, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Ligat Ha'al players to Category:Ligat HaAl (basketball) players
Nominator's rationale: As well as correcting the transliteration to match that of the main article, Ligat ha'Al is also the name of the top football league in the country, so there is a need to disambiguate. пﮟოьεԻ 57 15:29, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Elitzur Ashkelon players[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: no consensus. Kbdank71 13:30, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:Elitzur Ashkelon players to Category:Ironi Ashkelon players
Nominator's rationale: Club has been renamed Ironi Ashkelon. пﮟოьεԻ 57 15:20, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Maccabi Ironi Ramat Gan players[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: rename. Kbdank71 13:14, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Maccabi Ironi Ramat Gan players to Category:Ironi Ramat Gan players
Nominator's rationale: Proper name of the club - Maccabi is not included (see badge here). пﮟოьεԻ 57 15:17, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Weak Interaction physicists[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: rename. Kbdank71 13:13, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Weak Interaction physicists to Category:Weak interaction physicists
Nominator's rationale: This is standard Wikipedia capitalization. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 14:54, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy rename per nom. Otto4711 (talk) 15:20, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - All of the articles have been removed from the category (contrary to the clear advisory on the CFR notice). They need to be restored so we can evaluate the merits of the category. The requested rename is of course correct, but I'm not sure if these categories should exist to begin with. Cgingold (talk) 20:23, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
They've been restored now. They were moved to the proposed category, but the proposed category was not created. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:33, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Quantum Gravity physicists[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: rename. Kbdank71 13:13, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Quantum Gravity physicists to Category:Quantum gravity physicists
Nominator's rationale: This is standard Wikipedia capitalization. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 14:54, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy rename per nom. Otto4711 (talk) 15:22, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - All of the articles have been removed from the category (contrary to the clear advisory on the CFR notice). They need to be restored so we can evaluate the merits of the category. The requested rename is of course correct, but I'm not sure if these categories should exist to begin with. Cgingold (talk) 20:23, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy rename per nom.Beagel (talk) 20:29, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The result of the discussion was: Rename. - Diligent Terrier (and friends) 22:57, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm afraid that this discussion was closed prematurely, in clear violation of the guidelines for Speedy renaming, so I've removed the closing template and moved DT's comments. I see that the new category has already been populated. Could somebody please explain what's going on? Cgingold (talk) 23:27, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • By "somebody" I assume you are asking Diligent Terrier what he is doing, since he depopulated it, created the new category, and closed the discussion. I've reverted his changes and advised him on his talk page against making these types of changes during a CFD. Even if the change is speediable, which it may well be, I agree that it needs to be tagged for a minimum of 48 hours before the change is made per the guidelines. The articles certainly should not have been moved before the discussion was closed. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:02, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't have time to look into it, so I figured I'd probably get a faster reply if I left it open to "everybody", GO. Thanks for lending a hand. Of course, Category:Weak Interaction physicists is still empty -- was that DT's doing as well? Cgingold (talk) 02:18, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, for the love of ...! I'll revert those back too. Good Ol’factory (talk)
Thanks again, GO. I guess Diligent Terrier was just a bit too diligent. :) Cgingold (talk) 03:33, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Bad dog ... bad dog!" Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:38, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:People by Louisiana parish[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: merge. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:48, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:People by Louisiana parish to Category:People by parish in Louisiana
Nominator's rationale: Duplicate categories undertaking the same differentiation. Merge to the category which matches Wiki naming policy. Rgds, - Trident13 (talk) 13:08, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:People by nationality and its subcategories using the term 'nationality'[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: no consensus to rename. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:50, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming

(there are by my count 197 other category pages that would need to be listed (in a separate, second nomination), should discussion here establish a need to do so, work that I am entirely willing to do)

Nominator's rationale: The term 'nationality' is for two reasons problematic. First of all, yet of lesser importance to this rename nomination, is that the term does not necessarily denote mere citizenship, which is the apparent intended meaning here. Secondly and more importantly is that a number of people listed on the subcategory pages of these pages are not citizens of the country they are described as 'belonging' to. 'Booian people' is fine as it does not necessarily denote 'citizens of Booia' (although, for most people likely, it is suggestive of this - a note clarifying what is to be meant by 'Booian people' should be added to each cat page). The reason this is important is that we commonly on wikipedia categorize expatriates resident to a place as as being 'from' (perhaps 'of' would be the slightly better preposition) that place - the same is true of categorizing by state, county, province, department, etc, not to mention city. For instance 'Booian artists' and 'Booian academics' often include people active in a work in country Booia but who are not of Booian citizen (they often and correctly are double listed under 'Booia 1 artists' and 'Booia 2 artists', one for their citizenship and another for the country they work in, when it differs from the country of citizenship) The alternative would be to have two separate lists Category:People from Booia and Category:People in Booia (some Scottish places already do with separate 'People from' and 'People associated with' cat pages). I do not consider myself this distinction to be one worth maintaining. Mayumashu (talk) 03:53, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm wary of changing "Fooian people" to have "Foo" include residence and/or place of work in addition to citizenship because too many people have international careers these days. Citizenship has always seemed to me to be the natural implication of "nationality" in this context, and will for most subjects of articles be the most significant way to identify them. Expatriate categories (Category:American expatriates in France) can capture those other relationships without multiplying every occupation category by their country of residence or workplace that would seem to follow from your proposal. Postdlf (talk) 20:46, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But as it stands, Fooian people already does, as pointed out by Occuli here below
I disagree that it s an error - I see 'French people' as meaning people of France and not necessarily simply citizens of France Mayumashu (talk) 23:18, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As noted above it is (at present) a nationality category, and so correctly contains immigrants but not expatriates. Someone like say Ronaldinho is not in any sense Spanish. He is a Brazilian playing football in Spain. He is not Spanish. David Beckham is not American; neither did he become Spanish when playing in Spain. I was an expatriate in Nigeria; no-one ever told me I had become Nigerian (I was 'in Nigeria'; I was not 'of Nigeria'; I was not 'from Nigeria'). The usage you are suggesting seems to me to be very idiosyncratic. Occuli (talk) 12:08, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree that an expat is in no sense of the country they reside(d) in. He or she is of course, in a primarily sense (the sense of citizenship or nationality) not, but in a lesser sense is (how less dependent on what one does, for how long, relative). I still think the natural link of, say Category:Expatriates in Spain is still Category:Spanish people and not simply Category:Spain. Not all immigrants become citizens, so why maintain this link and not (other) expats? (User:Hmains, here below, set me straight on that point a while back.) Mayumashu (talk) 02:42, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep Neither nominator nor others provide a solution on what to do about the many subcats that do not involve a country, but truly involve a nationality--either within an existing country or nationalities without a [current] country. Instead of a rename, maybe we need both of each nominated category so everything will have a proper place to go. Hmains (talk) 03:04, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A 'nationality' without its 'own' sovereign nation is (still) an ethnicity - such a subcat should be linked with Category:People by race or ethnicity. And the presently listed links for Category:People by nationality are of groups in current, sovereign countries - the heart of this discussion is how expats should be linked to the country they reside in. Mayumashu (talk) 02:17, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
if so, first fix the offending links so we can consider renaming these categories based on what should be, and then is, in them. Hmains (talk) 03:55, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
and there are several dozen links to Category:People by nationality that are not for current countries as you claim. They are for ancient countries or nations that never had a country. These are what I am talking about. Hmains (talk) 20:12, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Mayumashu has done sterling work in sorting out ambiguous booian-fooian categories. We tend to categorise people by place: People from Guildford will be a subcategory of people from Surrey, in turn a subcategory of people from England and then from United Kingdom. In a country that has experienced as much immigration as UK, some of those people will not be British nationals, though from Britain. If non-EU nationals, there is a motive to obtain British nationality, mainly for immigration reasons. Nevertheless, categorisation primarily by place is more satisfactory than by nationality. However, I would not want to rule out categorisation by ethnicity where appropriate. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:22, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:20, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for now. This is a huge change and I think it will need to be discussed widely outside of CFD first. - Darwinek (talk) 22:37, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Agree with D that much more broader discussion (at WP:VP) is necessary first. UnitedStatesian (talk) 12:00, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Christian Castro albums[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 RENAME, misspelling. Postdlf (talk) 14:54, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:Christian Castro albums to Category:Cristian Castro albums
Nominator's rationale: Category created in error, due to misspelling of name on an album page. Katharineamy (talk) 08:26, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Interstate Agencies[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: rename to Category:United States interstate agencies. Kbdank71 13:11, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Interstate Agencies to Category:Interstate agencies of the United States
Nominator's rationale: Rename. More accurate name with proper capitalization. Eastlaw (talk) 06:01, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Forgive me for nitpicking here, but the parent category is Category:United States interstate compacts. So make of that what you will, as far as the name of the future category is concerned. --Eastlaw (talk) 07:33, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please ignore that last comment, I just saw the source text of what you said. --Eastlaw (talk) 07:59, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So do I support the rename after interstate compact is renamed or do we rename Category:United States interstate compacts? I think I'm leaning to the latter unless this name is used in other countries. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:43, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's the problem--I'm not sure if the term "interstate compact" is used in any other context, and I don't want to confuse anyone. --Eastlaw (talk) 19:55, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well policy is to only disambiguate where a conflict exists or to follow a naming convention. Not sure that either apply here. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:00, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Policy aside, I would be content with either "United States interstate agencies" or "Interstate agencies of the United States", though I do think the latter sounds better. --Eastlaw (talk) 20:53, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If we go this way, then it should be Category:United States interstate agencies since they are not agencies of the United States. They may have congressional approval to exist, but they operate without US government oversight based on my reading of the articles. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:18, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, you've got a point there. If that's the way you want to rename it, go ahead at your earliest convenience. --Eastlaw (talk) 23:45, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose current, support Category:United States interstate agencies, because any international agency is an agency, since states are countries, which is why the State Department handles international relations. Also, anyone from Australia? Mind telling us of Australian interstate agencies? 70.55.87.79 (talk) 11:48, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK then, I suppose we are all in agreement then...? --Eastlaw (talk) 03:58, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Adventuresses[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: delete. Kbdank71 13:07, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Adventuresses (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Category:Adventurers was deleted in a 2007 DEC 11 CfD. Essentially the same concerns exist here, since this is an identical category, save for the gender specification. I thought Otto's comments were excellent there, so I may as well simply quote them verbatim: "[An] ill-defined and inherently POV categorization scheme. The lead article Adventurer ... defines 'adventurer' as: 1) One whose travels are unusual and often exotic, though not so unique as to qualify as exploration; 2) One who lives by their wits; or 3) One who takes part in a risky or speculative course of action for profit or position. The first definition demands that editors make a judgment call in determining if someone's travels are 'unusual' but not sufficiently 'unique' to qualify them as 'explorers.' The second is so vague as to be for all intents and purposes meaningless. The third could describe tens of thousands of people in business, sports, entertainment or pretty much any other field of human endeavour." Notified creator with {{subst:cfd-notify}} Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:58, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a vague characterization.--Lenticel (talk) 01:39, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a negative characterization. Merriam-Webster defines "adventuress" as "a female adventurer; especially : one who seeks position or livelihood by questionable means". I note, however, that the only woman currently listed in the category seems to qualify. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:54, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the reasoning for the nomination is unimpeachable. Otto4711 (talk) 19:54, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per precedent CfD and the fact that all females who have articles are adventuresses since they all did something amazing. If someone would like to dispute that, let me know on my talk page. Pie is good (Apple is the best) 00:07, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Lehman family[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: delete; template now created. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:44, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Lehman family (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Over-categorization. A category for all of four individuals, the last of whom died in 1969, so there aren't going to be any additions. Jayjg (talk) 00:55, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Changing to delete per creation of template by Vegaswikian. - There's actually a fifth article in the category. Yeah, it's on the small side, but imo it passes muster. Cgingold (talk) 03:11, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Since this is static, why not simply create a small template? Vegaswikian (talk) 04:15, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • That sounds good. But who makes it happen? Cgingold (talk) 09:20, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • {{Lehman family}} is now available. I only added it to the family article right now. Working on other things. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:57, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for jumping right on that, VW. Since that's been taken care of, I'll change my !vote on this. Cgingold (talk) 21:42, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Copy and paste works well if I don't make mistakes. In any case, I have added the template to all of the articles in the category. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:20, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_July_29&oldid=1142498737"