Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 July 30

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< July 29 July 31 >

July 30[edit]

Category:Education, training, and library occupations[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 13:34, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Education, training, and library occupations to Category:Education and training occupations
Nominator's rationale: Rename and move . No need for these to be combined since they are very different occupations. While a part of a librarians job may be education related it is much more. Likewise the museum occupations will be moved out after this nomination since it is really neither of these. Some museum occupations, for example Docent would be correctly classified in an education and a museum occupation category. The only other change is to drop librarian from this category and move it directly to occupations. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:55, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In digging deeper, it appears that there are are least 4 library related articles, one of which should be listed in multiple categories. So I'm amending this to also create Category:Library occupations with the appropriate articles. If the rename receives consensus the closing admin can drop a note on my talk page and I'll move out the required articles. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:04, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom -- I agree with Vegaswikian's assessment. (I suspect this category may have made more sense when it was created back in 2004.) Notified creator with {{subst:cfd-notify}} Cgingold (talk) 02:18, 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:Computer and mathematical occupations[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 13:32, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Computer and mathematical occupations to Category:Computer occupations
Nominator's rationale: Rename. The one subcat was basically about math related professions and not really computers. I moved it up to Category:Occupations. All of the articles here are computer related so a rename makes sense. I don't think that Category:Occupations is so large at this point that we need to start grouping these in smaller weakly related sub categories. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:21, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom - I came across this yesterday and thought it seemed a bit of an odd coupling. (I suspect this category may have made more sense when it was created back in 2004.) Notified creator with {{subst:cfd-notify}} Cgingold (talk) 23:47, 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:Actuarial Firms[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 for proper capitalization, no consensus on addition of "consulting". Kbdank71 13:32, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Actuarial Firms to Category:Actuarial consulting firms
Nominator's rationale: The phrase "actuarial firm" is vague and imprecise. The members of the category are all actuarial consulting firms, their employees are consultants, and virtually every one of the articles begin "XYZ is a ... consulting firm". — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 22:23, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If the category is kept as is, it should be renamed with a lower-case f in firms. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 22:32, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leave it as it is -- The professionals are actuaries (not consultants, which covers a multitude of occupations). They may be employed by insurance companies or be partners in or employees of a firm of actuary, in other words an Actualrial firm. The firm may describe itself as "consulting actuaries" (but not - I think - actuarial consultants) to distinguish themselves from employed actuaries. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:52, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The issue isn't whether the employees of these firms are actuarial consultants or consulting actuaries (most use the latter title), it's whether the firm is an actuarial firm or an actuarial consulting firm.
By the way, what do insurance companies have to do with this? They're insurance companies, not actuarial consulting firms (or actuarial firms, if you prefer). — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 22:32, 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.

Ontario cities/regions[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 all. Kbdank71 13:31, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Please forgive me if I didn't nominate correctly, as this is my first time and this particular nomination is complex. I asked for help on the talk page, and no one replied, so this is the best I could do.

These cities'/regions' categories should be renamed to correspond to the names of their articles (without the "Ontario"). --Pwnage8 (talk) 22:08, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I cleaned up this listing a bit, no need to sign each line [1]. I checked some of these and none of them seem to be tagged. — CharlotteWebb 23:01, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The York article is actually Regional Municipality of York and I'm very surprised that Ontario is not included (there being other Yorks, some New). Durham is hardly unambiguous. Peel is ambiguous. Barrie, Oshawa, Mississauga all do point to Ontario, so there is a case for omitting 'Ontario'. Occuli (talk) 02:53, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply York, Durham, and Peel are not ambiguous, but York Region, Durham Region and Peel Region are, and these are used in the category names. Their articles have dropped the "Ontario", and many categories have as well. These are the "leftovers". --Pwnage8 (talk) 21:14, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose for Durham and York, which are cities in England. Candian places of these names have borrowed their names and therefore require a natioonal or provincial suffix. Accordingly the term "York region" might be taken to refer to the area around that city. I am not sure about the other places. However, I think this would be better broken down by place. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:58, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment "York Region" is not used at all to refer to the area around the British city, and neither is "Durham Region". These are exclusive terms to the Ontario regional municipalities. --Pwnage8 (talk) 22:05, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support all. If it were 'York region' then I d share Peterkingiron's concern, but the capitalization, denoting the proper noun, assures that we are talking about Ontario's York, Durham and Peel Mayumashu (talk) 00:37, 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:Critics of contraception[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:Anti-contraception activists. Kbdank71 13:28, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Critics of contraception (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

  • Let's stick with "contraception". NFP involves periodic abstinence, and does not involve contraception at all. A category reserved for those who oppose "artificial" contraception but support "natural" contraception would be so small as to include no one notable. The original category "critics" suggests persons who not only oppose the practice, but who challenge it in an outspoken manner. "Activists" seems to me to suggest political and social involvement more than intellectual efforts. If it is deemed necessary to change the categorization, "opponents" is probably preferable, but again it suggests more a taking of sides than the reasoned challenge which is offered by a critic. Whatever the heading, it should serve to direct students of the subject to thinkers in a variety of fields and coming from various social and religious backgrounds who challenge the prevalent thinking in this area. Rabbet (talk) 03:20, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Activist categories are intended for people who work actively in behalf of a given issue, whether by speaking or writing or organizing or committing civil disobediance, etc. etc. We generally eschew categories for mere "critics". Writing a single article that proves to be influential probably doesn't qualify as activism in and of itself. But if they've devoted substantial effort to promoting their arguments such that they're understood to be advancing whatever cause it may be, then they are rightly considered to be activists. I haven't looked at all of the articles in this category, but the ones I sampled looked like activists to me. Cgingold (talk) 12:12, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Activists against contraception, thanks to Cgingold for explaining the use of "activist" in Wikipedia category names. As Rabbet indicated, these people generally consider NFP to be "family planning" or "birth control" (since it results in planned or controlled timing of births) but not contraception (since no action is taken to render intercourse infertile). With this definition, there is no need to specify "artificial" in the category name. LyrlTalk C 15:50, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure Category:Activists against contraception is really suitable as a Category name. There's not a single other sub-cat of Category:Activists by issue that uses a similar formulation -- all activists who are against something are referred to as "Anti-Xyz activists". So between the two, my preference would be for Category:Anti-contraception activists. Cgingold (talk) 12:48, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please relist for further discussion. Cgingold (talk) 12:49, 30 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, Kbdank71 14:44, 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:IL7Soulhunter's bands[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: deleted at request of creator. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:12, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:IL7Soulhunter's bands (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: The category exists solely for the benefit of a single user and is therefore unencyclopedic. Stepheng3 (talk) 14:42, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a pretty useless category. The Llama! (talk) 17:03, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't mind it being deleted. --↑ɻ⅞θʉɭђɥл₮₴Ṝ 17:52, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, please place a {{db-author}} tag on the category. Stepheng3 (talk) 18:02, 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:Video game critics[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: reverse merge. Kbdank71 13:21, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:Video game critics to Category:Video game journalists
Nominator's rationale: Merge, both categories point to video game journalism and it's unclear what distinction there is between a journalist and critic in this field. Ham Pastrami (talk) 13:24, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This makes sense to me - reverse merge per CharlotteWebb. Cgingold (talk) 22:33, 25 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, Kbdank71 14:39, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reverse merge per CharlotteWebb, by analogy with other categories. An argument could be made that a writer for a video game magazine is a "video game journalist," not a "critic," but I can't find analogous categories for other writers for special-interest magazines (e.g., cars, bodybuilding, firearms). "Critic" it is. -- ℜob ℂ. alias ⒶⓁⒶⓇⓄⒷ 19:43, 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:Brighton College alumni[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 13:24, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Brighton College alumni (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: delete:Brighton College (a British public school) alumni are correctly categorised under Category:Old Brightonians. Tassedethe (talk) 15:13, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • NOTE: Can anyone find a link to the last time this exact issue was discussed (at even greater length) here, and the "Old Fooians" form retained? Johnbod (talk) 03:50, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The rugby/football/cricket clubs are part of the 'Old Brightonians Association' for alumni of the school - see OBs, as is the case for many of the long-established schools in the UK. Occuli (talk) 01:02, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • So the name is ambiguous since it describes more then the students. This supports the need for a reverse merge. Vegaswikian (talk) 08:28, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The rugby players are all alumni, that is Old Brightonians; there is no ambiguity. Occuli (talk) 11:43, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is why it is ambiguous. The term is used to describe multiple things be it the rugby team or the association. I will concede that in context the use could be completely clear, but as a category name it is not. Clearly you are building the case that the current name is used in many cases, and not only to describe graduates. Would we also apply that name to a business that only hired Old Brightonians? Vegaswikian (talk) 20:42, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • These are not graduates either. It's a school. In the UK people do not graduate from a (high) school. An Old Brightonian is a person who attended Brighton College. Someone who didn't is not an Old Brightonian. (Such a person may play rugby or cricket for the completely non-notable 'Old Boys' teams but this is a red herring. If it were notable the categories would be something like 'Old Brightonians rugby team players', 'Old Brightonians cricket team players'. No-one is trying to rename 'X university alumni' on the grounds that X University also has sports teams, as far as I know.) The 'Old Brightonians Association' will be a formal association with a committee, president, secretary, written constitution, which Old Brightonians can join on the payment of a fee (maybe one-off, perhaps annual). A member of this will be a 'Member of the Old Brightonians Association'. In the highly unlikely event of this being a 'defining characteristic', the creation of the subcat 'Members of the Old Brightonians Association' would be in order. The rugby players would be a subcat of this. (There is no chance of any of these ever having articles on Wikipedia, or being mentioned at all except in tedious cfds such as this one, a simple request for an obvious merge of a 1-article misnomer.) Occuli (talk) 15:19, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I strongly disagree with the reverse merge suggestion. The term alumni is rarely used in the UK, although perhaps it has started to have a little use recently. The terms like 'Old Brightonians' are very common. Take a look at the parent category. At the very least, the reverse merge should not be done until proper notice has been give, tagging of Category:Old Brightonians and a proper discussion under that specific heading. I sort of recall that the idea of changing all the 'Old Fooians' categories was discussed previously and was not accepted. I think the British should be allowed to decide what they call their old boys' associations. --Bduke (talk) 05:15, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The British are free to call their associations anything they want. That doesn't mean that those names should be used as category names if use of those names is unclear. Otto4711 (talk) 21:10, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • They are not unclear in the UK, but the term alumni is. We also name things as what they are called and they are not called alumni associations. I also note that out of 195 categories in Category:People by school in England, the 2 your mention that include the term "alumni" are just 2 out of a subset of 9. --Bduke (talk) 23:56, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are you suggesting that if I told someone in the UK I was an "alumnus" or a "member of the alumni" of Brighton College most people would have no idea what I was talking about? I find that difficult to believe, but maybe I'm give the British people too much credit? Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:27, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alumnus is a Latin word, and was not used at all in this context in the UK until recently (10 years? 20 years?). If you search the Eton College website for 'alumni' you will get 2 pages, neither of which contains the word. The general term used to be 'Old Boy/Girl of Foo'. 'Alumni' of UK universities are generally called graduates. 'I went to Brighton College' would be the optimal way of conveying the information to a Brit. Occuli (talk) 11:56, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • And if this were Britipedia then the "Old Fooians" designations would be fine. It's not and when most people who use the encyclopeia don't understand what a category name means then there's a problem with the category name. Who outside of the UK is going to have any idea that "Old Paludian" means someone who is associated with Slough Grammar School? Otto4711 (talk) 17:01, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wasn't searching for the optimal way of conveying the information to a British person, I was just trying to find out if they would understand me if I said I was an alumnus or the member of the alumni of a certain place. If it is well understood there, and it is well understood in the rest of the English-speaking world, then how is it not the clearest means of conveying the information to anyone who speaks English, regardless of where that person lives? As a Brit famously said, "you can't always get what you want", and even though it would be no doubt preferable to a British person to use the "Old Fooian" designations, they aren't helpful to the vast majority of English speakers in the world. Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:32, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nominator's comment As the nominator I never expected this discussion to quite take this form. I would disagree with the proposals for reverse merging the category. I have tracked down a previous discussion on a similar topic which suggested renaming several of these categories, see here. The result was no consensus. I would agree with several of the arguments presented there, principally that 'Alumni' is not used in conjunction with British schools although it is with British universities (compare Category:People by school in England with Category:Alumni by university or college in the United Kingdom). Also that it is WP policy to use British-English terms with British-English subjects. I feel if people want to start renaming these Old Fooians categories then a new discussion should be started, if a consensus can be reached over some of the bigger categories e.g Old Etonians or Old Harrovians, then that is fine. This category should not be the place to make such a radical change. Tassedethe (talk) 08:29, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/merge, not reverse merge. Category:People by school in England (and elsewhere, e.g. Category:People by school in Australia) use "Old Fooians" when that is the proper term for someone who attended the school. As BDuke says, the "Old Fooian" format is very common. The category name is not unclear - if anyone sees "Old Fooians" at the bottom of the article, all they have to do is click on it and it will say "This is a category for people who attended Foo School". "Alumni of Eton College" (3 Google hits) and ""Alumni of Harrow School" (2 Google hits) are never used, so standardization of Category:People by school in England in an "Alumni of Foo" format is most unlikely. So, where as here there is an "Old Fooian" format, it should be used. BencherliteTalk 09:04, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Moreover "Alumni of Brighton College" gets 3 Google hits, the first of which is for 'Alumni of Brighton College of Technology', a different place altogether. "Brighton College alumni" gets 8 hits, including a Brighton College in Ohio and one in New South Wales. So the alumni formulation is certainly not without ambiguity. Occuli (talk) 21:33, 30 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, Kbdank71 14:20, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/merge and do not assail the Old Fooians cat format, at least not from this starting point. Strong cases have been made on each side, but the assumption that "alumni" is well understood, and used in the same sense, throughout the English-speaking word is just that, an assumption. Next time this subject comes up, I hope we'll have a little less of the Spirit of '76, as well. T'ain't fittin'. -- ℜob ℂ. alias ⒶⓁⒶⓇⓄⒷ 19:55, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I will grant you that alumni is ambiguous as is the form being suggested for rename here. In the US alumni generally means a graduate. In the UK I believe that it generally means attended the school. So we likely have two different naming conventions that have different problems and simply may not work. So, maybe the broader question should be asked and that is what is the common name we should use in categories to indicate that the student graduated from a specific school? And there may even be a different question that may need answering first. Does notability become established only on graduation or is attending sufficient? And before you jump at answering the latter question, if you say attending then for how long? I'm sure that most would agree that a single day is not sufficient, but then any other choice is arbitrary. So graduating is the notable action. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:32, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Most of these Schools, if not all, will have an old boys association, probably with a title like "Old Fooians Association". If they allow someone who was there for one day to be a member of that association, then so should we. We should not make up rules.--Bduke (talk) 07:11, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Given that, then we are saying that notability is based on membership in the association and the categories should be renamed to Category:Old Fooians Association members. Still leaves unanswered what to do with the groups that don't have an association, but are there any? Vegaswikian (talk) 07:37, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It doesn't mean this at all. Some one from Liverpool is a Liverpudlian (there is no Association); schools without an association may well still have a collective term for their former pupils. It will be in general be impossible to discover whether someone is a member of the Old Fooians Association; about 1 in 10 Old Fooians will join the association. Someone who has been a pupil at Foo is an 'Old Booian' (where Boo has some loose connection to Foo - an Old boy of Highgate School is an 'Old Cholmeleian', pronounced Chumleian, for obscure reasons) and is entitled to apply to join the association (if there is one). This is all immaterial as there will be no mention of Foo in the article of someone who attended for 1 day. Also in the UK people do not 'graduate' from school; they just leave, with or without qualifications. You insist on a US-centric point of view - most English speakers and schools teaching in the English language are not in the US. There are 150 million in Nigeria where the language of tuition is English, further millions in all the ex-British African colonies. India, Pakistan - I don't know but the people in the call centres there speak English, and tell me the times of trains from London. Nearly all UK schools do not have an association (it is a public school, ie private school, tradition) and the associations that do exist are not notable. David Cameron and George Orwell were notably Old Etonians ('former pupils of Eton College'); I would be astonished if Orwell joined the Association and surprised if Cameron didn't. Lennon went to Quarry Bank High School for 5 years, failed all his O-Levels, left and went to Liverpool College of Art where he again failed and dropped out. In UK terms he is an 'Old Boy of Quarry Bank High School' and also of LCA. I have no idea whether Quarry Bank High School has a snappy name for its Old Boys but would suggest 'Quarrymen'. He has been placed in 'Alumni of Quarry Bank High School' and could equally be in 'Alumni of Liverpool College of Art' but not 'Graduates of LCA' as he didn't graduate. If 'Alumnus' implies academic success at some level then we had better change all the UK alumni categories. (Evelyn Waugh did not graduate from Oxford; he would be quite correctly categorised as an 'Old Member of Hertford' or 'Former student of Hertford College, Oxford' but apparently he should not be in the egregiously renamed Category:Alumni of Hertford College, Oxford.) Occuli (talk) 09:20, 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:Individuals in military service during 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: delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:29, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Individuals in military service during World War II (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Category already covered by Category:Military personnel of World War II, a well used category with many sub-categories that was discussed and agreed by the milhistory project. Kernel Saunters (talk) 11:14, 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:Hindu goddesses[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 current name. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:20, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Hindu goddesses to Category:Devi (Hinduism)
Nominator's rationale: To comply with proposed renaming of Hindu gods to Devas Wikidās ॐ 09:47, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See previous discussion to change this category to Category:Devi. Consensus was to keep as Category:Hindu goddesses. ~ priyanath talk 19:57, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Per below, as in nomination below this one. GizzaDiscuss © 10:39, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose split and subcategorize instead, per below. 70.55.87.79 (talk) 11:43, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to IP - you are presenting a solution from a Dictionary perspective, we are solving a practical situation with POV implications, that does not have means of being solved by subs and godlike assessments, since it is entirely depending on what specific tradition of Hinduism you belong to or represent; however the bulk of Hindu gods are always called devas by all traditions, thus we will resolve POV problem and still keep subcategories for special cases, that are not representative of the whole body of Hinduism. Thus your suggestion is not valid. Wikidās ॐ 12:37, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support As detailed in nomination below. -- Q Chris (talk) 12:48, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as overly specialized, non-English term, as detailed in nomination below. -- ℜob ℂ. alias ⒶⓁⒶⓇⓄⒷ 20:08, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for the same reason as outlined in the discussion of "Hindu Gods" category below 67.169.0.250 (talk) 07:14, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: as per reason given below.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 14:34, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose -- Not being a Hindi speaker, I know exactly what the present category means, but the suggested name means nothing. WP is a worldwide encyclopaedia and needs as far as possible to use internatioanlly understood terminology. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:04, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Too unfamiliar to most English users. Johnbod (talk) 01:54, 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:Hindu gods[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 current name. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:19, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Hindu gods to Category:Devas (Hinduism)
Nominator's rationale: The confusion over what is accepted as Hindu god is well documented on the Talk:Hinduism discussion on Swaminarayan. Renaming will illiminate the problem. Wikidās ॐ 09:29, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See previous discussion to change this category to Category:Deva. Consensus was to keep as Category:Hindu gods. ~ priyanath talk 19:59, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Guru-Deva (Hinduism) can be a sub category. Wikidās ॐ 10:37, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't making it a sub-category mean that members of the sub category belong to the category, defeating the object of the proposal? This is a question; I am unsure of how wiki categories work.-- Q Chris (talk) 10:41, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's right, Q Chris, Category:Guru-Deva (Hinduism) would be a sub-category of Category:Hindu gurus, since they would be Gurus whose devotees thought they were Gods, rather than Category:Hindu gods ~ priyanath talk 17:19, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Should we separate this into proposals to rename this category (and Category:Hindu goddesses) and a separate proposal to create a new category? Also, I don't know of any but we could possibly need a category Category:Guru-Devi (Hinduism) -- Q Chris (talk) 10:49, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Separate proposal for Devis is already our Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_July_30#Category:Hindu_goddesses. I do not know if anyone wants to have Guru-Devis? Not yet, maybe in 50 years time?? Wikidās ॐ 10:57, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is getting a little bit off-topic but just to let you know, there are lots of women who claim to be avatars of Radha, Lakshmi, Durga/Mother Goddess and Saraswati. I'm not sure how many of them are notable and how many of them have Wikipedia articles but they do exist. GizzaDiscuss © 15:19, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose you should split and subcategorize instead, with descriptions in the subcategories, on how "godlike" the populants of the category are. 70.55.87.79 (talk) 11:42, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to IP - you are presenting a solution from your Dictionary perspective, we are however are solving a practical situation (with clear implications of POV problems) that does not have means of being solved by subs and godlike assessments; It is entirely depending on what specific tradition of Hinduism you belong to or represent. However the bulk of Hindu gods are always called deva by all traditions, thus we will resolve POV problem and still keep subcategories for special cases, that are not representative of the whole body of Hinduism. Thus your suggestion is not valid. Wikidās ॐ 12:36, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The only reason for SN to get into this cat was because it was Hindu Deities before. You say:" The Swaminarayans may well reintroduce the category Category:Hindu gods and apply it to their Guru." I agree that new category for people considered gods in Hinduism is a good idea as well. Wikidās ॐ 12:51, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose: Deva and devi is jargon for a non-hindu, god, goddess or deity is NOT. Assumption should be the cat or article is for a non-expert. If a split is proposed, i think again non-jargon should be used. Redtigerxyz (talk) 13:30, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can see your point. I think the problem would be persuading the Swaminarayans that Bagwan Swaminarayan sould not be in the God/Deity category but should be in the Category:Gurus seen as God by their followers or whatever instead. -- Q Chris (talk) 13:51, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is neither a Hindu nor Swaminarayan encyclopedia. We just know NPOV. We can discuss and sort the issue out, maybe by a vote or a list of references.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 14:09, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Probable alternative is to merge both Goddesses and Gods into one Deities. As it was before. Wikidās ॐ 16:00, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppsing merge of gods and goddesses: As gods for male and goddesses for female, similar cats are seen at Category:Goddesses_by_culture and Category:Gods_by_culture.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 14:39, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose per Redtigerxyz, and also because this is an encyclopedia - we need to use the terms that are used by a majority of Reliable Sources. No splitting is necessary. for the same reason. ~ priyanath talk 17:22, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose because this move would imply a need to translate the names of deities in (all?) other polytheistic traditions covered by Wikipedia. This is an English encyclopedia for general use, not website for specialists. -- ℜob ℂ. alias ⒶⓁⒶⓇⓄⒷ 20:07, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This category is a sub category to current Hindu deities category and merely distinguishes male forms from female forms, thus it should probably be considered to be Category:Hindu male deities. The term 'gods' was used in a derogatory terms by many, and still is . Wikidās ॐ 02:18, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose It will be easier if you give me a category and I will give you a god for that category rather than other way around: Male god, female god, half-male-half-female god (not to be confused with modern concept of 'sexual orientation'), or half-human-half-animal-who-is-neither-male-nor-female-god. I hope you see the point - any categorization of 330 million or so Hindu gods is futile. I would suggest just one and only one category of "Hindu Gods". Along with this a separate category for "Hindu Gurus" and "Hindu Guru-Gods" seems appropriate. Also one would need to clarify that people listed under the "Hindu Guru-God" category are not necessarily regarded as Gods by most of the Hindus. Hope this helps. 67.169.0.250 (talk) 07:12, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changed to Oppose Upon further thought, I realise changing god to deva doesn't solve any problem. Introducing Sanskrit/Indian terminology just confuses things. The main issue that needs to be discussed is if and how a new category should be created for gurus whose followers see them as gods. Even thought Category:Guru-deva (Hinduism) may become a sub-cat of the main Hindu gods cat, that is still better because the reader will be informed that these people are considered gods almost exclusively to the one sect. GizzaDiscuss © 15:14, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The problem with Category:Guru-deva (Hinduism) is that Gurudeva is often used synonymously with Guru, and has other meanings and uses. Category:Gurus whose followers see them as gods is much more specific, and would also make it fit naturally as a subcat of Category:Hindu gurus, where it would belong. I would oppose the creation of any 'Guru-deva' category as too confusing. For example, would Rabindranath Tagore belong there, since he was often called 'Gurudeva'? ~ priyanath talk 15:28, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose -- Not being a Hindi speaker, I know exactly what the present category means, but the suggested name means nothing. WP is a worldwide encyclopaedia and needs as far as possible to use internatioanlly understood terminology. If there are problems of definition that are not merely POV, there can be subcategories. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:06, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Too unfamiliar to most English users. Johnbod (talk) 01:54, 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:Celebrity endorsers in the Philippines[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:27, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Celebrity endorsers in the Philippines (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Come on now, do we really need this? How about Celebrity endorsers in Botswana? P.S.: If this can be speedily deleted be my guest. --Howard the Duck 05:22, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Admittedly, this would appear to be a pretty silly topic for a category. But to be absolutely fair I have to ask: is there something dramatically different about Celebrity endorsers in the Philippines? I mean, have they somehow attained a stunningly high level of social status there? Notified creator with {{subst:cfd-notify}} Cgingold (talk) 07:21, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I checked out a couple of random articles, and learned that Heart Evangelista is not just your ordinary, everday Celebrity Endorser -- she has the distinction of having been named "Celebrity Endorser of the Year" in 2003. (Who knew?) Cgingold (talk) 08:33, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is actually a really really really minor award given by a really really really minor modeling agency. Starczamora (talk) 09:38, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete: Agreed; the article is nothing but fancruft, and puts too much fannish emphasis on the actors rather than just stating the facts, which is what Wikipedia is about. Blake Gripling (talk) 08:10, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete. Fancrufty category, especially that all celebrities (and even non-celebrities like athletes and politicians) in the Philippines have endorsed a product or service either through blatant advertising or through exchange deals. You will always hear celebrities in the Philippines greet on television like this: "I would like to thank Basement Salon for my hair and make-up, Doctora Vicky Belo for my skin care, Doctor Brandon Vinoya for my dental care, Bench for my clothes, Alberto shoes, Watch Republic, Met Gluthathione for my skin whitening, and I would also appear on the following events..." You get the drift. Starczamora (talk) 09:38, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the detailed explanation -- do they really go on and on like that, naming one product after another? Cgingold (talk) 12:12, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, especially at the end of the program. Starczamora (talk) 15:15, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Especially if he/she's making it big time, as in a mother lode of companies cash in on the celebrity, ala-Shirley Temple. Blake Gripling (talk) 23:14, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete on the grounds of overcategorization.--Lenticel (talk) 10:54, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, this one's overkill. In a place where even people you've never heard of pass themselves off as a 'celebrity endorser' (such as lawyers and lawmakers), this category seems to be a bad joke. --- Tito Pao (talk) 00:43, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I almost forgot to come back and make it official: Delete. Cgingold (talk) 02:10, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Well at least it gave me a chuckle. :) GizzaDiscuss © 23:53, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Absolutely delete seems created by a fan, over categorization. --Efe (talk) 05:07, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete Seriously now, is this category even necessary? Endorsers and endorsements are rarely constant, especially in the Philippines. --Sky Harbor (talk) 14:41, 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:America exclusive video games[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. No consensus if OCAT, but if relisted, the other subcats of Category:Region exclusive video games should be nominated as well.. Kbdank71 13:20, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:America exclusive video games to Category:North America exclusive video games
Nominator's rationale: Rename. The purpose of this category is to identify video games that have not been released outside of the United States or Canada, but the name of the category itself does not give that impression. Hence, my cfr proposal to eliminate any confusion. MuZemike (talk) 02:42, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Can someone explain why this is defining and not OCAT? I can order the game from a supplier and get it shipped and get it shipped, right. Players can also be gotten from other areas. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:28, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is currently incomplete. More articles are planning to be added to this category. MuZemike (talk) 18:07, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • That reply does not appear to answer my question. Adding more articles does not negate the over categorization concern. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:55, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • So it should be deleted? (Not that I care; I don't know what needs to be cleaned up category-wise.) MuZemike (talk) 16:56, 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.

Collaborationists[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 all. Kbdank71 13:16, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:French collaborationists to Category:French Nazi collaborators
Category:Executed Czechoslovak collaborationists to Category:Executed Czechoslovak Nazi collaborators
Category:Executed Norwegian collaborationists to Category:Executed Norwegian Nazi collaborators
Category:Executed Soviet collaborationists to Category:Executed Soviet Nazi collaborators
Category:Executed Hungarian Nazis to Category:Executed Hungarian Nazi collaborators
Nominator's rationale: Rename all. In a 2008 APR 23 CfD, it was decided to change "collaborationists" to "collaborators" and the practice has developed of using "Nazi collaborators" when we are specifically referring to those who collaborated with the German Third Reich, not just "collaborators" or "collaborationists", since the terms by themselves are ambiguous ("collaborated with whom?"). Most of the subcategories of Category:Collaborators with Nazi Germany follow this pattern, but not these ones, most of which have been created since the discussion. I'm also proposing that "Executed Hungarian Nazis" should be an executed Nazi collaborators category, since most of them were Nazi collaborators, and not true members of the Nazi party. Notified creators with {{subst:cfd-notify}} Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:42, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all per nom, consistent with parent cats and with previous related CFDs. Cgingold (talk) 02:12, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all It needs to be specified that these are Nazi collaborators. __meco (talk) 08:42, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all per nom. Much better. - Darwinek (talk) 09:03, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all per nom. Tazmaniacs (talk) 11:53, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all. I'm OK with this... --GCarty (talk) 20:59, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: User:GCarty was the creator of these categories. Cgingold (talk) 23:45, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that 'Czechoslovak' is misspellt above. As per the vote, I'm support the rename at this point. But, I do think these categorizations are problematic, and should be used in a limited extent (only in clearcut, uncontroversial cases). --Soman (talk) 15:54, 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:Non-violent first-person shooters[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:24, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Non-violent first-person shooters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete, trivial category relating to a largely subjective video game theme that is unlikely ever to be expanded. Also contradicts WP:NOT#CENSORED. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 01:17, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fine with me. I'm the one who created this category, and I really don't think it can be added much beyond this. I thought about adding the Nerf games, but they're not really FPS's. Soap Talk/Contributions 01:26, 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_July_30&oldid=1080030854"