Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 June 21

< June 20	June 22 >

June 21[edit]

Category:American Criminals[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 (oppose renaming). Wizardman 14:55, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:American criminals to Category:Americans convicted of crimes

Nominator's rationale: the new name removes the implication that persons included in the category are career criminals. See extensive discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 June 11#Category:American criminals. Marvin Diode (talk) 22:42, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If this proposal would affect the subcategories too then those should be listed with the new names. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:54, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - restricting the category on the basis of being convicted means that people who committed crimes but were not convicted are excluded. I don't see the implication the nominator claims, that being included implies that the person is a career criminal. Otto4711 (talk) 23:11, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Query: How would you propose, under the BLP policy, to classify persons as "criminals" who had not been convicted of a crime? What sort of source would you consider sufficiently reliable?--Marvin Diode (talk) 06:18, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A confession? Otto4711 (talk) 12:42, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose – (1) I don't think there is any 'career criminal' implication at present (2) if there is such an implication it will still be made via the parent categories Category:Criminals and Category:Criminals by nationality (3) it is very unsatisfactory to consider a single subcat of Category:Criminals by nationality in isolation from the others. (There ought to be an easy way of suggesting a global rename for Category:Criminals and all its subcats, eg a bot that tags all of them.) -- roundhouse0 (talk) 00:30, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Just to be clear, would you support a rename of all "criminal" categories to "Persons convicted of crimes" (with some kind of side category to handle nonconvicted presumed criminals such as John Wilkes Booth who die before trial)? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:40, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. It would be a simple matter to just convert all subcats to the same format. --Marvin Diode (talk) 06:18, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I might well do ... there was a cfd discussion a couple of months ago on Category:Sex offenders which renamed it (but left Category:Sex offenders by nationality at large). There was another one about Child sex offenders. I think it's fair to say there is a consensus in those for adding the word 'convicted'. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 01:04, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose until this is a complete proposal that covers non-American criminals and non-convicted criminals. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:48, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, even if all other similar categories were nominated. A subcategory of these are the "murderers" categories, which include murderers who were not convicted of their crimes; e.g., people who killed others and then committed suicide prior to being captured. Are we really going to exclude people like Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold from the murderers category, and thus the criminals category, because they were never convicted? Sorry, I can't go for that. Using the "convicted" phrasing is helpful for some specific criminals categories, like Category:American convicted bigamists, but not for murderers and certainly not for the criminals category in general. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:19, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- What of we keep the "Criminals" category, but make a subcategory for "people convicted of crimes". Unconvicted criminals could stay in the parent or a separate subcategory. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:46, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  That would be helpful. The problem with categories is that they are typically all-or-nothing, which makes the application of the NPOV and BLP policies very difficult. The more shades of gray, the better. --Marvin Diode (talk) 15:05, 22 June 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.

All "Category:Fauna of [country]" categories[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: Nomination withdrawn by nominator. --Conti|✉ 23:45, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Basically all (or most) of these have been deleted multiple times before. See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 March 8#Category:Fauna of Europe subcategories, Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007 January 31#Fauna of the United States by state, and probably others. Interestingly, it's the same editor (User:George cowie, since then blocked indefinitely for sock puppetry, it seems) who created most of these categories again, and again, and again. See for example Special:Undelete/Category:Fauna of France, Special:Undelete/Category:Fauna of Germany, Special:Undelete/Category:Fauna of Romania, all of which have been created three times by him, or Special:Undelete/Category:Fauna of Syria, which he created twice (viewable by admins only). Having categories like Category:Fauna of Germany, Category:Fauna of Luxembourg or Category:Fauna of Swaziland just doesn't make any sense. Animals don't care too much about borders. And with all these categories, we end up with beautiful articles like this. Maybe some of these categories actually make sense, and we can keep those, but (at least) the large majority should be deleted. --Conti|✉ 22:20, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can't agree more. Tigermighty (talk) 23:45, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. They will all need to be listed here if you expect an admin to actually delete them if that is the way this discussion heads. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:31, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. None of the categories are tagged for CFD, not even the three listed above. A category can't be deleted via a CFD unless it's been tagged so those who watch the category can be notified of the CFD. You have to tag each one and then list each one here, or else this nomination is going nowhere. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:23, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge (once tagged) to fauna by continent. Lugnuts (talk) 08:14, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now and relist individually A cfd of this size will be a trainwreck. There are some legitimate cats like Category:Fauna of the Philippines due the high biodiversity and endemism. However, there are also fauna cats that should be deleted as the nom said. I will support deletion for those cats if they are relisted individually or in manageable groups.--Lenticel ^(talk) 12:30, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Personally, I'd prefer if we only had categories like Category:Endemic fauna of Hawaii (There's Category:Fauna of Hawaii, too, but it only contains two lists). Do you have any idea how to split these categories into manageable groups? Nominating more than 200 categories individually doesn't seem feasible to me. --Conti|✉ 12:52, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed the categories now, and will add the cfd tags in a moment (wonder how long that takes). I propose to move those categories that are deemed useful (like Category:Fauna of the Philippines, as pointed out by Lenticel) to be moved to Category:Endemic fauna of [country] (Category:Endemic fauna of the Philippines, for instance). --Conti|✉ 13:17, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all. Never heard such a stupid proposal in all my life. No, "animals don't care about borders", with the exception of Homo sapiens, which coincidentally happens to be the only animal that reads encyclopedias. (If we can't keep all, then at least keep Category:Fauna of Australia, which is a continent as well as a country) Hesperian 13:42, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with keeping Category:Fauna of Australia, and have withdrawn my nomination for that category. As I said, some of these categories are actually useful, but most of them are not. Where's the point in Category:Fauna of Andorra, for example? Or Category:Fauna of Luxembourg? I just don't get it. --Conti|✉ 14:00, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's because you're not a conservation biologist living in Andorra. Hesperian 14:37, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Possibly, yes. But wouldn't an article (Fauna of Andorra) make much more sense either way? If we'd actually fill these categories with all the species that inhabit these countries, we'd end up with lots of articles about animals that would contain up to hundreds of categories. Having an article (or list) that instead links to these articles makes much more sense to me. --Conti|✉ 14:49, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I take it Hesperian finds the catgories that the Field Vole is in to be satisfactory? (I don't myself - I fret that some countries might have been missed out. Have the Slovakians done something to their Field Vole population for instance? Why is it listed as a mammal of Asia but is apparently found neither as fauna nor mammal in any Asian country?) Could the prefix Endemic be added to all these and their contents weeded out? (Those that are then empty will get deleted by bot in due course.) -- roundhouse0 (talk) 14:10, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Always these proposals boil down to the same issue. Most of the above categories are sensible, useful and inherently interesting, but unfortunately having them means that certain articles become horribly overcategorised. There's a tension there, no doubt about it. But I cannot fathom how the resolution of this tension is always to delete the categories! Is it possible that the solution might be to put up with certain articles being overcategorised? Is it possible that the solution might be to deploy clever categories like Category:Flora widespread in Europe (a subcategory of every individual Fauna-of-European-country category)? Why must such great categories be killed off to satisfy those who don't like the look of the category listing on Red Fox? Hesperian 14:51, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'd certainly support clever solutions like that. My goal isn't necessarily to delete all these categories, but to show that there is a problem with them at the moment, and that something needs to be done about it. Deletion is one option. Creating supercategories (or whatever they're called) to minimize articles with countless categories is another. We could also add Template:Hiddencat to these categories to make them invisible on the article pages. Then again, we could create articles/lists instead, too. I don't know which of those options is the best, but all of them are better than the status quo, IMHO. --Conti|✉ 15:00, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep some. I agree that most should be deleted, however, categories such as Category:Fauna of Gibraltar should be kept as Gibraltar is rich in fauna which is not found in adjacent Spain, or even the rest of Europe! Great care must be taken in deciding which categories can be deleted. Gibraltar is not one of them. --Gibmetal 77 ^talk 15:15, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep until such time as the deletion proponents have an alternative category structure created and fully populated, one that covers all portions of the earth's land and water. Whether such an anternative is 'continent' or 'eco-region' or whatever must be determined. The trouble is that the discussions on this subject never make such a determination in any fashion that can be considered definitive, widely acceptable to WP editors. So we end up at this same CfD place, time and time again, wasting all our time. Hmains (talk) 16:59, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The fact that some of these are not well-populated is a consequence of Wikipedians not being so dilligent; these categories will inevitably be filled and it is good and proper to have them in an encyclopedia, so I'm opposed to deleting them. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:03, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep. Horrible attempt to list a huge number of categories, many of which need examining individually. No, animals don't care about political borders - unless those political borders are also natural borders like coastlines. The categories for the likes of New Zealand, Fiji, The Philippines, Cuba, and 20-30 others from this list are prime examples where there is justification for keeping the categories. As such, these need individual listing, not a train-wreck like this. Grutness...wha? 23:03, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep and nominate for merger in groups. Indigenous Fauna of oceanic nations which have been isolated will make a worthwhile category, but many species are widespread over vast regions of the world, so that categorisation by country for continental countries is unsatisfactory. I would suggest that we might go for "Fauna of Europe", "Fauna of North America", perhaps "Fauna of Indian subcontinent" etc, and also "Fauna of the Sahara", "Fauna of the Sahel", "Arctic Fauna", "Antarctic Fauna". Except its primate colony, I doubt that the Fauna of Gibraltar is much differnet from that of southern Spain. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:27, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I suppose a mass-CfD probably wasn't the best way to sort this issue out. Consider this request withdrawn. Nominating (most of) these categories for merging sounds like a sensible idea. Now we just need to agree on where exactly to merge them.. --Conti|✉ 23:36, 22 June 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:Mozart Medalists[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: listify, which is already done at UNESCO Mozart Medal. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:25, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Mozart Medalists to Category:UNESCO Mozart Medalists

Nominator's rationale: There are other Mozart Medals. This category includes UNESCO Mozart Medalists (except for Abbado, which I intend to remove). Atavi (talk) 17:43, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - overcategorization by non-defining award. Otto4711 (talk) 18:36, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Listify if necessary and delete - as is usual procedure for categorisation by award. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:29, 22 June 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:Characters from Madeleine L'Engle works[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 Category:Characters from Madeleine L'Engle works to Category:Madeleine L'Engle characters. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:28, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Characters from Madeleine L'Engle works to Category:Madeleine L'Engle characters

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Per the established convention of Category:Fictional characters by author. Otto4711 (talk) 16:29, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom, and per naming convention. --Rosiestep (talk) 17:56, 22 June 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:Characters created by Jackie Collins[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 Category:Characters created by Jackie Collins to Category:Jackie Collins characters. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:29, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Characters created by Jackie Collins to Category:Jackie Collins characters

Nominator's rationale: Rename. To match every other similar category in Category:Fictional characters by author save one, which is about to be nominated itself. Otto4711 (talk) 16:27, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom, and per naming convention. --Rosiestep (talk) 17:57, 22 June 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:Characters by author[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 Category:Characters by author to Category:Fictional characters by author. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:29, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Characters by author to Category:Fictional characters by author

Nominator's rationale: Merge, duplicate categories, "Fictional characters" is the standard, target is older and better populated. This really should be a speedy criterion. Otto4711 (talk) 16:25, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as Otto says, "Fictional" is better. Bencherlite ^Talk 21:10, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom, and to apply standard. --Rosiestep (talk) 17:59, 22 June 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:Alice 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: rename Category:Alice characters to Category:Lewis Caroll characters, and take it from there. Bencherlite ^Talk 09:59, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Alice characters to Category:to be determined by consensus

Nominator's rationale: Rename. The current name is ambiguous but I don't know what the best rename is. If we call it Category:Alice in Wonderland characters it will necessitate the creation of a sister Category:Through the Looking Glass characters for articles on characters exclusive to that book and would also necessitate putting some characters (including Alice) in both categories. We have a Category:Fictional characters by author structure which suggests Category:Lewis Carroll characters, but does that implicate the placement of Category:Disney's Alice in Wonderland characters as a subcat? Otto4711 (talk) 16:19, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename Category:Wonderland series characters, perhaps?--Mike Selinker (talk) 03:50, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per Mike; but I don't think the Disney cat is an issue, as the film doesn't include any character who wasn't in the books. (Does it?) Her Pegship (tis herself) 04:33, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In looking more closely at the categories, the Disney subcat exists solely to group the articles as a subcat of Category:Characters in the Disney animated features canon. They aren't separate articles about the Disney-specific versions. I don't see any reason for it to be a subcat of this category at all regardless of how this ends up being named. Otto4711 (talk) 12:51, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The current name seem better than any of the proposed alternatives and the nominator himself could not come up with a satisfactory alternative. No evidence has been provided that we actually have a problem which needs fixing. The Alice canon is very famous so her name alone is sufficient. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:30, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - while the above editor is certainly fully entitled to his opinion, I feel obliged to point out that his opinion is colored by his lack of understanding of how CFD actually works, as he has accused me of being "disruptive" for bringing this nomination. He does not seem to understand that one of the functions of CFD is to bring categories such as this to the attention of the community to build consensus, nor does he understand that it is acceptable and usual practice to bring such categories to the attention of the community even in the absence of one clear-cut suggestion from the nominator (who in this instance offered two possible renames). Any of the current suggested renames is an improvement over the ambiguous current name.Otto4711 (talk) 13:40, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename A glance at Alice confirms a multi-guity. My preference would be for Category:Lewis Carroll characters and removing the subcat of Disney chars (per Otto). -- roundhouse0 (talk) 16:26, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Multi-guity? You mean multiple ambiguity? Anyway, Lewis Carroll characters won't do because they would include non-Alice characters like Sylvie and Bruno and the cast of Hunting of the Snark which are not part of the Alice universe. And Dodgson published other stories under his own name so we would have even greater scope for "multiguity".

Actually Category:Lewis Carroll has the single subcat Category:Alice in Wonderland whose other subcats are Category:Alice in Wonderland XXX which contain (implicitly) the Looking Glass material. So perhaps it would suffice to rename to Category:Alice in Wonderland characters (if not, the other 2 subcats of Category:Alice in Wonderland need work too). -- roundhouse0 (talk) 20:03, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps Category:Lewis Carroll characters is appropriate to capture those non-Wonderland characters, with whatever this ends up being called being a subcat of it. Although, are there any articles that are specifically about the characters Sylvie and Bruno or from The Hunting of the Snark? We wouldn't categorize Sylvie and Bruno as characters because the article is about the work as a whole. Otto4711 (talk) 00:42, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On your last point -- there is a pretty substantial section on "Characters" in the Sylvie and Bruno article, so there's plenty of reason to put it in a category for characters. Cgingold (talk) 09:41, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are substantial sections on characters in a lot of articles on works of fiction. Categorizing articles about the works in character categories muddies things tremendously. Otto4711 (talk) 14:31, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here's an idea: how about renaming to Category:Lewis Carroll's Alice characters, or perhaps Category:Characters in Lewis Carroll's Alice series? (or some variant of these) Cgingold (talk) 09:46, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Lewis Caroll characters to standardize with others. Possibly subcategories for each book/movie. TALKIN PIE EATER REVIEW ME 16:15, 2 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:HIV/AIDS articles[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 Category:HIV/AIDS articles to Category:WikiProject Aids articles (by analogy, as suggested by Bencherlite below). Angus McLellan (Talk) 09:17, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Perhaps I'm missing the point here, but this seems redundant to Category:HIV/AIDS I'm unclear why a separate underpopulated category for talk pages would be needed. Otto4711 (talk) 16:11, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to be generated by {{Aids}} corrected 08:52, 28 June 2008 (UTC), the talk-page template of the inactive WP:AIDS. So it probably just needs a rename to make it clear that it's a WikiProject category, and that presumably can be done by tweaking the template. What's the WikiProject category name convention? Bencherlite ^Talk 21:08, 21 June 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:Fictional characters with DID/MPD[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 Category:Fictional characters with DID/MPD to Category:Fictional characters with dissociative identity disorder. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:31, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Fictional characters with dissociative identity disorder. Expansion of initialism, consistent with name of parent cat, Category:People with dissociative identity disorder. Notified creator with {{subst:cfd-notify}} Cgingold (talk) 13:02, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Abbriviations in category titles should be avoided. Dimadick (talk) 16:04, 25 June 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:Nations by haplogroups (Y-DNA)[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. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:32, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

and subcategories

Nominator's rationale: unsourced, unscientific, unencyclopedic and otherwise highly problematic categories. dab (𒁳) 07:37, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Unsourced categories and also unnecessary. The individual haplogroup pages already cover this material, and in plenty of detail with both the carrying populations and haplogroup frequencies highlighted. Soupforone (talk) 08:23, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per both. Johnbod (talk) 15:44, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per both and per previous cfd deletion of cat for haplogroup R1a (Y-DNA). -- roundhouse0 (talk) 17:25, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Good heavens, horrible idea. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 20:06, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Horrible idea, can't possibly make it match the real world, etc. Doug Weller (talk) 07:39, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Jheald (talk) 12:40, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Of dubious usefulness and not encyclopaedic. SesquipedalianVerbiage (talk) 18:48, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nations do not have haplogroups. Populations, maybe. Paul B (talk) 09:31, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unscientific and unnecessary. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 10:39, 24 June 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:Judge (Federal Constitutional Court of Germany)[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 Category:Judge (Federal Constitutional Court of Germany) to Category:Judges of the Federal Constitutional Court of Germany. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:33, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Judge (Federal Constitutional Court of Germany) to Category:Judges of the Federal Constitutional Court of Germany

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Pluralize and use phrase rather than placing court in parentheses. Main article about court is Federal Constitutional Court of Germany, so apart from the format the category name is correct. Notified creator with {{subst:cfd-notify}} Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:35, 21 June 2008 (UTC)}}[reply]

Rename As the creator of the category I think a rename would be a good idea. —αἰτίας •discussion• 09:55, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Johnbod (talk) 15:40, 21 June 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:TLC[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 Category:TLC to Category:TLC (TV channel). I like Her Pegship's fine proposal, but normally we'd wait until the article is renamed sensible before taking that step. Angus McLellan (Talk) 09:20, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:TLC to Category:TLC (TV channel)

Nominator's rationale: To match main; TLC is a dab. Also: Category:TLC programs to Category:TLC (TV channel) programs —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:33, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support TLC is exceedingly ambiguous. There's a musical group called TLC, for instance. 70.55.84.31 (talk) 03:48, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How about the complete name, The Learning Channel? Her Pegship (tis herself) 04:34, 22 June 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:Nirvana B-sides[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. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:35, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete: Most B-sides are non-notable anyway, so I cleared the category by redirecting most of the articles to their albums. Even otherwise, this category is more-or-less unnecessary in light of Category:Nirvana songs. indopug (talk) 03:09, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge Having a category specifically for their b-sides is not useful. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:36, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As not being notable. Also the category is currently empty. Lugnuts (talk) 09:11, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above & because what is a B side often differs between releases in different countries - there is precedent for this, though don't ask me where. Johnbod (talk) 15:39, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. DA PIE EATER REVIEW ME 18:12, 28 June 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-nationals connected with Fiji[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 Category:Non-nationals connected with Fiji to Category:Expatriates in Fiji. Angus McLellan (Talk) 09:21, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Non-nationals connected with Fiji to Category:Expatriates in Fiji

Nominator's rationale: there are already a number of subcategory pages started for Category:Expatriates by country of residence and not a Category:Non-nationals by country to which they are connected or whathaveyou. (I will, should the nomination be supported, to make sure that no one who has not lived in Fiji is listed and list those people, should there be any, at Category:Fiji or other appropriate cat page) Mayumashu (talk) 02:32, 21 June 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:India born Fiji Indians[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 Category:India born Fiji Indians to Category:Indian-born Fiji Indians. Angus McLellan (Talk) 09:22, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:India born Fiji Indians to Category:Indian-born Fiji Indians

Nominator's rationale: more standard grammar Mayumashu (talk) 02:06, 21 June 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:Indians in Singapore[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 Category:Indians in Singapore to Category:Indian diaspora in Singapore. Angus McLellan (Talk) 09:23, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Indians in Singapore to Category:Indian diaspora in Singapore

Nominator's rationale: 'Indians in Singapore' could mean either Indian expats in Singapore or Singaporeans of Indian descent or origin, in other words Indian diaspora in Singapore. Moreover, this cat page is listed as a sub-cat page of Category:Indian diaspora by country and the proposed renaming here is of the same pattern as other sub-cat pages for this cat pageMayumashu (talk) 01:07, 21 June 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:Deaths of peritonitis[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 Category:Deaths of peritonitis to Category:Deaths from peritonitis. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:36, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Deaths of peritonitis to Category:Deaths from peritonitis

Nominator's rationale: Rename. For consistency with other subcategories of Category:Deaths by type of illness and for clearer grammatical sense. TwoMightyGods^Persuasion_Necessity 00:57, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support as per nom. Mayumashu (talk) 01:09, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Lugnuts (talk) 09:10, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Makes sense. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 07:33, 24 June 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:Fijian Indian diaspora[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 change, nomination withdrawn. Angus McLellan (Talk) 09:24, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

nomination withdrawn~~:Propose renaming Category:Fiji Indian diaspora to Category:Indian diaspora in Fiji~~

Nominator's rationale: as per naming pattern of other subcategory pages of Category:Indian diaspora by country Mayumashu (talk)

Agree with nominator, makes clearer sense in English also. TwoMightyGods^Persuasion_Necessity 00:57, 21 June 2008 (UTC) (Though note that the nomination seems to be for Category:Fiji Indian diaspora TwoMightyGods^Persuasion_Necessity 00:58, 21 June 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Yes, that s what I meant, thanks. Mayumashu (talk) 01:03, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On reflection this is not quite clear-cut; the Indian diaspora in Fiji is somewhat unusual because it has since developed a diaspora in its own right - for example Fiji Indians in Canada. But it is not so obvious how this diaspora from a diaspora should be handled, since placing them under the supercategory "Indian diaspora in Fiji" seems misleading. At present I don't think this need cause too much worry as no current subcategories exist where this problem with the suggested renaming would be encountered (for instance "Category:Fiji Indian Canadians"), but it's possible it will occur later, and Fiji isn't an isolated case - for example, many members of the Indian diaspora in East Africa emigrated to England as a distinct community in its own right. The currently suggested renaming makes a degree of sense since it emphasises that this category is about the population of Fiji with Indian origin rather than communities outside Fiji with Fiji Indian origin. I am contradicting Grutness in saying this but if you look at the category it actually is being used for the Indian diaspora in Fiji with very few exceptions - notably the article Fiji Indian diaspora which really is about the "diaspora from the diaspora". Perhaps what needs to happen is for the category to be split between a category for Fiji Indians in general (probably using the suggested nominated name) and into which virtually all the contents of this category should be emptied, and reserving the current name of this category for articles about the emigration Fiji Indians to countries other than Fiji - which ought to contain the article Fiji Indian diaspora and probably not a whole lot else, and to be a subcategory of the main Fiji Indian category and also directly of Category:Diasporas (which is a real mess by the way, e.g. with Category:Pakistani diaspora and Category:Pakistan diaspora?). TwoMightyGods^Persuasion_Necessity 01:21, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment and !vote Both the nominator and other commenters above seem to misunderstand the use of this category. It is not part of the Indian diaspora by country, nor is it for Indians in Fiji. It is for the diaspora of Fiji Indians to other countries. In Fiji, "Fiji Indian" is a specific ethnic group (people of Indian descent make up some 45% of Fiji's population). This category is for articles relating to the spread of Fiji Indians to other countries such as Australia and New Zealand. As such, the suggested names are highly inappropriate and discussion should be either to keep the current name, delete the category as a whole, or choose some other more appropriate name. Given the presence of similar categories nwith similar names (such as Category:African American diaspora and Category:Black African diaspora) my !vote would be to keep. Grutness...wha? 01:10, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see. In fact, it seems to be both. A closer look shows that Category:Indo-Fijian people is a sub-cat, when it should be the other way round. (The misunderstanding occurred because, as already mentioned, it is incorrectly listed as a sub-category of Category:Indian diaspora by country). I will then cancel this nomination and fix the links. Mayumashu (talk) 01:24, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More than that needs to be done, as I mentioned above - virtually everything in the Category:Fiji Indian diaspora does not belong there! The article Fiji Indian diaspora is about Fiji Indians who have emigrated so fits in there fine, but almost everything else needs to be cleared out. This is why I was initially happy with the suggested rename, because the tiny proportion of articles for which the current name actually applies to probably don't need a category of their own anyway and would belong equally as well in a category about Indo-Fijians. TwoMightyGods^Persuasion_Necessity 01:38, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment OK. Create the proper categories, put articles into their proper categories and then see what is left in the way of categories to CfD Hmains (talk) 18:40, 22 June 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.