Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 June 24

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< June 23 June 25 >

June 24[edit]

Category:Dobroists[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:Dobroists to Category:Resonator guitarists. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:03, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Dobroists to Category:Resonator guitarists
Nominator's rationale: When I made this category, I forgot that the Dobro is not the only type of resonator guitar. Propose a rename to include musicians who play any make of resonator, not just the Dobro (for instance, Lee Roy Parnell plays a National, not a Dobro). Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 23:22, 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:Critics of their own wikipedia article[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. BencherliteTalk 07:42, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Critics of their own wikipedia article (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Self-referential. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:38, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unnecesssary self-referential category. I got an e-mail from Jeff Wood the other day regarding his article, saying there were a couple of minor mistakes; does that mean he was critical of his own article? (Also, whoever made this category forgot to capitalize Wikipedia.) Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 23:29, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete One article in this category mentions criticism by a person "of their own wikipedia article". This is linked to a blog post by the subject, not something that indicates any particular relevance of their Wikipedia biography to them. I've noticed the odd similar sentence in some articles, and was similarly unimpressed. It's not useful for organising people where being a "[Critic] of their own wikipedia article" is relevant to their life, because they don't exist, and it's not particularly useful for maintanence purposes either. John Nevard (talk) 21:43, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this childish WP:NEO and violation of WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND category. IZAK (talk) 07:33, 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:Politicians of the Fourth Republic[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:Politicians of the Third Republic to Category:Politicians of the French Third Republic et cetera. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:06, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Politicians of the Fourth Republic to Category:Politicians of the French Fourth Republic or Category:French Fourth Republic politicians
Category:Politicians of the Fifth Republic to Category:Politicians of the French Fifth Republic or Category:French Fifth Republic politicians
Category:Politicians of the Third Republic to Category:Politicians of the French Third Republic or Category:French Third Republic politicians
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Rename to match parent Category:French Fourth Republic/Category:French Fifth Republic/Category:French Third Republic and main articlea French Fourth Republic/French Fifth Republic/French Third Republic. As Fourth Republic/Fifth Republic/Third Republic indicate, there are more than one republics called the "Fourth Republic"/"Fifth Republic"/"Third Republic", so the potential for confusion exists. Take your pick on which format; the second would match Category:French politicians better, so if no preference is expressed, I would prefer the second. I have no preference. Notified creators with {{subst:cfd-notify}} Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:23, 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:Persons Taking Refuge in Diplomatic Missions[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' Category:Persons Taking Refuge in Diplomatic Missions. No consensus to do a specific something with Category:Diplomatic missions. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:18, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Convert to article Category:Persons Taking Refuge in Diplomatic Missions to article List of people who took refuge in a diplomatic mission
Nominator's rationale: Convert to article. Since creation this has been developing more to look like an article than a category. Some fine work has been done on it, and I think it's an appropriate article in its current format. I'm unsure whether or not it could be considered defining if a category were desired (I'm kind of leaning towards yes), but if it's a category that's wanted then it should be a category and not a category in article format. I inquired about this on the talk page but received no answer so I'll bring it here for discussion. My suggested name could be tweaked as desired. Notified creator with {{subst:cfd-notify}} Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:01, 24 June 2008 (UTC)}}[reply]

I'm the creator and I'm open to correction. Beyond believing it notable and regretting the initial caps in the name :-/ I'll admit that it is either a "listy" article or an "article-y" category. Before I found myself making the nifty table (in part to demonstrate that there were a lot of notable embassy-refuge episodes), I had thought that the category would be enough. But both lists and categories seem to suffer from being under-referenced and under-explained (as even now it would be as an article), so I found myself making the table. KevinCuddeback (talk) 22:30, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Convert per nom - I could be talked into keeping a cat too. Johnbod (talk) 22:55, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Convert & move to article namespace. This is quite an interesting piece of work -- however, I'm not entirely persuaded that it warrants a category of its own. In any event, I gave it a couple of additional categories -- and I also went ahead and created Category:Diplomatic missions, which was very helpful in organizing Category:Diplomacy a bit more coherently. Cgingold (talk) 10:02, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • A better parent would probably have been Category:Chanceries since those are the buildings. Category:Diplomatic missions is ambiguous since it referees to both the people on staff and to the building. Vegaswikian1 (talk) 16:23, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can we say that although Chanceries is a better word in the category, that, at least for an article the better title would still be "People taking refuge in Diplomatic Missions" because the article on "Embassy" actually redirected to "Diplomatic Missions" (so we shouldn't use embassy and chanceries is just a hair too technical for an article title? KevinCuddeback (talk) 23:15, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • We still need to deal with Category:Diplomatic missions which includes both buildings (chanceries) and missions (diplomatic missions). The cleanup needs to start somewhere. Vegaswikian1 (talk) 02:08, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I see the need for the distinction, so how about the article be called List of persons seeking refuge in diplomatic buildings (or suggest your ideal title). The more I think about the article, it should be "seeking" rather than "taking" because there are an interesting number of people who seek refuge but are turned away.
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:WikiProject Video games XXX pages[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. I think this is a case of "oh for f***'s sake let's just get on with building the encyclopedia". I'm not, by any stretch of the imagination, an uninvolved admin. So I'm not, by any stretch of the imagination, entitled to close this. Big deal – let's just get back to writing articles :D... Happy‑melon 11:01, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming the following categories:
Category:WikiProject Video games non-article pages to Category:NA-Class video game articles
Category:WikiProject Video games categories to Category:Category-Class video game articles
Category:WikiProject Video games disambiguation pages to Category:Disambig-Class video game articles
Category:WikiProject Video games images to Category:Image-Class video game articles
Category:WikiProject Video games portals to Category:Portal-Class video game articles
Category:WikiProject Video games templates to Category:Template-Class video game articles
Nominator's rationale: Common format of category name. MrKIA11 (talk) 20:59, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose; the full range of project miscellany categories is sufficiently uncommon that I'd argue there is no "common format". In any case, there's no reason to introduce such absurdities as "Image-Class articles"; non-article pages, are not, in fact, articles. Kirill (prof) 01:16, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - While this is the common format for project article classes (Category:FA-Class video game articles), these are not articles, and the naming scheme falls in line with Category:WikiProject Video games articles. These classes are not for rating purposes, but for internal project maintenance. These are not true "ratings" as to the quality or level of content. JohnnyMrNinja 02:02, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Non article video game articles? --.:Alex:. 08:31, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - In fairness to the nominator, most of the categories in Category:NA-Class articles do use this format, and the format is the default. It is not, however, a rule, and many projects deviate from this format to more natural or logical naming. Just look through Category:NA-Class articles for examples. JohnnyMrNinja 10:23, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I alway thought this "NA" stood for "not applicable" rather than "non-article" (this might not be very grammatical though). I don't think the meaning of this abbreviation is actually specified anywhere, so I guess one can interpret it either way. Anyway, I don't know what to vote... Some of the proposed new names might be "absurd", but from a practical point of view they're much easier to read because the important word appears directly on the left and is capitalized. This might seem like a trivial detail, but I think it's important since the whole point of these categories is internal project maintenance. Kariteh (talk) 11:08, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per my unchallenged arguments. Kariteh (talk) 07:29, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was hoping more people might join in; I would really like to see public opinion on this. - The template itself used to say "non-article page" whenever the NA-Class was set, and most of the categories in Category:NA-Class articles use the phrase "Non-article", but it is true I haven't seen this phrasing anywhere official. I do agree with your comments to a certain extent. These are categories that are not intended to used for the general public, as an easy way to find information. My intention was to make project maintenance easier, but also to make project resources easily available in a centralized location for editors. While Category:Image-Class video game articles is clearer from a coding perspective, Category:WikiProject Video games images is clearer, both in intention and expected content, to the majority of readers. Not to mention that images are clearly not articles, and Category:Image-Class video game articles, from a literal perspective, makes no sense. I can't really see the fact that the name doesn't match the template as a huge hurdle, and looking at Category:NA-Class articles, almost no projects match the name of the {{NA-Class}} template. As a sidenote, I would also like to say that I feel Category:List-Class video game articles should stay right where it is, as this is a rating of content and quality (when used properly). JohnnyMrNinja 08:12, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. JohnnyMrNinja 05:50, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support take a look at Category:Articles by quality, specifically the non-article subcats like Category:Category-Class articles. Quite apart from the new titles being in line with the nomenclature of these parent categories, as you can see, the format is in fact very widespread and almost universally adopted by those projects which use the extended assessment scale. There are also significant issues related to intra-project co-operation (use of taskforces etc), banner standardisation, etc, which are greatly complicated by non-standard categories like these. Happy‑melon 13:02, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Correct, almost all, but not all. If you are saying that these categories should be renamed to support a standard (that I don't believe I've ever seen written down) then that does not make sense, unless you are suggesting that all categories be renamed. I have several times pointed out Category:NA-Class articles, where the majority do not support the "standard". I could only support this move if it were part of a mass-move. If it's a standard then all categories should be renamed to fit it, if it's not a standard then leave them alone. JohnnyMrNinja 17:51, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I couldn't agree more: in fact, I've spent most of today fixing subcats of Category:Articles by quality which are non-standard. However, it appears we differ in our methodology: listing every nonstandard category for CfD at once would be the mother of all foodfights. I'd rather see it done piecemeal than not be done at all. It does no harm for one more set of categories to be standardised; if anything that sets an even stronger precedent for the next set, and the set after that. Massive changes to the structure or organisation of a wiki are almost always painful and bloody, whereas slow and steady improvements go unnoticed. It will make precisely zero difference to WikiProject Video Games, and yet it makes life that little bit easier for those coming from the other end. If the nominator were asking for the reverse, moving from the standard to non-standard names, I doubt anyone would say it was a good idea. So the only reason for not standardising must be that it's too much work... and I assure you, it really isn't. Happy‑melon 19:48, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Further, I do not agree with the usage of Category:Articles by quality for non-article namespaces. A {{Category-Class}} "article" isn't a measure of quality, it's a measure of namespace. JohnnyMrNinja 18:10, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    What about Category:Redirect-Class articles?? or Category:Disambig-Class articles?? Category:Needed-Class articles?? Where do you draw the line, and what do you do with the rest? Happy‑melon 19:48, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Happy-melon, I do not propose a mass-CfD. I support standardization, but making one CfD at a time to support an unwritten standard does not seem like the best way to go about this. If it will help WP 1.0 then I Support it, but please draft a proposal as to what categories should be named, and I will comment there. If it is important that these categories should be named a certain thing, then this should be written down somewhere, so people like me don't have to deal with CfDs like this. I do not think it would be hard to gain consensus, but this standard does need consensus. As the creator of the categories, I withdraw my opposition and Support. Also, what in the world is {{Needed-Class}} for? JohnnyMrNinja 08:56, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've got absolutely no idea what Needed-Class is for (:D), but some projects use it, and part of 1.0's job is to support the projects wherever possible, so I'm glad it's there if it's being useful. I fully agree with pretty much everything you've said there; in fact I think what we really need throughout is Wikipedia:Manual of style (WikiProjects), but that's another job for another day. Whack that or WT:COUNCIL on your watchlist, though, and please do get involved in that discussion when it comes - the more, the merrier. Happy‑melon 13:01, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe Needed-Class is for redirect pages that need to be turned into real articles (or unredirected, unmerged, etc.). Kariteh (talk) 13:19, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


  • Can this please be closed and the original categories deleted? Thanks! JohnnyMrNinja 10:33, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The existing names seem to me to be much clear the proposed ones. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:43, 5 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:Categories named after universities and colleges[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 - withdrawn by nominator. Cgingold (talk) 23:27, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Categories named after universities and colleges (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete entirely redundant to Category:Universities and colleges and just creates category clutter. BencherliteTalk 17:22, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nomination withdrawn, temporary bout of insanity over. Now where did I leave that trout? BencherliteTalk 22:36, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. As creator of the category, I believe it is a reasonable addition to the Category:Eponymous categories structure. It allows easy access to these similar categories for anyone who wishes to standardize these category pages or otherwise improve them. It's really not easy at all to find all the relevant pages without this category. --Eliyak T·C 17:30, 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:Investigative reporting[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. BencherliteTalk 07:41, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Investigative reporting (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

  • Merge into Category:Investigative journalism, which is one of its parent categories. The two categories are entirely redundant, although "journalism" is a slightly broader term than "reporting". (The category creator has not edited since December 2006.) Cgingold (talk) 14:22, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom.--Lenticel (talk) 22:33, 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:Songs produced by Polow Da Don[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: already speedily renamed. BencherliteTalk 07:35, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Songs produced by Polow Da Don to Category:Songs produced by Polow da Don
Nominator's rationale: Rename because of incorrect capitalization; Da (the) to da. DiverseMentality(Discuss it) 06:54, 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:Italian Ethiopians[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 per considerable recent precedent. BencherliteTalk 07:40, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Italian Ethiopians to Category:Ethiopians of Italian descent
Nominator's rationale: continuation. completes renaming for Category:Ethiopian people by ethnic or national origin Mayumashu (talk) 04:31, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. "descent" goes all the way back thus making the cat over-inclusive and undefining. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 05:33, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
and Fooian-Booian may or may not go all the way back - it is undefining. and if this assertion is wrong, tell me how far back and what percentage of ethnicity constitutes Fooian(-)Booian? Article pages Fooian(-)Booian commonly descent someone Fooian-Booian as one of Booian descent - the term Fooian Booian is apparently used by some if not many to mean Booian of Fooian descent. the problem with the term is simply that this meaning is not self apparent in meaning whereas the rename is Mayumashu (talk) 14:50, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom and per considerable recent precedent. (The Brewcrewer Objection has been stated by B and refuted by many in most of these.) -- roundhouse0 (talk) 10:47, 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:Russian-Estonians[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: renameCategory:Russian-Estonians to Category:Russians in Estonia. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:31, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Russian-Estonians to Category:Estonians of Russian descent
Nominator's rationale: this completes renaming for Category:Estonian people by ethnic or national origin Mayumashu (talk) 04:23, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. "descent" goes all the way back thus making the cat over-inclusive and undefining.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 05:33, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom and per considerable recent precedent. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 10:50, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose and rename to Category:Russians in Estonia. Why? Meaning of nationality in Eastern Europe is completely different. Russian people of Estonia are Russians, not Estonians, many of them can't even speak Estonian language. "of descent" form should only be applied to Western European countries and other NON-HISTORIC-ETHNIC MINORITY population groups. There is a huge difference between e.g. Moroccans in Belgium and traditional ethnic minorities of Central and Eastern Europe. - Darwinek (talk) 09:46, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per suggestion by Darwinek. Their presence in Estonia actually precedes the independence of the current state. Dimadick (talk) 16:18, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Russian-Estonians is the a better name like African-Americans or Britsh-Americans.ROOSTER (talk) 17:07, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On the grounds that Russians living in Estonia, or at least a significant no., maintain Russian culture in large part - okay, I agree, but with the Darwinek rename. Mayumashu (talk) 21:41, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose and rename to Category:Estonian Russians. Not all Russians in Estonia are Estonians, a well-known conflict issue, but they are "Russians of Estonia", i.e., "Estonian Russians" `'Míkka>t 16:14, 1 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:Palestinian-Dutch people[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 per considerable recent precedent. BencherliteTalk 07:39, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Palestinian-Dutch people to Category:Dutch people of Palestinian descent
Nominator's rationale: continuation. 'completes' renaming for Category:Dutch people by ethnic or national origin Mayumashu (talk) 04:12, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. Nothing particularly ambiguous here. Dimadick (talk) 16:19, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Palestinian-Dutch is the a better name like African-Americans or Britsh-Americans.ROOSTER (talk) 17:08, 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:Armenian Cypriots[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: Category:Armenian Cypriots to Category:Cypriots of Armenian descent. The Jewish analogy leaves me unconvinced. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:34, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Armenian Cypriots to Category:Cypriots of Armenian descent
Nominator's rationale: further continuation Mayumashu (talk) 04:08, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. "descent" goes all the way back thus making the cat over-inclusive and undefining.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 05:33, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom and per considerable recent precedent. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 10:50, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. For consistency reasons. Dimadick (talk) 16:19, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question Armenians are widespread across the Middle East. I understand them to be as much a religious (denominational) grouping as an ethnicity. Is "descent" the right term in this case? Peterkingiron (talk) 15:43, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
a good point. Most but not necessarily all do belong to a distinct church, apparently. (see Armenians), so they would resemble Jews in this respect, which on wikip are named Category:Russian Jews, etc. and not Category:Jewish Russians. Perhaps then the rename here therefore should be to Category:Cypriot Armenians (?) Mayumashu (talk) 03:45, 1 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:Arab Bruneians[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 per considerable recent precedent. BencherliteTalk 07:39, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Arab Bruneians to Category:Bruneians of Arab descent
Nominator's rationale: continuation. completes renaming for subcats of Category:Bruneian people by ethnic or national origin Mayumashu (talk) 03:46, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. "descent" goes all the way back thus making the cat over-inclusive and undefining. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 05:33, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom and per considerable recent precedent. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 10:50, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. Though this minority may be rather small. Dimadick (talk) 16:22, 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:Fooian-Scots[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 per considerable recent precedent. BencherliteTalk 07:38, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming
Nominator's rationale: Further continuation of recent nominations Mayumashu (talk) 03:19, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. "descent" goes all the way back thus making the cat over-inclusive and undefining.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 05:33, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom and per considerable recent precedent. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 10:50, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. Note however that historicaly the term s"Irish-Scots" seems to first have been used for the Ulster Scots people. Dimadick (talk) 16:25, 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:English Fooians, a few missed[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 per considerable recent precedent. BencherliteTalk 07:37, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming

*Category:Anglo-Scots to Category:English people of Scottish descent

Nominator's rationale: continuation of recent 'precedent setting' nominations. with this, renaming for Category:English people by ethnic or national origin is 'complete' Mayumashu (talk) 02:40, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. "descent" goes all the way back thus making the cat over-inclusive and undefining.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 05:33, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom and per considerable recent precedent. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 10:50, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That s right - I d forgotten. Now struck from nomination Mayumashu (talk) 20:39, 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_June_24&oldid=1145854062"