Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 May 16

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< May 15 May 17 >

May 16[edit]

African-American 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: rename all to match general lack of a hyphen for this on WP. BencherliteTalk 08:24, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not Speediable - The use or non-use of a hyphen is not a spelling error, but rather a stylistic choice, so it doesn't fall under the criteria for Speedy renaming. There have been a number of attempts to get concensus on this, but to date all have failed. Cgingold (talk) 08:59, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Previous discussion was in October 2007. Her Pegship (tis herself) 23:14, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, that was actually on a different issue, nothing to do with the hyphen; but there have been discussions on this - links would be useful. Johnbod (talk) 22:42, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: These all need to be re-tagged for full CFD -- there's no point in discussing this if they're not properly tagged. Cgingold (talk) 23:30, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think we ought to be categorizing by the race of the author. Didn't we have a big battle not to long ago about various stripes of science fiction by "people of color" categories? Renaming for the race of the author also excludes any AA-related plays not written by African Americans (assuming there are any of course). Otto4711 (talk) 22:33, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Those "people of color" categories were novel, and were problematic for a number of reasons -- as such they were not comparable to the African American categories, which are well-established. This particular category is a sub-cat of Category:African American literature, and it has 3 sub-cats -- all of which are for plays by African American authors. So I don't really see a good reason to broaden it to "AA-related plays". Cgingold (talk) 09:49, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • That category was Category:Speculative fiction novels by writers of color, which was a three-way intersection. The debate certain didn't reach consensus that works should not be given categories by race of their author, only that such categories must be as broad as possible. "Plays" is big enough that it should have its own category, I think.--Mike Selinker (talk) 14:30, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This entire discussion will be moot unless somebody takes care of properly taggaing all of these categories for full CFD. I've refrained from commenting because I didn't want to waste my time on a pointless discussion. Cgingold (talk) 21:18, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all as unnecessary race/ethnicity categories - isn't the top one supposed to be at WP:UCFD, but why quibble about proprieties... Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:07, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There is a reason why hyphens are useful when AA is used as an adjective. Many of the above terms are potentially ambiguous otherwise. The case that it is not common to use the hyphen in adjectival forms has not been made above. I note the Stanford University Style Manual and the University of Georgia too, stipulate a hyphen for the adjective, but not for the noun, and the Library of Congress uses one in the adjective too. Johnbod (talk) 22:42, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for this bit of research, Johnbod. It so happens that I had arrived at those same conclusions in my personal approach to usage & spelling. I strongly favor the hyphen in adjectival terms; I can live with either in the nouns. But I note again that these categories still haven't been properly re-tagged. Cgingold (talk) 23:21, 20 May 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:Supervillains without aliases[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. Wizardman 01:25, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Supervillains without aliases (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: For the same reasons I gave for superheroes without aliases. A category is not the way to do this, especially because there is no inclusion criteria for Japanese supervillains, like Vegeta and Dante, who are categorized here. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 21:19, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I think that its better to categorize articles but what they are, instead of by what they are not else we get people not from alaska... not from washington...... not from china... ect. - Icewedge (talk) 22:45, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per precedent. Also, many of these aren't superheroes per se. -Sean Curtin (talk) 01:50, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per my comments on the prior go-round. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:07, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify - For the same reasons as before. - jc37 05:27, 21 May 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:Names of God[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. Doczilla STOMP! 03:59, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Names of God to Category:Names of the chief gods
  • We ought to delete this category and start a Category:Names of gods. Note that the attributes and powers of the gods in the category aren't equal.
  1. Allah and Yahweh maybe categorized together because they are very similar. However, Allah=Yahweh=Jupiter (god)=Amaterasu=Brahman=Great Spirit, etc. simply is false. By the way, Brahman is not even a being, I only know of Hindus who worship Vishnu, Shiva, and lesser gods like Ganesha and so forth.
  2. Furthermore, the title of a certain god isn't its name. "The Most Merciful" is not a name for Allah but a title and description. Lord (Adonai) is not a name for Yahweh, but a title. --71.108.31.176 (talk) 17:06, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Even Hebrew speakers who want to speak about gods in general say Elohim; pay attention to the -im which makes Elohim plural. Articles that say otherwise that claim Baal is the same as Yahweh are false. Elijah spent many years of his life making this clear.[1]--71.108.31.176 (talk) 17:31, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Would you be good enough to clarify your proposal? Are you asking for straight deletion, or do you merely want to rename the category to Category:Names of gods? Thanks. Cgingold (talk) 18:00, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I support deletion of Category:Names of God. 71.108.31.176--Names of gods (talk) 18:07, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that the only way to fix this is deletion of Category:Names of God with the support of others because my efforts to empty the category have been reverted by a user.--Names of gods (talk) 18:22, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for sharing your belief. Now please let the discussion that you started come to consensus before the community. It is highly inappropriate for you to make a proposal, and then (without waiting for consensus) start implementing the proposal. I'll write if off as a newbie mistake :)-Andrew c [talk] 20:40, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The recently started, and related category, Category:Names of gods is problematic. The way it has started to be populated seems to be one catch all category for every article about every god. Seems like it is completely ignoring the established hierarchy and categorization scheme of Category:Gods. What purpose does "Names of gods" serve that "Gods" does not? Seems to be a redundant category prone for overpopulation (I mean, we could break it up into "Names of Hindu gods", "Names of Asian gods", "Names of Roman gods", but then we'd be overlapping the existing "Hindu deities", "Asian gods", and "Roman gods" categories found in Category:Gods by culture).-Andrew c [talk] 20:46, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I found this discussion via the AfD you mention. I tend to agree with the renaming to Category:Names of gods which I see has been done. "Names of God" should only be a cat for articles on names used for the monotheistic god of the Abrahamic religions in my opinion.--Sting Buzz Me... 01:12, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The nominator's reasoning given is based on a fundamental misinterpretation of the category itself. At no point does the category propose that Allah, Brahman, and the others listed here are the same entity; the category is referring to names applied to any singular God by various religions and traditions. At most, rename to Category:Names and titles of God to address the claims that some of these names are actually titles or epithets. -Sean Curtin (talk) 02:04, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If they aren't the same, then why didn't you use the plural Gods for your proposed category? The category and its respective article imply the major gods of monotheistic and polytheistic religions are the same. The problem is that they aren't even the same types.--71.108.31.176 (talk) 02:14, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How about a similar Category:Names of Animal?--71.108.31.176 (talk) 02:15, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I see what you are getting at. The problem is that some will always see "God" (which was the redirect for "singular God" above by the way) as the only option because of faith reasons. This being an encyclopedia as such we cannot support just the monotheistic religions. With an article called "Names of God" the title should be corrected to at least "Names of God (Abrahamic)" so that readers are enlightened as to which god is being discussed. Always best to remember that there are many gods to choose from (although some people regard all/others/some as mythical). A rename is definitely in order if this article is kept.--Sting Buzz Me... 02:27, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"God", with a capital G, refers to the general concept of a singular God, which includes but is not limited to the various conceptions of a monotheistic God, as exemplified by the Abrahamic faiths. Belief in a singular God is not unique to monotheistic religions, so your comment about different "types" of gods is a non sequitur. -Sean Curtin (talk) 02:37, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(reposted as edit conflict stopped me posting reply)They are all different types. Males, females, omnipotent, not so omnipotent etc. My point was mainly on "God" being the one worshiped by people believing in "one" deity as opposed to gods or a God being worshiped by people who believe in several gods at once. The content of the article and indeed it's name are in conflict with different belief systems.--Sting Buzz Me... 02:58, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"the various conceptions of a monotheistic God" isn't clear to most people which is why the current version of this category includes Jupiter (god) and other gods which don't fit the name. Hence the name of the category is not correct. User:Names of gods71.108.31.176 (talk) 02:53, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I also concur with the sentiments of User:Hereticam at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category_talk:Names_of_God&oldid=212867999 and was inspired by it.User:Names of gods 02:56, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep pending a discussion with a clearly articulated nom and fewer mysterious i.p. contributors. The afd on Names of God has closed as 'keep', BTW. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 13:11, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - "Names of gods" is pointlessly redundant with Category:Deities and its many subsets. Category:Names of God has a subset Category:Names of God in Judaism which is plenty useful and accurate—mincing whether they are titles or proper names is superfluous and OR. Similar categories might be introduced for other religions, and best, a description of what the categories should include can be added to their pages. —Yamara ✉ 07:00, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Either delete as giving undue weight to the term "God" or rename to something like Category:Names for the supreme beings of religions to neutralize the name. Otto4711 (talk) 12:36, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete by capitalization of God, we imply the Abrahamic one, in normal punctuation. We say Jupiter was a (note the lower case) god. Now, more narrowly, we may be really talking about Christianity's God the Father, since interestingly Jesus is a name of God yet fails to be so categorized; but the Holy Spirit is. Alas.... We have a category for Jewish names of God even though to my understanding Judaism forbids the writing or pronouncing God's name (hence G-d, and the Tetragrammaton). I gather that Islam refers to this element of God as Allah, which is Arabic for "God"; I don't know what the Arabic word is for non-Islamic gods. If we are meant to be talking about the first person of the Christian trinity, His names certainly don't include Jupiter, Baal, etc., so this cat serves no useful purpose. If we want to create a Category:Names of the chief gods of polytheistic religions, in an effort to save this, I am not sure how this helps; in many cases, who is the chief god is determined by archaeologists or others with little concept of the religion, which is usually dead or syncretized before being sufficiently understood and is invariably impaired. If the earth blows itself up, what would Alien archaeologists ascribe to be the chief god of Christianity? Probably the cross, based on the physical evidence around.... Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:22, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/Oppose Though I suppose I mightn't oppose a rename clarifying "God". - jc37 05:27, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On the one hand, some have said that the "God" is not the same. That is, Baal=Brahman=Vahiguru=Aten=Jupiter (god)=Zeus=Great Spirit=Amaterasu isn't implied by the current category. On the hand, they same users insist on using the singular "God" to denote the plural chief gods.--71.108.2.69 (talk) 09:05, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The proposal is based on a misunderstanding of what the proper noun God means. I could see an argument for renaming to 'Conceptions of God', though, since these articles really aren't about the names. Ilkali (talk) 13:27, 21 May 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:Educational institution disambiguation[edit]

{

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: no consensus. As an aside, the nominator's proposal does not appear feasible as the {{schooldis}} template categorises articles and the X-class Y-project articles categorise things categorise article talk pages. Angus McLellan (Talk) 09:35, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Educational institution disambiguation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Suggest merging Category:Educational institution disambiguation to Category:Disambig-Class school pages
Nominator's rationale: Merge, Modernly, disambiguous pages may be categorized two ways. The first way is by placing the {{disambig}} template on the disambiguous page itself to add the page to Category:Disambiguation. The second way used by 300+ WikiProjects is to use "|class=Dab" in a WikiProject template on the disambiguous talk page to place the article in a subcategory of Category:Disambig-Class articles. In May 2006, {{Schooldis}} was created to populate Category:Educational institution disambiguation. However, {{Schooldis}} duplicates the efforts of {{disambig}} for the article page and the efforts of Category:Disambig-Class school pages for the article talk page. Merge proposed: (1) All article talk pages of articles listed in Category:Educational institution disambiguation be tagged with {{WPSchools|class=Dab|importance=NA}}, (2) all {{Schooldis}} tags be replaced with {{disambig}}, and (3) Category:Educational institution disambiguation be deleted. GregManninLB (talk) 03:21, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. My concern is that Category:Educational institution disambiguation contains entries that are not called Schools in places other than the USA. An example is Furness College which points to a Further Education College and a University College in the UK. Neither of these are called Schools in the UK. There could well be others. So, whatever the problem here is, I support a solution that does not put all these articles in a category with "School" in its title. --Bduke (talk) 04:45, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Makes the whole structure easier to follow and cuts down on the proliferation of schools categories. No real drawback if done conscientiously. Adam McCormick (talk) 06:30, 3 May 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 13:40, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. Current name sounds too much like a "real" category; "Disambig-Class school pages" is clearly an editor-focused one. --zenohockey (talk) 18:40, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reverse merge - "Educational institution" is a wider category than "school". Universities and other kinds of tertiary college are not schools. Indeed some use the term "school" for what others call a department or faculty. However I have not investigated the contenet of the two categories in detail. Alternatively, the school category might be made a subcategory of the educational institution one. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:36, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:People from Dominica[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:Dominica people. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:22, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Updated to reflect correct rename on close. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:41, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK,I think I have it right this time. Sorry. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:27, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose 'merging' Category:People from Dominica to Category:Dominican people
Nominator's rationale: to match naming convention at Category:People by nationality and to match naming used for this page's sub-category pages. there's no need to maintain this page naming to avoid a mix-up with Category:Dominican Republic people as a statement of disambiguation at the top of the nominated page can handle this perfectly well enough Mayumashu (talk) 02:52, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename. I can tentatively agree to this as now pretty much a housekeeping change, on the assumption that there will be a clear definition at the top of the category with a link to Category:Dominican Republic people and also at least a "see also" to Category:Dominicans for the religious group. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:07, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reverse merge - in view of the possibility of miscategorisation of members of the Dominican Order and People from the Dominican Republic. Sometimes consistency cannot be perfect. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:31, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reverse merge as above. Too many "Dominicans" around for this to be clearcut otherwise. -- Necrothesp (talk) 23:04, 11 May 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 13:38, 16 May 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:Auto racing competitions in Mexico[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. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:24, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Auto racing competitions in Mexico (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary and inconsistent with all other countries, where races are included in the "Motorsport in <country>" category, e.g. 1000 km Silverstone is included in Category:Motorsport in the United Kingdom. DH85868993 (talk) 10:06, 16 May 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:Worcester[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: that so long as the article is called Worcester (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) the category needs to match it. So that means WP:RM first, WP:CFD second. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:24, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Worcester to Category:Worcester, England
Nominator's rationale: Rename. While the current name matches the article, it is completely ambiguous as there are many uses for this name. It is not clear that any of these uses is the primary usage so having this disambiguated makes the most sense. In fairness I'll state that the article failed a rename attempt to Worcester, Worcestershire so that might be an alternative rename target. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:15, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strewth - it gave me a headache... but I still think that the sensible way is for the cat to follow the article, and until the article is settled is there much point changing the cat(s)? More generally perhaps it should be a guideline if not a policy that these clumps of related cats and articles should all be decided in one go, rather than being fought out separately one after the other. Is that feasible? HeartofaDog (talk) 20:58, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The solution is more likely based in getting editors to support Wikipedia:DISAMBIGUATION#Deciding_to_disambiguate. Another solution is to explain that differing naming conventions is not a reason to keep something that is clearly not the primary topic at the main name space. In cases like the article rename proposal, it just shows that in some cases, badly placed articles will stay there since with involved editors wanting to protect their article and their naming convention, they are not willing to budge. So I guess the question is, do we have to ignore guidelines and reason here too? Vegaswikian (talk) 02:01, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unless the category name is ambiguous as a result. Can anyone say that the current name is not ambiguous? There have been many exceptions to following the article name when that produces an ambiguous result. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:53, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The scope for confusion is surely increased rather than reduced if the article is called one thing and the cat another. Nor am I clear under what circumstances you are envisaging that people are likely to be confused by a cat, since it will either occur (with other cats) attached to articles, from which it must be apparent anyway which Worcester is meant, or as a sub-cat of an over-cat which puts it in context. As for the cat's own page, a three-word headnote will remove all doubt. HeartofaDog (talk) 09:33, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the v clear explanation. The B'ham example shows though that people will mis-cat regardless, and a principle reason for that must be the assumption, wh is not unreasonable, that the cat name will follow that of the article. So renaming the cat AND the article as per above looks like a good idea, but just the cat by itself looks a bit pointless. HeartofaDog (talk) 23:15, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly oppose - The problem at the heart of this is that in England, we do not usually append a state or county name to a place unless there is real room for ambiguity (as with Newport). Worcester is one of the historic cathedral cities of England, and I do not see why it should have to adopt any suffix to accomodate theneeds of places that are named after it. It is the original Worcester. The problem can be dealt with by placing a disambiguation note at the top the page. If the "People from Worcester" category has a problem, possibly that might be renamed (on the precedent of Birmningham), but other Worcester categories (and the article on the city itself) should remain as they are. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:46, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • So the fact that it is not the primary topic is not a concern? The naming convention is not justification to ignore primary use or WP:DISAMBIGUATION. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:24, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is also Category:Birmingham, England. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 00:36, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • "...in England, we do not usually append a state or county name to a place unless there is real room for ambiguity..." I'm not sure why this view of what is common in the UK and whether a name is ambigous or not within the UK is relevant for WP, in light of the fact that we're dealing with places and readers from all around the world. Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:51, 28 May 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.

Categories:(Defunct) United States soccer clubs[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. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:18, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming
Nominator's rationale: 'American' is the accepted, convention adjective for 'United States of America' on wikip, as in Category:American people etc., however this renaming makes it clearer (that the soccer is not necessarily American, the clubs are) Mayumashu (talk) 04:55, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I thought we moved all the sports teams to SPORT teams in COUNTRY awhile back, when Wikipedia:NCCAT#Sport was clarified; but, it looks like the soccer/football cats are still hanging around.Neier (talk) 12:11, 18 May 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:Jews and Judaism by country[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. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:29, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Merge Category:Jews and Judaism by country to Category:Judaism by country
Nominator's rationale: Rename Merge. Firstly, "Jews" is extraneous - there's Category:Jews by country. Secondly, the title is a disconnect - Jews aren't necessarily connected to Judaism and a person that is closly connected to Judaism isn't necessarily Jewish. This cfd includes all the subcats - Category:Jews and Judaism in Afghanistan, Category:Jews and Judaism in Algeria, etc. brewcrewer (yada, yada) 04:42, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Judaism by country was not intended as a subcat of Category:Jews and Judaism by country. They were made on seperate tracks, and only later the former make a subcat of the latter because it looked like it made sense. Indeed, both cats have the same type of subcats. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 15:12, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still trying to understand what it is that you want to do here. Your proposal says "Rename", but the "target category" already exists -- so I'm guessing that you're thinking of some sort of merger? I looked at the edit histories for the 3 super-cats, and it looks to me like there was a clear rationale for the way things were set up (back in 2004). The "by country" trees came along a couple years later -- that's when things get really complex. As it stands now, Category:Jews by country has 101 country sub-cats, whereas Category:Jews and Judaism by country has only 81 country sub-cats -- and Category:Judaism by country has only 16 country sub-cats. Perhaps you could offer some sort of explanation of what things would look like if whatever it is you're proposing were to be implemented? Btw, I have notified the category's creator with {{subst:cfd-notify}} Cgingold (talk) 17:56, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I proposed a "rename" because most of the subcats, e.g. Category:Jews and Judaism in Afghanistan, Category:Jews and Judaism in Algeria, would be renamed. But, yes, Category:Jews and Judaism by country should be "merged" into Category:Judaism by country. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 18:08, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, that's pretty much what I thought -- in which case you should strike thru the words "renaming" (and "Rename") in your initial proposal and replace it with "merging". Also, if you want to merge all of those sub-cats into a different parent category, each of them needs to be properly tagged for CFD. Cgingold (talk) 02:04, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done, and I struck through the proposal re the subcats. We'll take it a step at a time. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 04:10, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as part of a structure, or relist as an umbrella nomination including deletion of Category:Jews and Judaism (which I would oppose). It does not make sense to challenge only the "by country" categories as a "disconnect"; the same applies to the supercategory Category:Jews and Judaism by region (corresponding to Category:Judaism by region), and to Category:Jews and Judaism by city. This CFD may be useful to explore ideas and rule some out. However, if any consensus emerges by the end, no action should be taken, but it should be relisted as an umbrella proposal with CFD notifications on all related categories that should be treated likewise. My own view is that the current category trees for Category:Jews and Category:Judaism are the proper way to recognise the "disconnect" mentioned in the nom, and that there is also such a strong "connect" that the head category Category:Jews and Judaism should be retained, with all its sub-cats by region, country etc. - Fayenatic (talk) 20:17, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all, because this VERY extensive category is a parent for two diverse sub-categories of: (1) Articles relating to Category:Jews by country and: (2) Articles relating to Category:Judaism by country. If, as the nominator suggests, this category should be shoved into Category:Judaism by country then many articles not about Judaism per se in many countries, but more about Jews and Jewish affairs, would be shoved into a "Judaism" category that they have no connection to and don't belong to, and it would also leave the sub-category of Category:Jews by country hanging without a major context. The nominator is touching upon old debates about the differences between Jews and Judaism, but one must be careful not confuse the fact that while articles try to talk of Jews and Judaism as different constructs in many separate articles, the system of categorization is much broader and it is possible to have larger parent categories for different topics that may not be "equal" in meaning to each other because that is the nature of creating and using categories. Therefore, the nominator's concerns as far as categorization is concerned are not valid because the main Category:Jews and Judaism (with its two main sub-categories of Category:Jews and Category:Judaism) is the parent category for Category:Jews and Judaism by country, a very useful tool and it would be foolish to squeeze categories about either "Jews" into categories about "Judaism" only or categories about "Judaism" into categories about "Jews" only as well as for many more sub-categories. In turn Category:Jews and Judaism by country is a parent category to other sub-categories such as Category:Jews by country and Category:Judaism by country. If this vast category were to be eliminated it would leave an illogical and sorry gaping whole in a perfectly well-constructed categories arrangment. IZAK (talk) 21:22, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Jews by country, keep Judaism by country. Categorization of people by race/religion/ethnicity serves no purpose. Putting the Jewish history, synagogue, organization, etc. articles into a Judaism by country seems reasonable. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:28, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Carlossuarez46: What you say is not clear. There is a huge super-category of Category:Jews, so would you say that should go as well? How does it serve "no purpose" when Jews are a objectively known and defined as both an ethnicity (see the Jew article) and also as part of a religion (see the Judaism article) and accoring to your logic one would also need to merge the Jew article into the Judaism article which could never be. The purpose of the category under discussion is to serve as a parent for two connected sub-categories, such as is the case with many others. You see seem to be misapplying the principle of WP:CATGRS which simply does not appply to any of this because if you look at all the sub-categories and examaine the articles they hold you will see that they fulfil and important non-trivial purpose and function of use to the serious scholar and reader. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 07:23, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Evidently you're not aware, IZAK, that Carlossuarez opposes all categories for "race/religion/ethnicity" across the board, every time they turn up at CFD, regardless of the particulars. Cgingold (talk) 14:36, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not quite so Cgingold, there is no harm in having Category:Lutheran clergy as that is meaningful, understood, as is Category:Rabbis (and will that be split among those ethnically Jewish or Jewish by religion if someone got the notion, ready for Category:Gentile Rabbis everyone?). Categorization of Jews per se and mixing up those Jews who are ethnically so Edith Stein (a Roman Catholic nun and saint) with those who are religious but not ethnically Sammy Davis Jr. (who is of African-American ethnicity/race, not Jewish) does nothing to clarify what exactly is being categorized here. CATGRS is just wrong in that it makes the leap of illogic that, e.g., Tom Cruise, Ellen DeGeneres, Cameron Diaz, Paris Hilton share something identifyingly different (all being Americans of German descent) that their next door neighbors didn't share. And perhaps as Jews have been segregated and treated differently in different places at different times, does not make any cross the board assumptions upon which to base categorization valid. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:05, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per my arguments here in October 2007. Johnbod (talk) 22:44, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the arguments already given by many above. It is a logical supercat, and the existing structure works fine as is. The merge as suggested would leave many subcats orphaned. --MPerel 04:15, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all per IZAK. There is an important distinction between Jews (people) and Judaism (religion), and the current structure recognizes this in a way the proposed merger would not. For example, Category:Jews and Judaism in Germany has as a sub-cat Category:German Jews. The majority of the German Jews don't belong in Category:Judaism in Germany because they haven't made any significant contributions to Judaism (the Jewish religion) in Germany (or elsewhere). — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 06:31, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all per IZAK and Malik Shabazz. The distinctions between Jews as people and Judaism the religion are important, and the proposed merger would not preserve this distinction. -- Nsaum75 (talk) 19:19, 23 May 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:Lilongwe[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. Doczilla STOMP! 08:30, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Lilongwe (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

  • Rename to Category:Lilongwe, Malawi for clarity, to assist the many readers who may not be sufficiently familiar with African geography to know what country it is in. This exact issue has already been raised in the CFD for Category:People from Lilongwe, Malawi, where I have argued against renaming to Category:People from Lilongwe, on the same grounds. I would like to keep the country-name in both categories, for clarity and consistency. I also want to use this CFD as a test case for renaming other cities in Category:Capitals in Africa to include the country-names. Cgingold (talk) 02:49, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • rename per nom. WP should be for the benefit of the info-seeking reader, not a place to impose abstract theories or standards or haughty nationalism ('my city' is so important, people 'ought' to know the country is it in-and if they don't, too bad for them), which do not help the reader at all. Hmains (talk) 03:14, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per city, country standard. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 04:46, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is no "city, country" standard for categories anywhere outside of the United States, except where their names are actually ambiguous. Bearcat (talk) 05:17, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why would the US be different?--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 15:26, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ask the US contingent. Nobody else understands it at all. Bearcat (talk) 18:40, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as unnecessary. The clarity issues that Cgingold alludes to simply don't exist if a name isn't actually shared with other cities, and this really does look to me like a backdoor attempt to impose an invariable international "country name always required without exception" naming convention under the noses of the 192 world countries that have already flat-out rejected it. The US is the only world country whose Wikipedia contingent has decided that disambiguation is always necessary for geographical topics whether they're actually ambiguous or not; nobody else wants, needs or uses that particular standard. There's no need for this whatsoever. Bearcat (talk) 05:17, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom and Hmains for clarity, which can and does subjectively exist for many when all they see is a place name. WP "contingents" from countries (are people really so tribal here?) don't hold a veto over the names of particular categories that involve that country. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:32, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I trust you'll support Category:California, United States, North America on the same grounds, then. And yes, it is the same thing. Bearcat (talk) 05:36, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
California is a state, Lilongwe is a city. The proposal has two place names, yours has three. Seems fairly substantially different on a number of grounds to me ... Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:43, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your own statement that "clarity, which can and does subjectively exist for many when all they see is a place name" is not one iota less true of states or provinces than it is of cities. It's not even any less true of countries. Some of our readers (at least as many as would be confused by Lilongwe) won't necessarily know that Djibouti or Nepal are countries if the titles aren't "Djibouti, Africa" or "Nepal, Asia", either. Bearcat (talk) 05:47, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That may be true, but you're still comparing apples to oranges. This nomination is proposing a "CITY, COUNTRY" naming format, not a "COUNTRY, CONTINENT" or a "STATE, COUNTRY, CONTINENT" format. We can address your examples when someone proposes them. Until then, they are largely irrelevant and pretty much standard fare "slippery slope" arguments (or "camel's nose", "thin edge of the wedge", "domino theory", "reductio ad absurdum", etc., and so on.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:04, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm. I'd say reductio ad absurdum hits the nail on the head. But more importantly, I'm still not hearing what it is that really bothers Bearcat so much about the very idea of giving readers an additional bit of info in the category name. In all sincerity, all I'm getting is that WP:ITBOTHERSME. Cgingold (talk) 11:11, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In all sincerity, WP:ITBOTHERSME is the only conceivable reason for changing this. It's simply unnecessary. The current title doesn't conflict with any other potential category, imparting supplementary information about the subject isn't a category title's job in the first place, and it's backdooring behind a naming convention that was established by thorough discussion and consensus. If you think the naming convention is wrong and needs to be changed, then you always have the right to go to WP:NC and propose a change, but simply ignoring the established convention every time it comes up, just because you personally disagree with it, isn't really appropriate wikipractice. Bearcat (talk) 15:06, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Bearcat, it's totally absurd to throw WP:ITBOTHERSME back at me when I've given a very clear explanation of the problem as I see it. However, I do take your point about the question of whether this is the appropriate forum for what would ultimately amount to a change in the naming convention. I'd like to see what other editors have to say on that point. Cgingold (talk) 18:07, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The particular format that's being proposed is not relevant to the comparison — when you get right down to it, what you're proposing is to extend a category name, despite the fact that it's not in any disambiguation conflict with other topics, on the grounds that some users might not recognize the name by itself. That situation applies equally to cities, subnational divisions (states, provinces, etc.) and countries themselves. There isn't a single geographic topic on Wikipedia, not even United States, whose name isn't going to be new and confusing to some potential readers — and it fails both WP:OR and Wikipedia's injunctions against arbitrariness to decide that some topics need this and others don't on the basis of some arbitrary and unverifiable estimate of how many readers are likely to be confused by a particular geographic name on its own. It's not "slippery slope", and it's not reductio ad absurdum — it's the logical outcome of the argument. Bearcat (talk) 15:24, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
When one immediately resorts to exaggeration verging on caricature instead of dealing in a straightforward way with specific issues that have been raised, I think that meets the legal definintion of reductio ad absurdum. I'm amazed and amused that you would invoke WP:OR here -- another red herring. The notion that exercising sound judgement when naming categories is somehow frowned upon is simply ludicrous. Surely you can come up with something better than that, Bearcat. Cgingold (talk) 01:31, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Lilongwe is the capital of Malawi, population 600,000, and there are no other Lilongwes. So what is the problem? -- roundhouse0 (talk) 13:43, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've never suggested that there are "other Lilongwes" -- that was a red herring introduced by Bearcat. Would you care to respond to the issues that I did raise, Roundhouse? Cgingold (talk) 01:31, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, dear... we seem to be operating in parallel universes or something, Roundhouse. I didn't make a "consistency argument", I made a "clarity argument" -- which extends to all of the other capitals in Category:Capitals in Africa because not one of them specifies the country, either. As for the CFD for Category:People from Lilongwe, Malawi, it most assuredly was closed as "Keep" -- the term "no consensus" is nowhere to be found. I'm still hoping that you will explain why we should not give our readers an extra bit of info (the country name) that will assist them in making use of these categories. Cgingold (talk) 22:27, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • When you say (above, in the nom) "I would like to keep the country-name in both categories, for clarity and consistency" I am entitled (in my universe) to infer that you are using a 'consistency' argument. I concede that KBdank did close the cfd as 'keep'; I am not sure why I thought otherwise. It's really up to you to explain why capitals in Africa need to have a country attached when capitals in every other continent have none (apart from Kingston, Jamaica, San Jose, Costa Rica, San Juan, Puerto Rico and St. John's, Antigua and Barbuda, which have obvious disamb problems). Of which country is Chişinău the capital? -- roundhouse0 (talk) 16:32, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • First, my apology for any confusion I inadvertently introduced by using the word "consistency" in that one instance, since that is in no way at the heart of my argument. Please note that I only threw that in in connection with the sub-cat Category:People from Lilongwe, Malawi, which was what prompted me to propose renaming this category in the first place. Cgingold (talk) 23:49, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On to your other remarks. In all sincerity, thank you for finally responding to my requests for some real substance by articulating that question. There is certainly nothing that sets Africa apart from other continents in this respect. As I've explained, it's sheer happenstance that this issue arose in connection with an African city; it could just as easily have been a city in Asia or South America. The same principle applies across the board: we owe it to our readers to facilitate their use of the Wikipedia category system. Cgingold (talk) 23:50, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm obviously not explaining myself clearly enough if you think it's a red herring, so let me try again: the practice for geographic category names has always been that they should match the article title, and only need to contain the country name if they're actually in a state of ambiguity conflict with another valid category. What you're proposing is a major revision of that practice, an entirely new guideline that's never been applied to geographic categories before. It's a fundamental change to the way geographic categories have been named up until now. It would necessitate a comprehensive review of the entire geographic category structure to create whole new rules for how to distinguish categories which are "obscure" enough to require the country name, even if they're unique names on their own, from those which are "famous" enough to stand alone. The question of whether there are any other Lilongwes in the world is the current and established precedent for whether a category name needs its country in it or not, whereas you're proposing that we throw out the existing precedent for a new reason. Bearcat (talk) 18:36, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Unnecessary. No other Lilongwes of note. This whole city, country issue smacks of editors who cannot get their way with article naming trying it instead with category naming. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:49, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: That is absolutely NOT the case, Necrothesp -- have you even read my explanation? How about a little WP:AGF here? Cgingold (talk) 18:10, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of course I have read it. The article is called Lilongwe. Why is that clear, whereas the category isn't? Are people reading categories somehow more ignorant than those reading articles? -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:34, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I've already said, the entire point is that if you happen to be reading the article, that extra bit of info -- the country name -- is right there, in the very first line. You don't need to go anywhere else to find it. So would you please explain to me exactly why it would be so terrible to provide our readers with that extra bit of info in the name of the category? Also, I was hoping you would retract your comment that questions the good faith of my argument. I have no connection with this issue other than what I have openly stated here. Cgingold (talk) 22:36, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, you're right. I wrote that very hastily and was simply trying to convey the fact that it was kept and not renamed. Sorry, that was not intentional. Cgingold (talk) 23:30, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have added the country (and continent) to the first (and only) line of the category page, so it is now right there, just as it is in the article Lilongwe. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 16:32, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sigh... this is getting tiresome. Would you care to respond to the real argument that has been made in favor of this proposal, rather than to a straw-man argument that has only been made by those who are opposed? Cgingold (talk) 22:39, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - completely unnecessary for reasons given (and rather patronising). As for clarity, the information that Lilongwe is in Malawi is available in the over-cats. HeartofaDog (talk) 16:41, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's nothing in the least "patronising" about this. I'd say the operative word here is "disdainful": So what if our readers are forced to download dozens of pages just to find out where all of those African capitol cities are located -- all because we refuse to provide that extra bit of info that would save them the bother of loading those pages. Of course, the reality is that hardly anybody is going to go to the trouble to do that. Cgingold (talk) 19:30, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Patronising to Africa - you seem to be making the huge and unwarranted assumption that there is something intrinsically "obscure" about African capitals. HeartofaDog (talk) 10:48, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I explained above, it's sheer happenstance that this issue arose in connection with an African city. Certainly there's no intent to patronizingly single out Africa. That said, it is most certainly the case that few readers outside of Africa (and possibly inside too, for that matter) would be able to identify more than a handful of those 60 or so capitol cities. The same is undoubtedly the case for other continents. Cgingold (talk) 02:08, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is indeed a very useful template, and appears to go a long way towards addressing my concerns. But I'd like to take my time with this before I "sign off" on it. I'm also hoping there are analagous templates available for the other continents. Cgingold (talk) 02:26, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would also like to run this by the other editors who supported the proposal to rename to see what they think. Cgingold (talk) 11:41, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This and the explanatory intro should alleviate the problems raised by nom. Kudos to Roundhouse. However, wouldn't we want to place the template on each capital cat?--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 14:20, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As an editor who has essentially agreed with Cgingold's positions throughout, and have therefore remained silent since my initial discussion with Bearcat, I see the template solution as a good compromise. Especially if, as Brewcrewer suggested, it could be placed on each category for capital cities. It's clear from the preceding discussions that there's no consensus to rename, but I do believe that such a solution addresses any concerns I myself had about "clarity", etc. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:40, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have, assisted by AWB, added the template + an explanatory intro to each of the African capitals categories. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 01:28, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose article is at Lilongwe, cat should match. Like Worcester above. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:29, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose There is only one Lilongwe. I had also forgotten which country it was in, but that does not matter. I trust you will support a rename for Hollywood to "Hollywood, California, United States" and California to "California, United States". Suffixes are only usually necessary for disambiguation, and none is needed here. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:53, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is another "apples to oranges" comparison. The proposal is for a "city, country" format, not a "city, state, country" format (3 locations, as opposed to 2) or a "state, country" format (no city involved). Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:55, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for reasons already stated. ("Haughty nationalism" has nothing to do with it -- I've never even been to Lilongwe, let alone consider it "my" city. Although ... I wouldn't mind having a city.) –Black Falcon (Talk) 15:47, 27 May 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:Webzines[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. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:14, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Webzines to Category:Online magazines
Nominator's rationale: Rename. The main article is actually online magazine (webzine is a redirect to it). More to the point, "online magazine" is currently the more popular term; "webzine" sounds very mid-'90s. Proof: Google Blog Search finds 14,809 results in the past month for "online magazine" (with quotes) but only 6,759 for "webzine." --zenohockey (talk) 02:26, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
...And Google Book Search finds 324 books published from 2004 to 2008 using "webzine" versus 648 using "online magazine." --zenohockey (talk) 02:35, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wizardman 02:40, 16 May 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:NASL teams[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. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:15, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:NASL teams to Category:North American Soccer League teams
Nominator's rationale: convention here to spell out initialisms, as in Category:North American Soccer League players, Category:National Football League teams, etc. Mayumashu (talk) 00:18, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe this qualifies for Speedy renaming. Cgingold (talk) 01:45, 16 May 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_May_16&oldid=1085526788"