Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 September 10

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< September 9 September 11 >

September 10[edit]

Category:Marvel Comics organizations[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:00, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Category:Marvel Comics organizations to Category:Fictional organizations in Marvel Comics

To clarify that these aren't real organisations of the publishing company. - jc37 23:00, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rename - as nominator. - jc37 23:00, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename - but with 'organizations' as Marvel Comics are US-based. Occuli (talk) 01:22, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Modified nom. Noting that most "organization" cats (including Category:Organizations) use the "z". - jc37 01:31, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom.--Lenticel (talk) 02:02, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename. But if the organisation is British it is an "organisation". :) GeorgeWilliams (talk) 09:51, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Just to be awkward, isn't the proposed title semantically incorrect? Perhaps "...appearing in..." or "...Marvel Comics comics." I would have thought that the "Marvel Comics" makes it clear enough that these are fictional entities, but as long as the category isn't being removed, a namechange seems reasonable. But, could this type of discussion be linked to at, at least Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics, so that it doesn't have to be coincidental that comics people (i.e. me, for a start) notice there's debate going on..?! ntnon (talk) 00:15, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    If you haven't already, please check out Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/Notice board. (Though it looks like it needs to be updated due to the last few days...) - jc37 00:46, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Aye. Although let's not get into a British/US thing here and instead go with first contrib, which still leaves us with organizations. ;) Hiding T 13:50, 15 September 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.

University College for the Creative Arts[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 all. Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:28, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:University College for the Creative Arts (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete Empty category and subcategories, name changed, new categories created and populated. Richard Pinch (talk) 22:51, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merged nominations for the following categories, which previously were nominated separately (the deletion rationale and comments were identical across nominations, so no information is lost by consolidating). –Black Falcon (Talk) 16:58, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:People associated with the University College for the Creative Arts (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Academics of the University College for the Creative Arts (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Alumni of the University College for the Creative Arts (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
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:Not safe for work[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: SPEEDY DELETED. Postdlf (talk) 17:30, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Not safe for work (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - Bad category idea. Violation of WP:NOTCENSORED to determine what is or is not appropriate, which would be a subjective and drama-inducing process to agree on what should belong here. VegaDark (talk) 21:19, 10 September 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:SL Benfica[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; the arguments against renaming were not convincing in this context, though they may be in a much wider CfD. No rationale was provided for why "players" should be kept, as opposed to changing it to "footballers" for the reasons in the nom. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:57, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:SL Benfica to Category:S.L. Benfica
Propose renaming Category:Benfica players to Category:S.L. Benfica footballers
Propose renaming Category:SL Benfica managers to Category:S.L. Benfica managers
Propose renaming Category:SL Benfica matches to Category:S.L. Benfica matches
Nominator's rationale: Rename. To match the club's main article, S.L. Benfica. The "players" category should be named "S.L. Benfica footballers" as S.L. Benfica is a multisport club, and so "S.L. Benfica players" could be ambiguous. – PeeJay 21:13, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related page moves. – PeeJay 21:37, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename but as S. L. rather than per nom. Naming convention for initials is to separate them by a space. The article should be moved as well. Otto4711 (talk) 22:30, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename all football club articles to hold FC instead of F.C. The full stops are unnecessary and do not add any additional meaning or value. Besides it is easier to type FC without full stops. GeorgeWilliams (talk) 09:56, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Your reasoning does not explain why these categories should not match a) each other; or b) the club's main article. It may be marginally easier to type "FC" than it is to type "F.C.", but it's only two characters, which is negligible. The most glaring thing here is that one category here is named "Benfica players", while the others all start with "SL Benfica...", which is just stupid. In fact, I really see no reason why this matter even needs to be discussed. The solution is obvious, and your opposition to the move is inexplicable. – PeeJay 20:13, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Point of order. Your attitude is inexplicable. Who are you to state that your solution is "obvious" and that someone else's point of view is inexplicable? This is a discussion page. BlackJack | talk page 07:16, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per WP:FOOTY common policy and for consistency. Peanut4 (talk) 20:41, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to be consistent with parent article. Solving this one CfR by renaming 1000s of football club articles is not a practical solution. If the user feels that the common policy for naming football club articles is wrong, he should raise it somewhere more appropriate -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:49, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all to match parent article. --Jimbo[online] 20:35, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all except Category:Benfica players and rename that as Category:SL Benfica players. BlackJack | talk page 07:11, 15 September 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:Star Control races[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: upmerge/delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:52, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Star Control races (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: The races have been merged into a list and the category is no longer needed. Upmerge. Pagrashtak 20:59, 10 September 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:Early game industry moguls[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. If something more suitable can be found, these can be recategorized. For now, considering there is no definition of "early" or "mogul", it is impossible to find a merge or rename target that we could say, "yep, that's what it means". Kbdank71 18:57, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Early game industry moguls (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - there is no objective definition of "early" and no objective definition of "mogul." Per the talk page, the category creator was inspired to name the category this way because of a similar category for movie moguls. However, that category was renamed to Category:Film studio executives because of the subjectivity of "mogul." Would not be opposed to a rename if one that's suitable neutral can be found. Otto4711 (talk) 19:55, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename as Software game designers or merge with a similar existing category. GeorgeWilliams (talk) 09:59, 11 September 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 cricketers of the 18th century[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename. Kbdank71 18:52, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:English cricketers of the 18th century to Category:English cricketers of 1701 to 1786
Nominator's rationale: Rename. This will make the names of all such categories consistent and it will resolve the overlap problem between this one and category:English cricketers of 1787 to 1815. BlackJack | talk page 19:27, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Still not sure there's a need to chop up player articles based on rules changes and what-not, but I'm Amurrican and all I know of cricket is what appears in Monty Python, so I defer to the subject matter experts and say rename. Otto4711 (talk) 04:06, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It is a very fair question, though, and the answer, per Grutness, is that there were significant changes in the sport's structure caused by the foundation of MCC (1787), the end of major wars that caused the sport's cessation for several years at a time (1815, 1918, 1945) or major rule changes (1864, 1969). The only time we have an end-of-century cutoff in the categories is 2000 and that is because of the sheer volume of contemporary material that has been posted since 2001. Hope this helps. BlackJack | talk page 05:39, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, an American equivalent might be a category for American football prior to 1970, or for Dead ball era baseball, or a pre-1870s (i.e., pre-professional/major league) era baseball category. Grutness...wha? 00:18, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename. The real need here is to stop the two categories overlapping because some articles are in both when they should only be in one; and other articles may be in one when they should be in both. Cutoffs like this should be to a specific date: e.g., 1786, 1815. Centuries are too vague. GeorgeWilliams (talk) 09:48, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I don't necessarily agree that we should avoid end of century cutoffs, especially as we have used 2000/2001 to divide the heavy volume of modern cricket articles. It is firstly a case of finding a date that is convenient and if it should have significance then so much the better. For example, there is no reason not to use 1800/1801 except that 1786/1787 is highly significant in cricket terms and is historically appropriate. BlackJack | talk page 09:54, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't have a strong view on this, and don't really see why overlapping categories is a big problem if individuals will often go into more than one category no matter when we put the dividing line. That said User:BlackJack is the pre-eminent contributor in these areas, and if he feels more comfortable with these divisions, then I'm happy that he should set the categories he would want to make his work more as he wants it. So Rename. Johnlp (talk) 23:07, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. It is a consistency thing really and to ensure we avoid confusing the readers. I do need to compare the subjects with their dates to make sure none are overcategorised and, as you say, having a specific date division will make it easier. BlackJack | talk page 09:54, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename for the reason given by Johnlp: that the nominator is the main person working in this area. Stephen Turner (Talk) 13:53, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename Strong arguments for the move. --Dweller (talk) 10:45, 15 September 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:Community organisations in Birmingham[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename. Kbdank71 18:51, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Community organisations in Birmingham to Category:Community organisations based in Birmingham, England
Nominator's rationale: Per the conventions of Category:Organisations based in England and Category:Birmingham, England. –Black Falcon (Talk) 16:03, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. Occuli (talk) 17:35, 10 September 2008 (UTC)R[reply]
  • Why Birmingham, England and not Birmingham like the article title? This also applies to the rename below. =Nichalp «Talk»= 08:45, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Birmingham is Birmingham. It is not Birmingham, England. This foisting Americanisms onto articles about English subjects. GeorgeWilliams (talk) 10:01, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's nice that you have a UK centric view. However this is a worldwide encyclopedia and putting down American views is not in any way productive. Place names are inherently ambiguous and disambiguation is a good thing. This is not a UK v US issue. Vegaswikian1 (talk) 00:20, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename - how many times do we have to have this discussion? Yes, the lead article is at Birmingham. Yes, categories should usually match their lead articles. However, because of the existence of a category structure for Birmingham, Alabama consensus has emerged that "Birmingham" categories need to be disambiguated. Otto4711 (talk) 16:16, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. The current name is clearly ambiguous and needs to be changed. Vegaswikian1 (talk) 00:20, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as is, given the location of the article. The category should match that. Decisions to change all of the US's geographical articles to reflect their state, while they may spark debate on naming guidelines for other countries, shouldn't automatically be imposed on other countries. The international nature of Wikipedia means that each country uses its own naming guidelines, and if the ones for the UK say that it should be Birmingham, then there's no reason why it should not be Brimingham (this is also the reason why it's not "organizations"). Having said that, if the consensus is for a rename, then it should be to Category:Community organisations in Birmingham, West Midlands. Using "Birmingham, England" is the equivalent of "Birmingham, United States", which would never be done, and the term "Birmingham, England" is rarely if ever encountered outside the US. Grutness...wha? 00:36, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The settlement naming conventions are a royal mess and they create disambiguation problems when there is no primary use, as in this specific case. The argument that we should follow the main article because the name follows a country naming convention is simply bogus. There is a need for disambiguation and the category name should reflect that. I don't really care which of the two proposals is selected as long as it is renamed. Vegaswikian1 (talk) 02:55, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • The "royal mess" has been caused by use of "Birmingham, England" in that category and its subsets. There is a WP policy or guideline somewhere that requires spellings, formats, etc. to reflect actual usage in the relevant country. In that respect, no one in England ever says "Birmingham, England" while hardly anyone in the US refers to "Birmingham, Alabama" as simply "Birmingham". This proposal should be about renaming category:Birmingham, England to category:Birmingham. Therefore, keep. BlackJack | talk page 07:07, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm love to see proof about the US usage claim. Based on many city rename discussions, your statement would seem to be opposite to what everyone generally claims. When it is clear from the context, no location in the US is used with the state. However the US naming convention prevents the creation of ambiguous place names which is the exact opposite of the British convention which creates problems. So clearly the suggestion that is Birmingham is not ambiguous is without merit. Vegaswikian1 (talk) 01:31, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: To those suggesting keeping the category at its current name, please note that the addition of ", England" is not the only proposed change. The nomination also proposes adding "based in" per the conventions of Category:Organisations based in England, which should be a less controversial change.
    As for the suggestion to rename Category:Birmingham, England to Category:Birmingham, please note that this would require a separate nomination. If such a nomination succeeds, the category currently under consideration would naturally use "Birmingham" instead of "Birmingham, England" (admittedly a forced formulation). However, unless and until that happens, what is the reason for perpetuating inconsistency between the titles of the nominated category and its parent? Consensus apparently already swung one way; while in the future it may swing in the other, we shouldn't assume that it will. –Black Falcon (Talk) 15:43, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. If the keepers want to have the name just be "Birmingham", then Category:Birmingham, England needs to be nominated—that's a discussion that's a bit misplaced having here. Until it is changed, the subcategories should conform to this usage. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:50, 16 September 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:Nightclubs in Birmingham[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename. Kbdank71 18:49, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Nightclubs in Birmingham to Category:Nightclubs in Birmingham, England
Nominator's rationale: Per the convention of Category:Birmingham, England, and to avoid confusion with other places called Birmingham (especially Birmingham, Alabama). –Black Falcon (Talk) 15:58, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Same reason as for the item immediately above. GeorgeWilliams (talk) 10:02, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rename - how many times do we have to have this discussion? Yes, the lead article is at Birmingham. Yes, categories should usually match their lead articles. However, because of the existence of a category structure for Birmingham, Alabama consensus has emerged that "Birmingham" categories need to be disambiguated. Otto4711 (talk) 16:17, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per Otto4711 and comments above. Vegaswikian1 (talk) 00:22, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom for consistency within category structure and for needed DAB purposes. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:51, 16 September 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 written by Robert Lange[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:47, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Songs written by Robert Lange to Category:Songs written by Robert John "Mutt" Lange
Nominator's rationale: Parent article was moved to Robert John "Mutt" Lange, category should match. I tried to do this in the speedy rename section, but Rockfang disagreed. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 15:21, 10 September 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:Thin film cells[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename for clarity until something better (if anything) can be worked out. Kbdank71 18:49, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Thin film cells to Category:Thin-film cells
Nominator's rationale: "Thin film cells" was probably intended to mean "Thin-film cells". But probaby we don't need the category at all. Dicklyon (talk) 15:11, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What a mess - looking through the categories and articles housed under the parent Category:Thin films, there isn't a shred of uniformity in category names or article names or even internal consistency within individual articles. Google's no help because it's capturing pretty much the same individual results for each and there doesn't appear to be uniformity even within the industry. I'd suggest leaving as is for now and trying to generate consensus at Talk:Thin film as to what format should be implemented across the board. Otto4711 (talk) 18:52, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not that bad. There's nothing wrong with "thin film" as a noun, but when used as an adjective, normal rules of punctuation require a hyphen to disambiguate the meaning. I've fixed the articles, but I need help fixing (or deleting) the category. Dicklyon (talk) 20:13, 10 September 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:Women by religion[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename. Kbdank71 18:46, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Women by religion to Category:Women and religion
Nominator's rationale: Rename to better follow naming conventions. For example, Category:Women by nationality contains Category:American women, etc. This category, on the other hand, deals with women's topics, not individual women. Also, a rename will make the category more inclusive. --Eliyak T·C 15:01, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom, and per the names of the subcats. Occuli (talk) 15:46, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per both, though NB a valid "Category:Women by religion" could be assembled from the tree here. Johnbod (talk) 15:54, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose different rename to Category:Religion and women for consistency with the names of the sub-categories (e.g., Christianity and women). GeorgeWilliams (talk) 10:06, 11 September 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:O-yatoi gaikokujin[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:Foreign government advisors in Meiji Japan. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:12, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:O-yatoi gaikokujin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

  • Although I can't be certain, there appears to be an unstated wiki-convention that post-Meiji Restoration -- "modern" era -- reign names are always identified as "periods," e.g., Meiji period, Taisho period, etc.
  • Although again I'm uncertain, I'm also persuaded that there's a generally-accepted wiki-convention that Category:Foreign advisers in Meiji Japan is somehow wiki-wrong, although quite acceptable in prose outside this wiki-venue? Although no one disputes terms like Hōgen Rebellion (1156), Heiji Rebellion (1159) or Onin War (1467-1477), I've noticed that unfamiliar editors have often enough improved my prose by changing phrases like "Meiji education" to "Meiji period education," referring to the years 1868-1912.
  • Therefore, I'm guessing that a better alternative would have to be something like
Category:Foreign advisers in Meiji period Japan?
Clearly, I don't understand categorization well enough yet, but active engagement in this thread and elsewhere provides an opportunity to learn. --Tenmei (talk) 19:50, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My only purpose above was to explain why "period" should be substituted for "era" in the proposed new category name. A review of Talk:O-yatoi gaikokujin reveals another plausibly significant change we should consider? In a 1905 book, the early Japanologist Basil Hall Chamberlain suggests that the English counterpart should be "Foreign employees" (independent contractors) -- see here (top of page) and here (bottom of page). Also, Sir Hugh Cortazzi, former British Ambassador to Japan, links the term yatoi with the noun "employee" in a book published on the occasion of the 1991 centenary of the Japan Society of London -- see here (2nd paragraph) and here (2nd paragraph). In light of these citations and WP:V, I wonder if the following title seems more correct?
Foreign employees in Meiji period Japan?
Can this thread be kept open longer than is usual -- hoping for further comment from others? More informed analysis is needed to decide whether the contractual relationship is the most important element in O-yatoi gaikokujin or whether the advisory function of the yatoi is better emphasized in the category name? These are not simple questions with easy answers. --Tenmei (talk) 15:06, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nihonjoe's suggested Category:Foreign government advisors in Meiji Japan --Tenmei (talk) 13:27, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Video game hardware templates[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: no consensus. Kbdank71 18:45, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Video game hardware templates to Category:Video game platform and technology templates
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Broaden the scope a bit to include software technologies and make the name more descriptive. SharkD (talk) 00:37, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose/Rename instead to Category:Video game console templates per Video game console and Handheld game console. Suggest that the intro be clarified/updated. - jc37 21:26, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose reproposal - This category contains templates about personal computer platforms and technologies as well. There's not sufficient reason to re-sort all the various templates into a multitude of little categories. Making the category more specific benifits one particular branch at the expense of organizing the topic categories as a whole. SharkD (talk) 18:11, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kbdank71 14:15, 10 September 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:Coal in Nevada[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:45, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Coal in Nevada (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Without any direction this is likely OCAT. Are we talking about production? Consumption? Transportation? This is not part of a series. If this is for companies, it is not clear that this would be the one listed since the two subsidiaries are more likely to be involved with the consumption of coal to generate electricity. Since there are only two electric utility companies, this category is limited to two companies. The power plants are already covered under Category:Coal-fired power stations in the United States. So the name is ambiguous and a better category already exists. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:50, 10 September 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:License tags[edit]

Relisted to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 September 23 - jc37 19:46, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:ATO artists[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:43, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:ATO artists to Category:ATO Records artists
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Per main article, ATO Records. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:57, 10 September 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:UK Radio Presenters deceased[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: upmerge/delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:01, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:UK Radio Presenters deceased (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
WP:OCAT as intersection of two unrelated traits. Suggest delete, but even if this were somehow kept it would still need to be renamed, desperately. Bearcat (talk) 05:47, 10 September 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:Defunct organisations[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, leave redirect. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:38, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:Defunct organisations to Category:Defunct organizations
Nominator's rationale: Merge, Same category; commonwealth vs US spelling. The latter seems to be the more populated of the two. 70.53.191.230 (talk) 04:30, 10 September 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:Flora of Malesian Region[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:Flora of the Malesian region. Kbdank71 18:42, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Flora of Malesian Region to Category:Flora of Malesia
Nominator's rationale: Rename. This category is for the flora of Malesia. As currently titled, the capital "R" in region is wrong, and a definite article is needed too: i.e. "Flora of the Malesian region". But as long as we're going to the trouble of renaming this, I think we should go for the more concise Category:Flora of Malesia. Hesperian 04:14, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Or that. Johnbod (talk) 10:26, 11 September 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:Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:41, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries to Category:OPEC
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Per main article; whatever one is named, so should the other be as well. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:05, 10 September 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:Transgender and transsexual actors from the United States[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:36, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:Transgender and transsexual actors from the United States to Category:Transgender and transsexual actors
Nominator's rationale: Merge: Don't see any need to split off from "parent" article. Cat only has 14 entries, parent cat has 17. No encyclopedic value in splitting. SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 01:56, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Is there really any differentiation or fundamental distinction between an American transgender or transsexual actor and one from anywhere else in the world? -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 14:48, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I really don't know what you have against sub-categories like this, SatyrTN. The way I see it, this makes it possible for readers to find articles about the three actors who aren't from the US, which would otherwise be kind of "lost" among those 14 articles. Cgingold (talk) 02:25, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Cgingold. This is useful in navigation of CatSpace.--ZayZayEM (talk) 07:48, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – there is the other parent cat Category:LGBT actors from the United States which has 4 obvious subcats. Occuli (talk) 08:03, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There is a fair amount of discussion we've already had at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies/Categories regarding how to subdivide LGBT people. Since "LGBT" is already a collective term, and since the category is already an intersection of two things (sexual orientation/identity, occupation), it's felt that intersecting by location is to be avoided. See also WP:OC - "avoid subcategorizing subjects by geographical boundary". -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 15:45, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Satyr, I have to disagree, I think this is a useful distinction. Aleta Sing 22:51, 11 September 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:LGBT related plays[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: speedy deleted (CSD G7 - author request) by User:Anthony Appleyard. –Black Falcon (Talk) 16:01, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:LGBT related plays (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: request speedy delete by creator....duplicate error emerson7 01:03, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just add {{db-author}} to the cat. Otto4711 (talk) 01:05, 10 September 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:Weird NJ[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. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:15, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Weird NJ (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - categorizing on the basis of having been covered in a particular magazine is overcategorization. Imagine how many categories Brangelina could end up in if this were widespread. Otto4711 (talk) 01:00, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I spotted this a few days ago, but didn't have time to deal with it. For sure we don't want to categorize on the basis of magazine coverage, but looking at the parent cats, I'm wondering if perhaps it should be renamed to Category:Paranormal places in New Jersey, instead of deleting it outright. Notified creator with {{subst:cfd-notify}} Cgingold (talk) 02:59, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment as category creator. I suppose it probably can't stand as exists; but "Paranormal places in New Jersey" wouldn't be accurate for all the entries as some of them (Action Park) have no paranormal element to them. But Clinton Road, Shades of Death Road, maybe Paulinskill Viaduct, and quite a few others could go in a "Paranormal places in New Jersey" subcat. Daniel Case (talk) 03:10, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Glad you've joined the discussion, Daniel. Since you're familiar with these places/articles, it would help to know how many of the 17 would actually belong in that sub-cat. Could you put a number on it for us? Cgingold (talk) 03:16, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Non-paranormal places in here are: Action Park, Evil Clown of Middletown, Jungle Habitat, Tillie and White Manna, for a total of 5 of the 17. Those can probably be put in Category:New Jersey culture. The other 12 would populate a paranormal places in NJ cat that could easily be expected to grow. Daniel Case (talk) 03:08, 11 September 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:Gay villages in Texas[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: no consensus. Kbdank71 18:39, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:Gay villages in Texas to Category:Gay villages in the United States
Nominator's rationale: Merge: Only three entries in the cat. There is nothing significant about being a gay village in TX compared to the rest of the United States, unlike California and NY (and arguably MA). Parent cat does not need the splitting by state based on size. SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 00:56, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - categories are not population contests. They serve as useful navigational aides. Three is certainly enough to justify a separate category. It helps clean up the parent category. Categories are not about being "special".--ZayZayEM (talk) 07:47, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Query - why is a gay village in TX less significant than one in MA? Occuli (talk) 12:34, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Provincetown, MA is one of the gay meccas, so is *much* more well known than any "gay village" in TX. Cats serve as navigational aides, but there is such a thing as *too* specific, which these (all the states, IMO) are. And shouldn't there be *some* encyclopedic value to the category? Or is any grouping of three things allowed its own cat? -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 15:07, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It does place them in Category:Settlements in Texas as well so you would need to merge there too. Given that the 3 are obviously in TX (from their names) then justification for the subcat seems tenuous (same is true of most of the other subcats: the California ones all end in California). Occuli (talk) 15:59, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
One is already in Category:Neighborhoods in Oak Lawn and the other two are in Category:Neighborhoods in Houston, Texas, so they're already "merged" into that structure. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 16:21, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete since there are not articles that reliable sources put in this category, as far as I can tell. Using a category to label a town or neighborhood a "gay village" when there's no source does not seem sensible. Nothing against Texas; perhaps the other states and US cats have the same problem? Dicklyon (talk) 05:53, 12 September 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:Female wartime crossdressers in the American Civil War[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:33, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:Female wartime crossdressers in the American Civil War to Category:Female wartime crossdressers
Nominator's rationale: Merge: There doesn't seem to be anything special-er about being a female wartime crossdresser for this war compared to any other. This is the only sub-category of its type. SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 00:44, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This sub-cat has two Civil War parent cats, which means that readers browsing those categories will be able to find their way to this category, which they otherwise would not know about. The specificity is precisely what makes this category valuable. In fact, there should be more sub-cats-by-war to differentiate the articles in Category:Female wartime crossdressers. Cgingold (talk) 02:19, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - created this category as there seemed to be multiple individuals fitting this specific category. There is nothing special about the Civil War, but I felt that people may be interested in looking at other female crossdressers from the same war more easily (make a category, rather than adding multiple see also to each page). Feel free to construct categories for other wars. See Wikipedia:Other stuff exists (equally applicable as other stuff doesn't exist).--ZayZayEM (talk) 07:33, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Perhaps I should have tried to wikilawyer a little better. There is no reason to create this cat - the parent an be placed in whatever cats this one is in just as easily as this one. It's simply a matter of WP:OC#NARROW and WP:OC#SMALL. If the parent cat is split into specific wars, there will be a dozen categories with only two or three entries, which is unhelpful to anyone. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 15:51, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - as this has 12 entries (not small) and I don't follow 'the parent can be placed in whatever cats this one is in just as easily as this one' (which parent, and how?). Occuli (talk) 01:37, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you can explain why this should be kept? My argument is that it provides no encyclopedic benefit. Cgingold says it makes navigation easier, and that it's in two parent categories. I don't see why "Female wartime crossdressers" can't be put in those two parent cats just as easily, and I don't see the benefit of splitting this cat off. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 01:59, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - substantial category, well-populated. If merged, the articles would lose their direct connection to the Civil War parent categories. A merged Category:Female wartime crossdressers can't appropriately be placed in those Civil War catgeories because not all of the articles relate to the Civil War. Otto4711 (talk) 18:12, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - this seems to be a useful category with twelve entries that are more specifically placed here than in the female wartime crossdressers parent. Twelve members seems plenty to me to justify the subcategory. Aleta Sing 22:45, 11 September 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_September_10&oldid=1141928401"