Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 July 11

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< July 10 July 12 >

July 11[edit]

Malayalam-language films by year[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 all on a per-decade basis. --Xdamrtalk 23:47, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging
Category:Malayalam-language films by year
Category:1965 Malayalam-language films
Category:1974 Malayalam-language films
Category:1978 Malayalam-language films
Category:1979 Malayalam-language films
Category:1980 Malayalam-language films
Category:1981 Malayalam-language films
Category:1982 Malayalam-language films
Category:1983 Malayalam-language films
Category:1984 Malayalam-language films
Category:1985 Malayalam-language films
Category:1986 Malayalam-language films
Category:1987 Malayalam-language films
Category:1988 Malayalam-language films
Category:1989 Malayalam-language films
Category:1990 Malayalam-language films
Category:1991 Malayalam-language films
Category:1992 Malayalam-language films
Category:1993 Malayalam-language films
Category:1994 Malayalam-language films
Category:1995 Malayalam-language films
Category:1996 Malayalam-language films
Category:1997 Malayalam-language films
Category:1998 Malayalam-language films
Category:1999 Malayalam-language films
Category:2000 Malayalam-language films
Category:2001 Malayalam-language films
Category:2002 Malayalam-language films
Category:2003 Malayalam-language films
Category:2004 Malayalam-language films
Category:2005 Malayalam-language films
Category:2006 Malayalam-language films
Category:2007 Malayalam-language films
Category:2008 Malayalam-language films
Category:2009 Malayalam-language films
to Category:Malayalam-language films
Nominator's rationale: This level of categorisation does not exist anywhere else and sets a bad precedent. For the sake of two hundred and something articles, it's not like the parent category is in any real need of diffusion anyway. PC78 (talk) 23:30, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as overcategorization considering the small number of articles involved in these categories. The main one, Category:Malayalam-language films, suffices. —Erik (talk • contrib) 23:49, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge per nom and also to Category:1965 films etc. Occuli (talk) 00:28, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep : Please note that there are ~50+ mainstream Feature film produced in malayalam language every year. Yes, not many as covered in Wikipedia as it its popularity is just being picked in developing countries like India. I had just created the cats yesterday and started moveing the existing films to the subcats. Yes, there are hundreds of articles of notable films in Malayalam and other Indian languages to be added. The nomination is a bad faith nomination by the same nominator after this AFD Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ee_Parakkum_Thalika. Reasons for deletion should not be I DONT LIKE IT or I DON'T KNOW. -- Tinu Cherian - 03:14, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no category of film by language that is broken down further by year. Essentially, there is zero precedent for this kind of breakdown. Also please assume good faith of other editors; what does deleting this collection of excessive categories have anything to do with Ee Parakkum Thalika? Different arguments would apply simply by their very natures (category vs. article). —Erik (talk • contrib) 03:38, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Zero precedent is no reason of deletion. Yes, AGF shud be in both ways. Isn't 50+ artciles per category sufficient?. while ~ 400+ of ml movies are already in WP, of which I have moved over 100-150 to these subcats. Please note that there are 1000s of notable malayalam film articles yet to be created... -- Tinu Cherian - 03:55, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nice AGF there. Of course zero precendent is a valid reason - these categories are simply unnecessary, especially but not just because of the number of films involved. Note that we do not subcategorise the 20,000 English-language films by year. PC78 (talk) 12:08, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge per nom and per Occuli. Lugnuts (talk) 07:45, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Would these films be cross-upmerged to [1965 films], [1974 films], etc.?
  • Upmerge to categories that are (Malayalam-language films) by decade:
A full upmerge of all articles would prevent seeing all of them at once anyhow. Since they are already categorized putting them in just 5 subcats seems harmless.
While there are still no other [2000s Foo-language films], there is [2000s action films], [2000s science fiction films], [2000s drama films], [2000s science fiction films], [2000s adventure films], [2000s documentary films], [2000s horror films]. Carlaude:Talk 08:07, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge to decades categories, per Carlaude. This seems a reasonably fine-grained scheme that's practicable and reader-friendly for these numbers of articles. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:13, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the current 35 cats are kept, or the 5 "decades" compromise used, the films will need to be moved out of Category:Malayalam-language films since the premise seems to be to alleviate congestion there. In that vein, the "decades" is a good solution - it mirrors genre splittings and allows for individual decade cats to be broken up if they become overly congested. - J Greb (talk) 15:04, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge to decades categories, agree with Carlaude. Regards, Ganeshk (talk) 03:19, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete -Do we even have 1990 englsih language films? No. Gross over categorization, should be nuked asap. I could accept decade categories though but what aboout 1960s and earlier? Dr. Blofeld White cat 16:35, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Anything like [1990s English-language films] woulkd be over categorization because there are so many English-language films on the English-language Wikipedia. Category:1990s English-language films would mostly overlap Category:1990s films. There are a number of ways to handle the one film in the 1960s, but however it is done it should not by itself determine the whole system for foreign language films.Carlaude:Talk 05:41, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am confused by your comment here. In what way would [1990s English-language films] be "over categorization" if [1990s Malayalam-language films] was not? PC78 (talk) 15:17, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe over-categorization is the wrong term, but [1990s Malayalam-language films] would be useful when someone was looking for one of the few films in that language. [1990s English-language films] would not be useful when someone was looking for one of the many films made in English. Since most films are made in English, there would be no reason to look there. It would be like looking for Tiger under [Category:Animals that eat] or for David Letterman under [Category:People that walk]. [1990s films] would be more complete and would have a better subdivision system than [1990s English-language films].
So if I want to find Back to the Future Part III I could look it in Category:1990s Western (genre) films or Category:1990s science fiction films or Category:1990 films-- all subcategories of Category:1990s films. To repeat all these categories for "English-language" would all be a waste. Carlaude:Talk 05:44, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete something needs to be done to rationalize the films by language and apparently the mere utterance of a few words of some non-English language gets the film placed in its cat; take a look at Category:Latin-language films for starters. Now, perhaps Antony & Cleo used to cuddle up and watch the golden oldies, but I doubt it. These mostly have a few lines of Latin here or there and inclusion of them is just subjective (why not include The Sound of Music (film) (a Latin mass), Dead Poet's Society ("carpe diem"), and even Mrs. Doubtfire ("carpe dentum")?). Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:18, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: While I agree with the concern about films with only a few lines of Latin, your vote does not seem to be tied into your concern. In any case, I expect that should be somewhat less of an issue with any language that is itself not dead or long dead. Carlaude:Talk 05:41, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge to decades categories, per Carlaude. Salih (talk) 12:41, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Upermerge to decade categories if everybody wishes so -- Tinu Cherian - 15:21, 15 July 2009 (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:Articles about evidence[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) 19:54, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Articles about evidence (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - category groups articles that are unrelated to each other except for including the word "evidence" in the name, a form of overcategorization. Otto4711 (talk) 22:56, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The articles are linked through Evidence. I don't see a need to categorize the articles together at all. Otto4711 (talk) 23:55, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. Debresser (talk) 22:56, 12 July 2009 (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:Danish silent film directors[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) 20:05, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:Danish silent film directors to Category:Silent film directors and Category:Danish film directors
Nominator's rationale: Merge - the only silent film director by country subcat. Does not appear to be needed to subdivide the current silent film director category, which has 73 members at present. Merge to Category:Silent film directors and Category:Danish film directors. Otto4711 (talk) 20:04, 11 July 2009 (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:Cfl1[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: Close - CFD is not required to create categories. If this one is created, it should be Category:American silent film directors per standard capitalization. Non-admin close. Otto4711 (talk) 20:02, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Add Category Category:American Silent Film Directors
Nominator's rationale: American Silent Film Directors. Wikipedia has a great many biography pages for American Silent film Directors, but no category to marry them together. Pinikadia (talk) 19:39, 11 July 2009 (UTC)Pinikadia[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.

Philip K. Dick[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 Category:Philip K. Dick, Delete Category:Philip K. Dick Memorial Award winner. --Xdamrtalk 23:13, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Philip K. Dick (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Philip K. Dick Memorial Award winner (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - the eponymous category is not needed for the volume of material, all of which is linked through the extensive navtemplate. The award, presented by a state-level science fiction fan club, does not appear to be of sufficient prestige to warrant a category per WP:OC#AWARD. If retained the award category needs to be renamed to Category:Philip K. Dick Award winners to match the parent article and correct the pluralization. Otto4711 (talk) 19:30, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree, as I anticipated something like this in the related nomination of yesterday. Debresser (talk) 23:07, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the first. Perfectly reasonable classification tying together several related groups of articles. — Hex (❝?!❞) 00:39, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the first; this is a substantial collection of linked articles, 63 short stories alone. I have no views on the second but note that its members are not linked in {{Shortdick}} or its extended version. Occuli (talk) 00:50, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The short stories and other works are appropriately categorized in the Works category. The works in the awards category are not written by Dick and so should not be included in Dick's template. Otto4711 (talk) 04:28, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • But the nom states 'all of which is linked through the extensive navtemplate', which is a falsehood as of 11 July 2009. Occuli (talk) 14:43, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please remain civil. — Hex (❝?!❞) 16:09, 13 July 2009 (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 games by source[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: Withdrawn. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:05, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Video games by source to Category:Video games by licensed property
Nominator's rationale: Rename. 'Source' is very vague. I had to click on the category to figure out what it meant. SharkD (talk) 13:54, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nevermind. It is part of a whole nest of similarly named categories, so I suppose it should stay this way. SharkD (talk) 13:57, 11 July 2009 (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:Members of the Nation of Islam[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. --Xdamrtalk 23:18, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Members of the Nation of Islam to Category:Nation of Islam members
Nominator's rationale: Same wording in other groups ie. The Nation of Gods and Earth people. Dimario (talk) 11:40, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose rename. The wording is fine. If the only rationale for moving is that the proposed title is the same as other categories, what about all of these? Jafeluv (talk) 17:15, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Nation of Islam members - more concise and avoids the ambiguity that "people" introduces. Otto4711 (talk) 18:00, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment What? Is there a chance of being a 'member' and not a 'people'? In what world? Hmains (talk) 22:00, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "People" is vague and invites the addition of articles for people whose association with NoI is tangential. "Members" clearly defines the scope. Otto4711 (talk) 22:53, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is there actually formal membership? Do you get a card etc? Johnbod (talk) 04:15, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - looking at comments above I think then it should be changed to Category:Nation of Islam members, the organization name I think should come first, its more like a membership because for example Snoop Dogg joined the NoI but the media said he became a 'member' of the group, because theres no word to describe an adherent of Nation of Islam, plus Muslim can't really be used (differences). Dimario (talk) 13:17, 12 July 2009 (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:National sports teams of FYR of Macedonia[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Rename:
Per Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 July 9#Category:Christianity in Macedonia and Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Macedonia/consensus.
--Xdamrtalk 23:25, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming:
Nominator's rationale: Rename, as per Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(categories)#How to name the country and WP:MOSMAC2. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:47, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. It seems that according to WP:MOSMAC2#Other page titles, this category should be at Category:National sports teams of Macedonia, because it doesn't conflict with any other Macedonia. Jafeluv (talk) 11:03, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: yeah, that's actually what I was going to propose first. But it seems we "forgot" to deal explicitly with category titles at MOSMAC2, as opposed to articles, and I understand WP:NCCAT prefers to have maximally consistent naming schemes in categories, rather than case-by-case decisions on what is or isn't ambiguous. So, even though I would have personally preferred the simpler name, it might be safer to stick with the longer form. Alternatively, we'd have to change WP:NCCAT too first. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:09, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, WP:NCCAT does say "Standard article naming conventions also apply" in the lead... And if I understand correctly, the ArbCom explicitly stated that the result of WP:MOSMAC2 was to be treated as a naming convention guideline. However, I agree with you that the current wording is pretty unambiguous in its support for "of the Republic of Macedonia". Jafeluv (talk) 11:38, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Actually, on second thought, I think it would perhaps be better to put this on hold for a few days and check if there might be consensus to change NCCAT. There are a very large number of Macedonia-related cats, a good number of them already using plain "Macedonia" or "Macedonian", and a comparatively tiny number of categories dealing with the larger region, so there might be a case for saying it could just as well be treated the same way as Luxembourg, Mongolia or Azerbaijan. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:36, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • For those interested, I've assembled some documentation of current naming here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:33, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would support the new Eurovision category to be plain "Macedonia" to be consistent with the page names. The parent page for the category "Macedonia in the Eurovision Song Contest" is the page of the same name, so "Republic of" seems unnecesary if the corresponding page is not named the same. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 14:12, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • The Eurovision category should most likely not include the "Republic of", due to the fact that Greek Macedonia does not (and cannot) participate in the contest.
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 by John Coltrane[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) 20:02, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Songs by John Coltrane to Category:Compositions by John Coltrane
Nominator's rationale: Rename. A song is a composition with lyrics.[1] Coltrane's compositions are instrumentals, not songs. See also the previous related discussion about Miles Davis's compositions here. Jafeluv (talk) 08:15, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - So a song without lyrics is not a song? People will not look for it by this category name. This makes it sound like he may be a painter, book author, etc.Carlaude:Talk 09:28, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Compositions without lyrics are sometimes incorrectly referred to as songs, but a song by definition always contains lyrics. Some dictionary definitions for the word "song": "a short metrical composition intended or adapted for singing"; "a brief composition written or adapted for singing"; "a short musical composition of words and music"; "a musical piece with lyrics". See also our articles song and instrumental. Jafeluv (talk) 10:32, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment And Giant Steps (composition) sounds far away from that definition (regardless of what Chaka Khan may have attempted); even more so any of the material from 1965-7. AllyD (talk) 16:56, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"This makes it sound like he may be a painter, book author, etc.": What would you name categories like Category:Compositions by Ludwig van Beethoven? Surely not "songs"? Jafeluv (talk) 08:31, 12 July 2009 (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:Evidence[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. After scanning the articles and subcategories it is clear that everything is not about law. This supports the need for a rename. However the rename does not preclude recreation in the future of this category as a container one if needed. As to the name. We prefer to use a name that does not include disambiguation. In reading the evidence article, this topic seems to be the only one that uses parenthetical disambiguation. So I'm going to go with Category:Evidence law as the target. I will not oppose a new nomination to Category:Evidence (law) if editors believe that may in fact be the better choice. However I would suggest that before that is done, consideration be given to renaming the article to line up better with the other evidence related articles. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:46, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Evidence to Category:Evidence law or Category:Evidence (law)
Nominator's rationale: Rename, to distinguish articles about evidence in the legal sense from articles about evidence in the philosophical and scientific sense. The category Category:Articles about evidence should probably be renamed as well, but I'm not sure to what new name. Eastlaw talk ⁄ contribs 06:56, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disagree I find this name clear enough without the word "law". Debresser (talk) 23:11, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Rename to match title of the parent article Evidence (law) which is a member of the category. Alansohn (talk) 14:32, 12 July 2009 (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.

Monasteries 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: Rename. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:00, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Monasteries in Nepal to Category:Buddhist monasteries in Nepal
Propose renaming Category:Monasteries in Armenia to Category:Christian monasteries in Armenia
Propose renaming Category:Monasteries in Brazil to Category:Christian monasteries in Brazil
Propose renaming Category:Monasteries in Bulgaria to Category:Christian monasteries in Bulgaria
Propose renaming Category:Monasteries in Egypt to Category:Christian monasteries in Egypt
Propose renaming Category:Monasteries in Ethiopia to Category:Christian monasteries in Ethiopia
Propose renaming Category:Monasteries in Georgia (country) to Category:Christian monasteries in Georgia (country)
Propose renaming Category:Monasteries in Greece to Category:Christian monasteries in Greece
Propose renaming Category:Monasteries in Guatemala to Category:Christian monasteries in Guatemala
Propose renaming Category:Monasteries in Iceland to Category:Christian monasteries in Iceland
Propose renaming Category:Monasteries in Ireland to Category:Christian monasteries in Ireland
Propose renaming Category:Monasteries in Israel to Category:Christian monasteries in Israel
Propose renaming Category:Monasteries in Lebanon to Category:Christian monasteries in Lebanon
Propose renaming Category:Monasteries in Nagorno-Karabakh to Category:Christian monasteries in Nagorno-Karabakh
Propose renaming Category:Monasteries in Peru to Category:Christian monasteries in Peru
Propose renaming Category:Monasteries in the Philippines to Category:Christian monasteries in the Philippines
Propose renaming Category:Monasteries in Portugal to Category:Christian monasteries in Portugal
Propose renaming Category:Monasteries in Spain to Category:Christian monasteries in Spain
Propose renaming Category:Monasteries in Sweden to Category:Christian monasteries in Sweden
Propose renaming Category:Monasteries in Syria to Category:Christian monasteries in Syria
Propose renaming Category:Monasteries in Turkey to Category:Christian monasteries in Turkey
Propose renaming Category:Monasteries in Venezuela to Category:Christian monasteries in Venezuela
Propose renaming Category:Monasteries in the West Bank to Category:Christian monasteries in the West Bank
Nominator's rationale: Rename. The categories only contain a the type of monasteries indicated. This will greatly clarify the contents and allows for better categorization of the categories. The renames will serve to match sibling categories.Carlaude:Talk 05:32, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I am aware that there are others. I my plan is to nominate the remaining half when and if this CfD passes. Carlaude:Talk 07:40, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Renames to better describe content of categories and fit within parent structures. Alansohn (talk) 14:33, 12 July 2009 (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/2009_July_11&oldid=1144513527"