Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 June 25

< June 24	June 26 >

June 25[edit]

Category:Lietuvos Krepšinio Lyga Finals[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 (ratify move). Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:26, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Another apparent out of process empty by ラーコカコ. Not sure where the articles went. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:52, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Here is one. Seems to have been a unilateral upmerge to Category:Lithuanian Basketball League Finals, which at least I can both pronounce and type. Occuli (talk) 21:16, 25 June 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:Kep Municipality[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 (ratify upmerge). Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:26, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Another out of process empty. Looks like it was upmerged to Category:Kep. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:46, 25 June 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:Guilty Gear characters[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete (ratify emptying). Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:25, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Another technical nomination for a category emptied out of process. {{Guilty Gear fighters}} was replaced by {{Guilty Gear series}} which appears to be an adequate navigation tool. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:40, 25 June 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:Organizations in the Demonata series[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 (ratify emptying). Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:23, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Technical nomination. Apparently empied out of process. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:28, 25 June 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:X-COM 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: Delete (ratify emptying). Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:22, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Another category that was emptied out of process. The associated template, {{XCOMRaces}} is also nominated for deletion but I have asked for that to be kept with the list. With both the list and template, we probably don't need the category. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:23, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I guess this template was useful when they had each their own article. --Ostateczny Krach Systemu Korporacji (talk) 20:07, 25 June 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:Dead or Alive characters[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete (ratify upmerge). Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:21, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Another category emptied out of process that appears to have been upmerged to Category:Dead or Alive. List of characters in the Dead or Alive series exists. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:15, 25 June 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:Charitable 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: Merge. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:24, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Charitable organizations to Category:Charities

Nominator's rationale: Merge, newly-created and orphaned category which effectively duplicates an existing one. Bencherlite ^Talk 12:23, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge the other way round i.e. Category:Charities to Category:Charitable organizations - it is a better title. The only comment is that it contains Category:Charity albums and Category:Charity singles which are the products of a charity rather than the charity itself. Twiceuponatime (talk) 14:45, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. I see Twiceuponatime's point, but there is a whole tree using charities, which would give some long-winded names if all were converted. The 320 strong main cat is a real mess, & needs distributing to the sub-cats. Johnbod (talk) 14:53, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom and Johnbod. Occuli (talk) 15:25, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Merge to use better-defined and populated category. Alansohn (talk) 02:55, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as nom. "organis/zations" is redundant. Category names should be kept short where possible. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:49, 1 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:Miles Davis songs[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) 06:10, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Miles Davis songs to Category:Compositions by Miles Davis

Nominator's rationale: Rename. The compositions of Miles Davis are instrumentals, not songs. The proposed title also conforms to the style adopted by many "Compositions by X" categories. Jafeluv (talk) 09:53, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – there is Category:Compositions by Scott Joplin although this is under Category:Classical compositions. But does 'composition' imply 'instrumental'? Eg there are operas among Joplin's compositions. Why not 'Instrumentals by xxx'? (Tubular Bells is another example - we do have Category:Instrumental albums.) Occuli (talk) 14:17, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- A song is definitely a composition, as is an instrumental. In the usual definition, instrumentals can't be called songs, but both can be called compositions. "Instrumentals by Miles Davis" would be weird because, at least for me, it implies that not all of Davis's compositions were instrumentals. Jafeluv (talk) 07:50, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename as proposed, and similar should apply to Category:Songs by John Coltrane for example. AllyD (talk) 21:09, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree. We have more "songs by" categories. Debresser (talk) 21:43, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Rename This category under its current name fits into the overall naming used in the parent Category:Songs by artist. Take a look at Category:Instrumentals, which defines itself as "Articles and lists about songs without lyrics" and nearly half of the entries in the category use the word "song" for disambiguation purposes. All instrumentals are also songs and there is nothing gained by changing the title to conflict with the standard.Alansohn (talk) 03:01, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A song is a piece of music with lyrics. An instrumental is a piece of music without lyrics. A musical composition is a piece of music, with or without lyrics. Consulting any English language dictionary will give you that definition. See, for example, Wiktionary. Song: "A musical piece with lyrics (or "words to sing"); prose that one can sing." (Also the sound of a bird or an insect, but that's irrelevant.) Instrumental: "A composition without lyrics." The wording in Category:Instrumentals ("songs without lyrics") is contradictio in terminis. Jafeluv (talk) 14:26, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's a good solution used to categorize the tunes written by Duke Ellington, who wrote both songs and instrumentals. There's Category:Compositions by Duke Ellington, which contains Category:Songs with music by Duke Ellington as a subcategory. Jafeluv (talk) 16:00, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Confused Comment. Is this category only for songs Miles wrote, or also for songs he recorded but didn't write? There are two different category trees: Category:Songs by songwriter and Category:Songs by artist. In the the former, the categories seem to be in the format Songs written by X; in the latter, the format seems to be X songs. The latter tree is clearly intended to encompass recordings: the definition uses the words "list songs by recording artist", and there are big, important subcategories like Category:The Supremes songs where virtually all the songs were written by others. I'm not sure if there are any existing articles about records that Miles recorded but didn't write. But consider Coltrane: does "My Favorite Things" belong in the Coltrane songs subcategory, or doesn't it? (It's not there currently.) If it does belong, I'd favor using the format "X Songs"; if it doesn't, I'd think "Songs written by X" is the right way to go, to make clear what's being categorized and what's being excluded. Of course, there is also a separate tree Category:Compositions by composer but this seems to be limited to classical. (If there is a separate jazz category tree and I've just failed to find it, my apologies in advance.)--Arxiloxos (talk) 06:39, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's a subcategory of Category:Songs by artist, and the naming conforms to the "X songs" format used in that category. All the tunes currently included were also composed by Davis, though. Jafeluv (talk) 16:00, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename -- Composers write compositions, and both instrumentals and songs are compositions. (<humor>When I was playing jazz on the side in my youth, at least in the Motown era, some jazz composers called them "charts", probably after the guitar chord charts, even though they were composing on keyboard and copying out the sectional parts. I suppose I'd accept "Charts by Miles Davis".</humor>)
--William Allen Simpson (talk) 11:56, 4 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:Arab actors[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. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:13, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Keep the sub-categories, as they refer to nationalities. However, Arab is an all-encompassing, cross-nationality ethnicity and ethnicity is not in and of itself notable (or defining) to the performing art of "acting." The policy requirements are:

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories)#Heritage

... thoroughly documented as essential to the occupation.

Wikipedia:Biographies of living people#Categories (and Wikipedia:Categorization of people)

The subject publicly self-identifies with the belief or orientation in question; The subject's beliefs or sexual orientation are relevant to the subject's notable activities or public life, according to reliable published sources.

Furthermore, Wikipedia:Overcategorization states

If a substantial and encyclopedic head article (not just a list) cannot be written for such a category, then the category should not be created; Likewise, people should only be categorized by ethnicity or religion if this has significant bearing on their career.

It would appear that Arab acting is not a valid article, so this is not a valid category. Bulldog123 08:11, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Arab cinema might do the trick. This is nothing to do with 'beliefs or sexual orientation' and is nothing to do with heritage. Occuli (talk) 12:40, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm beginning to think you simply put "oppose" now based only on who nominates the category. In case you didn't know, Arab_people is an ethnicity (so yes, it has to do with heritage), and, as you seemingly haven't looked, Arab Cinema is an article with a whopping three sentences in it, where Arab cinema is defined as where Arabic language is used in theatre and films. So, I take it, by that standard, any language + actor is an acceptable category. Bulldog123 21:18, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as parent for the national subs, to which as many as possible of the articles in the main category should be distributed, though not all Arab countries have one. The shared language of the Arab world means this category has a utility that say Category: European actors does not, though we have that category also. Those supporting this deletion should explain why that should not go also. Obviously, for those in the West who look Arab, this is a pretty defining aspect for many casting decisions etc. I presume the policy doctrinal theologians would not object to Category:Arab-American actors etc - maybe this should be set up. Once again it does not occur to the nom to suggest merging these people anywhere. In fact most, but not all, are also in a national sub-cat which is perfectly adequate for them. I have removed these duplicates for about half the category & this can easily be continued to leave a handful of arab actors in the West etc, and the national sub-cats. There is no shortage of articles that can be written, and sometimes have been written about the very distinct world of Arab cinemma, tv, drama etc, to which this category relates. Johnbod (talk) 14:58, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"European" is not an ethnicity. Arab is. If you want a regional parent, make Category:Middle Eastern actors. Bulldog123 21:18, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually many would dispute both statements. Did you read Arab? Johnbod (talk) 23:58, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but restructure. Having "Arab actors" as a parent category to "Egyptian actors", "Algerian actors", etc. is problematic because not all Egyptian, Algerian etc. people are Arabs. For an Arab actor from Algeria, both "Arab actors" and "Algerian actors" categories should be used. The latter should not imply the former. The "Arab actors" category per se is useful for subcategorizing Category:Arab people by occupation. Jafeluv (talk) 08:05, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep To repeat my statement from the current CfD for Jewish actors, acting is one occupation where "look," type, ethnicity plays a significant role. This is meaningful, non-trivial intersection of occupation and ethnic group, therefore. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:41, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That explanation assumes all Arabs "look" different from all non-Arabs, a rather sweeping proposition. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 04:26, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per two previous editors. And I wish the nominator would stop with all these pointy nominations. Debresser (talk) 21:45, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a category that tracks a defining and well-defined characteristic. Alansohn (talk) 03:14, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unnecessary ethnic category. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 04:26, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete
1. It is not of the form "Arab-<nationality> actors"; it is not an ethnicity category.
2. It is not of the form "Arabic-language actors"; it is not a linguistic category.
3. "Arab" is not a religion; it is not a religious category.
4. Therefore, this must be a cultural category, and the contents limited to actors notable for presenting cultural productions.
5. The "by nationality" subcategories should be removed.
If there are any actors notable for their cultural productions in this contents, I've not been able to discern them. It should be considered empty.
--William Allen Simpson (talk) 16:03, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Without bothering address the other points, since the hundreds of actors under the category represent the leading figures in the dramatic arts of the Arab world (plus others), to say "If there are any actors notable for their cultural productions in this contents, I've not been able to discern them" must involve some highly idiosyncratic definition of "cultural". Or do you just think there is no Arab culture? Do please explain. Johnbod (talk) 19:10, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm tired of your incessant ad hominem attacks. There are precisely 18 actors currently in this category. The first entry, Ban Abdul, is somehow classified as Arab because she was born in Dubai. And incorrectly classified as an Iraqi actor, when she is at most 1/2 Iraqi descent (with no WP:RS references) and is not WP:V an Iraqi citizen. All of the productions listed are English language, although 1 was filmed in New Zealand, 1 in Ireland, 1 in London, and 1 in Boston. That must involve some highly idiosyncratic definition of "cultural" as applied to the Arab world.
--William Allen Simpson (talk) 09:44, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Jafeluv and Shawn in Montreal.--Arxiloxos (talk) 05:41, 2 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:Beach volleyball in Turkey[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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:51, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Found as emptied out of process. Since this was the only category by country, deletion probably makes sense. If deleted, then Category:Beach volleyball by country would be empty and could be deleted. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:36, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per nom. — Σ xplicit 18:53, 4 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:Stadiums in Hull[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:Sports venues in Kingston upon Hull, noting that the follow up nomination is currently trending to adopting this name in the other categories. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:27, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Restore contents. Found doing cleanup on out of process emptying. This is a logical way to group these places, albeit with a better name. The category really belongs in both Category:Buildings and structures in Hull and Category:Sport in Hull. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:31, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – I have restored this cat for the purposes of the cfd (5 articles). There is Category:Stadiums but just 4 of form Stadiums in Foo (2 of which are on this page). There is also the better developed parent Category:Sports venues. (Category:Stadiums is also allegedly a child of Category:Music venues, although there must be plenty of stadiums that have never been used for music.) I would suggest a rename to the more general Category:Sports venues in Hull, subcat of Category:Sports venues by city. Occuli (talk) 12:27, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per Occuli. - Eureka Lott 20:06, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I note that the (very fine, nearly feature?) key article is at Kingston upon Hull, and that Hull is a dab page. Shouldn't all the categories on this city also use its full name? Other than that, I see no reason for there not to be a more general Category:Sports venues in... whatever the name required is. Grutness...wha? 23:51, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So it is; but the category is Category:Hull. No-one ever calls it Kingston upon Hull, possibly because Kingston is ambiguous whereas Hull isn't (as places in the UK). Occuli (talk) 00:16, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, when I saw this nominated my first thought was "probably the one in England, but there's one in Canada, too..." In any case, "Kingston" may be ambiguous in the UK (and elsewhere - there's one a couple of hundred km from where I live in New Zealand), but "Kingston upon Hull" definitely isn't ambiguous anywhere in the world. Grutness...wha? 00:48, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Sports venues in Kingston upon Hull to match the main article. Hull is ambiguous so there is no reason not the follow the lead article for the name. So, yes this is a change to my position when I nominated this. I'll also remind everyone this was from a category that was emptied out of process so it is clear that those categories really need discussing since, as pointed out here, there could be many questions and concerns that one person may never consider. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:59, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note that this would, of course, require changes to several other "Hull" categories. Grutness...wha? 00:48, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest we rename it using 'Hull' and have a follow-up cfd for Category:Hull and all appropriate subcats (rather than having one oddball subcat). Occuli (talk) 01:22, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See this nomination. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:33, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Sports venues in Kingston upon Hull to match the title of the parent article and to conform to other such categories. Alansohn (talk) 03:16, 30 June 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:Northwest League ballparks[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. --Xdamr^talk 21:01, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Northwest League ballparks to Category:Minor league baseball venues

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge. Found this one as the target of a rename out of process. The question is, with a navigation template, do we also need to include these in a category? Category:Baseball venues in the United States is mostly split out by state and that probably makes sense as a way to split out the minor league parks. So I think that upmerging to Category:Minor league baseball venues and then allowing a split by state makes the most sense. Consider this a test case as there are a few other categories like this one that would need to be follow on nominations. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:19, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The category, as defined, is an effective aid to navigation. Per WP:CLN, the presence of a corresponding navbox is not a valid justification to delete a corresponding category. Alansohn (talk) 03:18, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The existing template does this just fine per WP:CLN which does not require all three. Nothing is added by the category in terms of navigation. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:28, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Categorization by league is a highly useful way of structuring ballpark articles, parallel to categorization by state. There's no reason why both shouldn't be used.--Arxiloxos (talk) 05:45, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's just occurred to me that categories and templates do not serve the same purpose here: templates will be limited to the currently-used ballparks in each league, while the categories will have room for former and under-construction ballparks as well as the current ones. To me, this is dispositive: eliminating the category would hamper anyone researching the history of a particular league.--Arxiloxos (talk) 04:56, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is a completely false statement. A template could include the former parks as well as the current ones. In fact since you can separate them out in a template that is the best solution for the information you want since categories are commonly not broken out by present and former. A template can also list the years a previous park was active, clearly something you can not do with a category! Vegaswikian (talk) 19:58, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any existing ballpark navigation templates that actually do this? I haven't checked every single one, but all the ones I've seen are limited to current ballparks, and I tend to think this limitation is appropriate. While you could theoretically include older parks, I haven't seen anyone do that, and I would think the templates would get unwieldy. If you have any counter-examples, of course, I'd be pleased to look.--Arxiloxos (talk) 23:09, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note. It should be pointed out that apparently Category:Atlantic Sun Conference baseball venues was emptied out of process and may well be deleted. So while this one was nominated, it appears that other like categories are being removed by other editors. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:58, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the current by state division plus the template (which should certainly include historical venues) suffices. Otto4711 (talk) 18:27, 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.

Surnames by language[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 immediately. Highly unorthodox for me to do this right away, but there are a number of editors who appear to be quite impatient and upset with me that I didn't just rename the categories to "Fooian-language" in the first discussion. (Well, I felt that discussion on the issue would be good, and I wasn't aware that a consensus on what scheme to use would develop so quickly.) So I'm willing to ignore some rules and rename these immediately so that people can calm down and realise that we're working on things and it won't be long until we're up and running with the new scheme. I also endorse what cjllw writes below—let's rename these now, get a consistent scheme going, and then we can work out the kinks eventually. This could essentially be considered supplemental to the original 6 June 2009 CfD. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:36, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming

Nominator's rationale: Rename the leftover surnames missed in the recent deletion, because they weren't categorized by nationality (even though some have recently become nations). Populate the restored Category:Surnames by language.

--William Allen Simpson (talk) 06:35, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

rename as proposed, per intended outcome of that recent deletion, and as per developing discussions at Category talk:Surnames. Renames of Arabic and the confusingly-named GSB surnames cat should be straightforward. I can forsee some issues with Montenegrin-language surnames, however, given the conflicting and interested-party views on its status as a distinct language. But perhaps for simplicity's sake we should just first transfer over these to the 'by language' subcategorisation scheme, and then let some later debate work out the appropriateness or otherwise of specific cats like this. --cjllw ʘ TALK 07:52, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Category:Japanese surnames, Category:Chinese surnames, and Category:Korean surnames should be included here, yielding Category:Japanese-language surnames, Category:Chinese-language surnames, and Category:Korean-language surnames Mayumashu (talk) 08:13, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment agreed. Also add Category:Vietnamese surnames to that.--Celtus (talk) 08:26, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, these don't need to be added here. They appear to be a re-creation of deleted content, all today by Badagnani (talk · contribs), along with others such as Category:Jewish names and Category:Jewish surnames. This is a user defying the recent deletions. {{db-g4}} has already been done. I'll create the proper categories immediately, and more responsible editors can populate them.
--William Allen Simpson (talk) 08:36, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

rename as proposed.--Celtus (talk) 08:23, 25 June 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.

United Nations specialized agency abbreviation expansions[edit]

Category:ITU people[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Rename. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:22, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:ITU people to Category:International Telecommunication Union people

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Expand abbreviation per Category:International Telecommunication Union and International Telecommunication Union. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:34, 25 June 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:IMF people[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Rename. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:22, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:IMF people to Category:International Monetary Fund people

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Expand abbreviation per Category:International Monetary Fund and International Monetary Fund. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:33, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support it's quite possible to confuse this with the fictional Mission Impossible organization. 76.66.203.200 (talk) 04:11, 26 June 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.

WIPO[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) 23:22, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:WIPO people to Category:World Intellectual Property Organization people

Propose renaming Category:Treaties administered by WIPO to Category:Treaties administered by the World Intellectual Property Organization

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Expand abbreviation per Category:World Intellectual Property Organization and World Intellectual Property Organization. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:30, 25 June 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:UPU people[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Rename. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:22, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:UPU people to Category:Universal Postal Union people

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Expand abbreviation per Category:Universal Postal Union and Universal Postal Union. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:29, 25 June 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:ILO people[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Rename. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:22, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:ILO people to Category:International Labour Organization people

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Expand abbreviation per Category:International Labour Organization and International Labour Organization. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:26, 25 June 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:Stadiums in Singapore[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Withdrawn. Based on other discussions, Category:Sports venues in Singapore should be the by settlement grouping for these. Can another administrator delete Category:Stadiums in Singapore? Vegaswikian (talk) 18:49, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest reversing merge of Category:Stadiums in Singapore to Category:Sports venues in Singapore

Nominator's rationale: Reverse merge. Technical nomination for a category that was emptied out of process. In this case I will note that the emptying probably should be reversed. I'll also add that we apparently have a list and template to cover these. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:00, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – there were 25 of these – see Google cache – removed by User:ラーコカコ who seems stadium-averse (and edit-summary-averse). There are sports venues which are not stadia, eg National Sailing Centre, so a reverse merge doesn't work. I personally think the 'Sports venues by place' tree should be favoured as it is more advanced than the 'Stadiums by place' tree, and the overlap is considerable. Occuli (talk) 13:05, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
comment In many of the 'Sports venues in foo' categories, there are stadiums, not otherwise sub-categorized. Should an entire category tree of stadiums be constructed to handle all of these for all countries that have them? Hmains (talk) 16:24, 26 June 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:Homophobic political parties[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 delete. WP:G10 is a general criteria, not just for articles or material about people; here, the category "serve[s] no purpose but to disparage ... [its] subject". Bencherlite ^Talk 09:01, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Yikes. If applied to people, I would have speedily deleted this one. As applied to organizations, it seems to me to be hopelessly POV and a potential source of some vicious edit warring. (I would support a speedy delete if another admin agrees.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:29, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I literally said "oh wow" when I read the category. POV category that can be potentionally harmful to any political party that's categorized under this. — Σ xplicit 00:54, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - while not necessarily an attack category, labeling a political party or other organization as "homophobic" is entirely subjective and based in the POV/OR of the observer. Actions or positions taken by political parties may be perceived as homophobic but have their basis in a political analysis that has nothing to do with homophobia. Otto4711 (talk) 04:11, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, despite the rationale given here that apparently led to this category's recent creation. Unless the party's manifesto explicitly and substantively declares homophobia as the basis for its raison d'être (and pretty sure the DUP's doesn't), I see no way in which the inclusion criteria can be made objective or free from endless and unresolvable argument. If folks happen to think that some particular party substantially indulges in the promotion of homophobic (or racist, sexist, other-exclusionist etc) aims, I don't think categories are the way to highlight. Would be preferable to address such issues in the article itself, where at least such characterisations and judgements can be properly attributed to sources making them.--cjllw ʘ TALK 07:40, 25 June 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:Eastern Orthodox congregations established in the 11th 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 both. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:48, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming:

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Articles are really about churches (buildings), and church is used as the sort key for some categories that this is a member of. Congregations are generally groups of people as opposed to buildings. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:21, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~:Rename instead to Category:11th-century Eastern Orthodox church buildings. This form has genarated support at this CfD. --^{Carlaude:Talk} 03:16, 25 June 2009 (UTC)~~[reply]

Rename per Carlaude & revised nom, per other debate. Johnbod (talk) 15:22, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

comment what about Category:Eastern Orthodox congregations established in the 12th century? And are these the only two centuries in which there was any activity in Eastern Orthodox congregations? Hmains (talk) 16:27, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Added. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:52, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to buildings. I doubnt anyone can write a serious article on 800-1000 years of the history of a congregation: it would either be about the clergy or the building, and probably the latter. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:52, 1 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.