Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 June 9

< June 8	June 10 >

June 9[edit]

Category:Monophotic 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: delete. Bencherlite ^Talk 23:28, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. The number of photographs taken of a person during their lifetime is not a defining characteristic for a person, even if that number is exactly one. It is an interesting fact that could be included in a bio article, but is not viable as a category. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:45, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Overcategorized. PasswordUsername (talk) 23:47, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Besides the fact that the term sounds like a disease, how could one be sure that only one photograph of a person had been taken?--John Foxe (talk) 00:31, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- True enough—though to be fair, the category is defined as people of whom "only one known photograph exists". (I agree re:the disease bit. When I saw the category name I actually thought it was an alternate fancy medical term for monotesticular people...) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:06, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Monorchism as any fule no (via the richly entertaining Hitler). Occuli (talk) 14:53, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree that this is non-defining. I too thought it was a disease, but I was going for an ocular disease where the sufferer only sees in one colour. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:08, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I saw this category when someone added it to Frédéric Chopin, and I thought, like the nominator, that it's not a significant defining characteristic for a person. In addition, I can't find "monophotic" in the online Oxford English Dictionary. Rigaudon (talk) 08:34, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a trivial and irrelevant (not to say ridiculous) criteria. Debresser (talk) 10:53, 10 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.

Murder, She Wrote[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 both. Bencherlite ^Talk 23:29, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - two small categories with no likely chance of expansion. Otto4711 (talk) 22:55, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge rather than delete. Debresser (talk) 10:52, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Merge to Category:Murder, She Wrote. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:58, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why does the existing template, which includes all seven articles, not suffice for navigation? Otto4711 (talk) 19:02, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes, I forgot the template. That does suffice. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:06, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- the template is a better navigational tool. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:32, 11 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:People associated with Hurricane Katrina[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. Bencherlite ^Talk 23:29, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - another "associated with" collection of people that is ill-suited to categorization. That this category is vague and ill-defined is pretty apparent from a quick check of its contents, which establish no meaningful level of "association" that warrants inclusion. It includes everyone from people directly involved with relief efforts to politicians who happened to be in office in an affected area but had no other apparent connection to journalists whose only connection to the hurricane was to criticize a priest who said that the storm was God's punishment. There is a list article which is in not-great shape at the moment but at least has the potential to explain the association between the person and the storm. Otto4711 (talk) 22:29, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; the list is more helpful. Johnbod (talk) 22:31, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Related discussion, where there was no consensus but the current name was opted for as being better than what then existed. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:10, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I had forgotten about that previous discussion. Otto4711 (talk) 00:45, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I note it had 29 entries last September - now it has 44! Johnbod (talk) 11:58, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's because a single editor on May 22 added a number of articles for people with no real association with the storm, including the articles I noted in the nomination. The number of articles in a category doesn't really matter if the category itself is faulty. Otto4711 (talk) 16:21, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Inclusionary criteria are vague and arbitrary. The list is a good solution, but needs work. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:11, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Good Ol’factory. PasswordUsername (talk) 00:12, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. Debresser (talk) 10:51, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Katrina was almost 4 yr ago. Permanence in categories is ideal, but we also learn from the perspective of hindsight. A category is not a substitute for a search engine. This category has served whatever purpose it had. Remove it. Rammer (talk) 04:21, 11 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.

Israeli basketball league[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. Bencherlite ^Talk 23:34, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Ligat HaAl (basketball) to Category:Israeli Basketball Super League

Propose renaming Category:Ligat Ha'al players to Category:Israeli Basketball Super League players

Nominator's rationale: Rename for the following reasons:

Match new title of main article at Israeli Basketball Super League.
Avoid any possible confusion with the football Ligat HaAl, since moved to Israeli Premier League.

Dale Arnett (talk) 21:58, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with a good proposal. Debresser (talk) 10:50, 10 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.

Soviet war in Afghanistan veterans[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. Incidentally, the main article is not Civil War in Afghanistan, it is Soviet war in Afghanistan. Kbdank71 13:56, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Soviet war in Afghanistan veterans to Soviet military personnel of the Civil War in Afghanistan.

Nominator's rationale: Another category named according to former status. Soviet military personnel of the Civil War in Afghanistan does the job just fine, and as noted at the article for the conflict, the same civil war is considered to be ongoing today, as it has been since the Saur Revolution and the mujihadeen rising up against the pro-USSR government of Afghanistan - Civil War in Afghanistan. PasswordUsername (talk) 21:47, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. Johnbod (talk) 22:33, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wait a second. Why is that "civil war"? Why not just "war in Afghanistan"? The rest of the rename nomination is fine with me, but this I would like to understand first. In my native Holland and in Russia where I have worked for many years, it is called "the war in Afghanistan". Debresser (talk) 10:50, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To agree with the main article Civil War in Afghanistan. I agree the term is unfamiliar, but we should follow the article here. Johnbod (talk) 12:32, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the name of the article is wrong, I don't think we should follow it. Rather rename the category the way it should be, and start a discussion on the article's talkpage to rename it also. Debresser (talk) 23:43, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose use Category:Soviet veterans of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan or Category:Soviet veterans of the Soviet-Afghanistan war - which would be a war coincident with the of-and-on civil war. (ie. like the Winter War... which to me appears to be part of WWII, but not according to the article, which says its a coincident war) 70.29.210.174 (talk) 04:42, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: This would actually be quite POV in itself – especially since the Soviets were fighting on the side of the Afghan government. This is why it's called the Civil War. We can't call this the Soviet-Afghan war. The point, anyhow, is to avoid the "veterans" bit in the title, as it is none other than categorization by former status. Category:Soviet military personnel of the war in Afghanistan would be just fine, although I prefer the Civil War in Afghanistan as it indicates which war. PasswordUsername (talk) 14:10, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the "civil war" bit. The over-expansive wiki-definition of the so-called "civil war" leads to some unexpected consequences. What about Islamic warriors or terrorists from the USSR that joined the Alliance or Taliban etc. before the fall of the Union and continued fighting into 1990s and 2000s? these cases were not rare, check the Guantanamo roster. Do they also belong to Soviet military personnel of the Civil War in Afghanistan? Sounds yes on all counts. Is this what was intended? I guess not. NVO (talk) 07:08, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No, obviously. They didn't join the Soviet military. What's the problem? PasswordUsername (talk) 14:12, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Some did. But it's irrelevant; they were Soviet citizens prior to defecting. Association with military is not obvious. NVO (talk) 03:31, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well, if they fought for the Soviet military, then they fought for the Soviet military. Who they fought for later is irrelevant – they can be included in that category just as well. People can be categorized in multiple categories. It's membership in the category Category:Soviet military personnel of the Civil War in Afghanistan that would be the criterion here. PasswordUsername (talk) 05:44, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The proposed new name of the category is absurd. It defines foreign occupation as a civil war.Biophys (talk) 20:05, 11 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:Former Soviet Union cameras[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. Bencherlite ^Talk 23:35, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Former Soviet Union cameras to Category:Soviet cameras

Nominator's rationale: Rename. I don't see the purpose of categorizing Soviet cameras by "former status" like this. Renaming to something like "Soviet cameras" would be acceptable, we should subsequently split into video cameras and photographic cameras. PasswordUsername (talk) 20:52, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please tag the category for discussion. Otto4711 (talk) 22:36, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Tagged. PasswordUsername (talk) 23:49, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom; but should it be "Soviet Union"? Johnbod (talk) 22:33, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename if kept, but is this category even necessary? It's the only "cameras by nationality" category we have. If categorizing cameras by country is desirable, I'd suggest establishing Category:Camera companies by country or Category:Camera manufacturers by country and organizing it at the company level rather than the model level. Otto4711 (talk) 22:36, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree that it's an unusual category, but given Wikipedia's categorization proclivities, it's quite likely that we'll soon end up with a whole batch of cameras by country of origin – Soviet cameras, at least, has an interesting historical twang to it. (Let's note, also, the existence of categorieslike American books...) Somebody who created it surely had an idea in mind, so it's not particularly pressing that we delete it outright, though in all honesty I don't have any strong feelings about either way. PasswordUsername (talk) 23:46, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The "Cameras by brand" cat, with 16 sub-cats + 1 article, seems to fill in for the "by country" cat we don't have. Since there are 10 brands in the Soviet category, I think it makes sense to leave it there. I've added a note to the brand category too. Johnbod (talk) 03:39, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The notion of brand hardly applied then; in real life both manufacturer's locations (say, BELOMO) and camera nameplates (i.e. Viliya-Auto, made by BELOMO) were used with little logic. There were scores of one-off camera nameplates (Leningrad, Voskhod, unique BELOMO nameplates of late 1970s etc.) that do not qualify as brands and will never have a "branded" category here, so the articles on them (assuming they pass under deletionist radar) must be categorized... somehow. P.S. The whole Category:Soviet brands is the next candidate for cleanup. NVO (talk) 07:24, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think we are getting off the track here. As I've mentioned below, "Soviet cameras" is—speaking as a life-long aficionado with both "originals" and some of their Soviet "copies"—a notable topic and certainly worthy of a category because of its unique historical aspects. Whether to have brands by country is a different topic with its own merits. (Personally, there should be a parent article pulling all the various cameras together, but it's more than I have time for.)PetersV TALK 13:54, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

rename per nom. Similar categories can be created for American and German made cameras. Hmains (talk) 03:22, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wot, no Japanese???? :) Johnbod (talk) 03:39, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

rename Creating copies of western cameras (Hasselblad, Leica, et al.) was a Soviet specialty. I have a Fed and a Kiev myself, it's a useful category for camera collectors and aficionados. PetersV TALK 03:30, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename since the word "Soviet" already implies "former". Debresser (talk) 10:42, 10 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:Abstract objects[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 14:50, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Abstract objects to Category:Concepts

Nominator's rationale: Rename. After created this category it has become more clear to me that for some the term has certain metaphysical presumptions. The rename is an attempt to satisfy both of the major prevailing views on concepts. See [1] for a more detailed account of the terms. The category has served to organize articles which had otherwise been difficult to properly classify. It also has potential to serve as a means of further organization of certain topics. Or perhaps we can simply bring back the deleted "concepts" category now that there is a meaningful way to deal with its content Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 00:12, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Link to the debate on cat:Concepts please. Johnbod (talk) 21:50, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The debate that inspired the clarification was at Talk:Set (mathematics). There was objection to calling a set an abstract object. Now we have a way for dealing with these issues according to that source. However, I think the simplest thing to do is resurrect cat:concepts and leave it at that. There was no other debate that I had in mind. Was this what you had in mind Jonbod? Be well, Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 22:31, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
keep as separate. abstract objects and concepts are two different sets of things with a little overlap, but not enough overlap to merge or rename them. --Buridan (talk) 02:46, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The lead paragraph of articles such as mental representation, concept, and idea are sufficiently clear now that I think we can rely on them to deal with these distinctions. Strictly speaking, the idea is that concepts can be explained in terms of abstract objects, or mental representations, however to chose one is more POV than is necessary. Rename to "concepts" avoids this. I started the "abstract objects" category for organizational purposes and it has worked out wonderfully in that regard. The only issue is satisfying people who don't believe in abstract objects. I see that as a legitimate criticism. Be well. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 15:51, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment this term is also used in computer science so this definitely needs to be renamed. 70.29.208.129 (talk) 05:31, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Abstract objects (philosophy). Philosophy is not the only use of these. Category:Concepts is overly vague and Category:Mental representations and abstract objects is wordy and may not really describe what is included. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:00, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Concepts" is not overly vague for what is intended. It is intended to be a fundamental level category which will help organize otherwise hard to categorize articles. "Abstract objects" was created by myself, and I now see that there is a legitimate problem with the title. Please see my userspace for some idea of what I have in mind: User:Gregbard/Concepts and theories. I have given quite a bit of thought to the whole thing. The goal is to differentiate between theories and concepts. I think we (especially in the philosophy department) are perfectly capable of organizing a useful and meaningful category structure with Category:Concepts.Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 19:38, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aervanath (talk) 19:55, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but subcategorise to Category:Concepts (Philosophy) and disambiguate for this philosophical meaning as opposed to the mathematical and computer science meanings. I suggest this because simply renaming implies that not only are all abstract objects concepts, but also all concepts are abstract objects. This second is not so and therefore to equate the terms in the way proposed is not valid. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:14, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid you don't understand. Everyone agrees that a "set" is a "concept" however there are two schools of thought on the nature of concepts A) they are all abstract objects B) they are all mental representations. So it would be "offensive" to some to have certain concepts labeled as abstract objects when there are plenty of people who do not believe there is such a thing. This is what prompted the rename proposal. We already have Category:Philosophical concepts. I propose that we organize those and others under Category:Concepts as described at User:Gregbard/Concepts and theories. I appreciate the proposal though! Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 04:38, 11 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: People by former political orientation[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 regarding "Expelled communists", merge/delete the rest per nom. Kbdank71 15:04, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Category:People by former political orientation and
Merge its subcategories:

Category:Expelled members of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union to Category:Communist Party of the Soviet Union members

Category:Former anarchists to Category:Anarchists

Category:Former fascists to Category:Fascists

Category:Former Marxists to Category:Marxists

Category:Former members of Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong to Category:Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong

Category:Former members of Democratic Party, Hong Kong to Category:Democratic Party (Hong Kong)

Category:Former members of Hong Kong Progressive Alliance to Category:Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong

Category:Former Trotskyists to Category:Trotskyists

Delete subcategory Category:Former leftists as too vague.

Nominator's rationale: Per established consensus to not categorise politicians/political beliefs by current or former status, as recently affirmed at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 November 18#Category:Former_conservatives and Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 May 21#Category:Former Lithuanian communists. PasswordUsername (talk) 19:52, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is a complex nomination - perhaps too many different things being proposed at once. My view is that we don't usually categorize people as "former" anything. Further, categorizations by political stance is frequently contentious, unless it is straightforward like the party membership of a politician. If the person is notable as having been an anarchist, for example, then the fact that they later changed their view doens't necessarily mean they shouldn't be categorized as an anarchist. So, given this plate of proposals, I endorse the renaming, mergers, and deletion. Will Beback talk 20:21, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support all merges and deletes of Category:People by former political orientation and Category:Former leftists. Absolutely. Anybody who was also something else should be covered specifically by the "something else" category. This proposal is consistent with explicit consensus (and, if I recall correctly, specific guidelines), and it is long overdue. Dahn (talk) 21:40, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep expelled Communists, which strikes me as historically significant and parent it in the suggested merge target. Merge all others per nom. Otto4711 (talk) 22:38, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think it's particularly notable, given that members were expelled for all of sorts of things, including not doing party work. PasswordUsername (talk) 23:41, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/delete, all as nominated for reasons given and per established consensus on these types of categories. These are indeed overdue and relics of the now-largely defunct "former" system of categorizing people. (Don't really have an independent opinion specific to the "expelled" one, but if there's consensus to treat it differently that's probably OK with me.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:10, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Expelled members - expulsion is a notable occurence for a person to have suffered. Others will have repented from an extreme ideology: that is also notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:36, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I sure hope the reviewer makes note of the fact that the "keep" votes so far only refer to one category of those nominated - presumably, they don't object to the mergers. Dahn (talk) 00:49, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Expelled members, merge the rest. --Martintg (talk) 02:46, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/delete categories for former/current party members are excessive.DonaldDuck (talk) 03:27, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Expelled members, merge the rest. I expect Trotsky found that being expelled from the Communist Party of the Soviet Union was indeed 'defining'. Occuli (talk) 08:06, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Expelled members, merge the rest. - Altenmann >t 17:50, 12 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:FC Porto[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. Bencherlite ^Talk 23:37, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:FC Porto to Category:F.C. Porto

Propose renaming Category:FC Porto managers to Category:F.C. Porto managers

Propose renaming Category:FC Porto matches to Category:F.C. Porto matches

Propose renaming Category:FC Porto players to Category:F.C. Porto players

Nominator's rationale: Rename. To match the main article. – Pee Jay 19:35, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related page moves. – Pee Jay 19:40, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agree tentatively. We had such a nomination not too long ago. If that was closed in favor of rename, I make that a full "agree. Debresser (talk) 10:41, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all to match parent article F.C. Porto. --Jimbo^[online] 13:44, 15 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:Sporting Lisbon managers[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. Bencherlite ^Talk 23:38, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Sporting Lisbon managers to Category:Sporting Clube de Portugal managers

Nominator's rationale: Rename. To match parent category and sister subcategories. – Pee Jay 19:14, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related page moves. – Pee Jay 19:16, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to match parent article Sporting Clube de Portugal. --Jimbo^[online] 13:45, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to match the parent article. --Carioca (talk) 18:16, 15 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:Sporting Braga players[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. Bencherlite ^Talk 23:38, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Sporting Braga players to Category:S.C. Braga players

Nominator's rationale: Rename. To match the parent category and sister subcategories. – Pee Jay 17:48, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related page moves. – Pee Jay 19:10, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to match parent article S.C. Braga. --Jimbo^[online] 13:43, 15 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:Live USB and Category:USB-bootable Linux distributions[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 to Category:Live USB. Kbdank71 15:09, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging either way

Nominator's rationale: Merge. Substantial overlap of content ro rhe point of duplication. Ian Cairns (talk) 11:41, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment there's something very wrong with these. Live USB should be the parent of USB-linux, but instead it's a subcat... and there are OSes that aren't linux that are USB bootable. 70.29.208.129 (talk) 05:34, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Category:Live USB to Category:USB-bootable distributions. Keep Category:USB-bootable Linux distributions. Call me old fashioned but that is what these are. Move the Linux ones to Category:USB-bootable Linux distributions and make it a child of Category:USB-bootable distributions. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:22, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aervanath (talk) 17:45, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. To avoid a noconsensus decision, the upmerge is fine. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:27, 16 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:Berne[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. Bencherlite ^Talk 23:39, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Berne to Category:Bern

Propose renaming Category:Old City of Berne to Category:Old City of Bern

Propose renaming Category:Streets in Berne to Category:Streets in Bern

Propose renaming Category:Visitor attractions in Berne to Category:Visitor attractions in Bern

Propose renaming Category:Bridges in Berne to Category:Bridges in Bern

Propose renaming Category:Canton of Berne to Category:Canton of Bern

Propose renaming Category:Cultural property of national significance in the canton of Berne to Category:Cultural property of national significance in the canton of Bern

Propose renaming Category:Districts of Berne to Category:Districts of Bern

Propose renaming Category:Cuisine of Berne to Category:Cuisine of Bern

Propose renaming Category:Former municipalities in Berne to Category:Former municipalities in Bern

Propose renaming Category:Municipalities of Berne to Category:Municipalities of Bern

Nominator's rationale: The title of the article about the city was recently changed from Berne to Bern per Talk:Bern#Requested move. The corresponding category and subcategories should be renamed accordingly. Sandstein 17:32, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename. To match parent article. — Σ xplicit 21:57, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename categories should match parent article. --skew-t (talk) 02:04, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all of them to correct name "Bern". Debresser (talk) 10:38, 10 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:CfD 2009-06[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: Do not rename to proposed name. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:56, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:CfD 2009-06 to Category:Categories for discussion from June 2009

Nominator's rationale:

To match all 49 Wikipedia monthly maintenance categories. See Wikipedia:List of monthly maintenance categories given month.
To match the parent category Category:Categories for discussion.
To match all other categories in that parent category.
As per the instruction on Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(categories)#General_naming_conventions to avoid abbreviations
As per the instruction on Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(categories)#General_naming_conventions to choose category names that are not ambiguous and the name "CfD" is ambiguous in that it is likely to be misunderstood as "Categories for Deletion" (as has happened before) Debresser (talk) 17:23, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This nomination includes all categories like it that exist at the moment or will be created from now on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Debresser (talk • contribs) 2009-06-09 17:36:53

Comment This is not the place and the time to discuss whether "from" or "since" is the more appropriate word. That discussion will be conducted, if need be, at a later time, but not here and now. I ask the closing admin right now to disregard any comment or opinion based on the "from/since" question. Debresser (talk) 17:26, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I will inform all those who took part in previous discussions connected with this rename within a few hours. Debresser (talk) 17:28, 9 June 2009 (UTC) Done. Hope I didn't forget anybody. Note: I did not inform one editor, who has stated specifically he is not interested in receiving any posts from me on his talk page. Debresser (talk) 18:04, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support one consistent style - whichever in the end it will be - as long as it is consistent. Agathoclea (talk) 18:03, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Meh. Oppose as written. Yes, this is the place to discuss whether it should be "from", "since", or "as of". I ask the closing admin to disregard the CfD request if that is restricted. I would suggest Category:Categories for discussion 2009-06, instead, but Category:Categories for discussion: June 2009 seems acceptable until the from issue is formally dealt with. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:03, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That question is the subject of a separate discussion that would affect all maintenance categories. Since they are not up for nomination here, this comment of yours is really out of place. Apart from that, the work on the templates connected with maintenance categories is not yet finished, and making a "from/since" change will be a lot easier afterwards. So please stop mixing this subject into this discussion. Same thing precisely with your changes in the dateformat. Not to mention that in both these issues the status quo is 49:1 against you and the whole point is to come to a single housestyle. Debresser (talk) 18:10, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Points 1 and 3 are because of previous out-of-process renames, and should be disregarded at this point. Points 2, 4, and 5 seem reasonable, but an alternate form should be selected. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:06, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is no truth to this comment. I have not changed any of the names of the subcategories of Category:Categories for discussion as you can check for yourself. Nor have I made any changes whatsoever in the 49 Wikipedia monthly maintenance categories, exept for changing "since" to "from" in a minority of them (+/- 10 out of +/- 50). So #1 and #3 are both correct without any connection to my person. Debresser (talk) 18:13, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. Point 3 is explicitly because of an out-of-process rename, if accurate. It seems not to be accurate, as the existing categories Category:CfD 2009-04 and Category:CfD 2009-05 should also be listed, and the sort keys need to be carefully monitored so that the parent category remains usable. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:25, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why, pray tell me, should that list mention all three existing monthly categories of one and the same type? It does not do so for any of the other 49 categories. Debresser (talk) 18:38, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, that point was a mistake. Point 3 is still incorrect, but it's not fraud. The fact that all other CfD discussions name all current categories to be renamed, even if in a collapsed section, does not make the CfD invalid. The fact that the other categories aren't tagged might make this one invalid. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:38, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Should I also tag future monthly categories? Those other 2 categories you mentioned are supposed to be emptied any day now and deleted. Let's stick to the point, please. Debresser (talk) 19:51, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. This would make sense if these categories were not hidden and if they were for the general public. But they are hidden, and used only by people making sure no tagged categories fall through the cracks, none of whom would be confused by what "CFD" really stands for. --Kbdank71 18:32, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reject this last argument most forcefully. There are no clans within Wikipedia! No editor or group of editors owns the part of Wikipedia that has to do with categories for discussion. Note that this point has been made before... All pages within Wikipedia that are not protected are made for all editors, up to and beginning with the beginning IP editor.

Apart from that, and more specifically, your argument ignores the instruction of Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(categories)#General_naming_conventions, that does see the need to avoid ambiguity. Likewise your comment does not do justice to the "housestyle" argument, or any of the other arguments, that apply without any connection to the particular editor who is using this category page. Debresser (talk) 18:46, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Never said there were clans! Let's be realistic: only a few editors work with these categories, and changing the name isn't going to change that. You can reject my argument if you want, but that doesn't change my opinion. I don't see the need to rename, and you haven't convinced me with your nomination. Renaming simply to "match" other categories isn't a good reason. And Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(categories)#Special_conventions_for_Wikipedia-related_categories says nothing about ambiguity. --Kbdank71 19:19, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neither is "all was working fine yesterday" a reason to oppose. Which is essentially what you are saying, with all due respect.
Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(categories)#Special_conventions_for_Wikipedia-related_categories doesn't mention the ambiguity argument because it should mention only or mainly "special conventions" and in the need to avoid disambiguity there is no difference between general categories and Wikipedia categories.
One of the likely reasons "only a few editors work with these categories" is precisely the mysterious and closed nature of a category named like Category:CfD 2009-06! Debresser (talk) 19:39, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All was working fine before the previous out-of-process renames is a perfectly good reason to hold off on this rename. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:41, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Essentially what I am saying is, you haven't convinced me with your nomination. That is a reason to oppose. And really, closed and mysterious? Have you gone to Category:CfD 2009-06 to see what it says? Explains itself pretty well. Not mysterious at all. --Kbdank71 21:20, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I have. It is one of the worst pieces of explaining the function of a maintenance category I've ever seen. And believe me I have seen quite some. And improved quite a few as well. But my point was not about the explanation on the category page, but about the name of the category, which is unclear and uninviting. Debresser (talk) 00:49, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, it is not. It has been mentioned already that those renames have no influence on any of the arguments for renaming this category. So if you want to stick to your "oppose", go ahead, but please try not to chew up old grudges. Debresser (talk) 19:56, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I misread the previous comment. Sorry.

What part of "you haven't convinced me" reads "grudge"? What are you talking about? --Kbdank71 23:53, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support per Agathoclea. --Pascal⁶⁶⁶ 19:13, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose long complicated name -- this is a hidden administrative/maintenance category. Forget grammar, it should be short, simple, and sorted. The easier to type the better!
1. There aren't any related Wikipedia monthly maintenance categories. There are precisely two (2) categories: Category:Categories for discussion and Category:Hidden categories. It fits nicely in the former, and the latter consists of nearly all administrative categories everywhere.
  - There are categories from various projects that you renamed similarly without discussion.
  - You were roundly excoriated at WP:ANI, WT:CFD, and elsewhere.
  - And now again in this discussion!
2. Matching the prefix "Categories for ..." for temporary subcategory names is perfectly described by the adage:
  "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds...."
  - We must follow Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories)#General naming conventions
    "Choose category names that are ... independent of the way a category is connected to other categories."
    No need for subcategories that recapitulate the parent category name.
3. This is an excellent use of abbreviations that facilitate maintenance, in the house style of "WP:CFD".
4. It is not ambiguous with any other titles in either of the two (2) categories.
5. The nomination uses "from" incorrectly. Although "as of" might be acceptable, it is not needed, as we are not using these categories for exposition.
6. The nomination uses a date that is not correctly sorted. The year must come first, and the month name does not result in a correct ordering.
7. Please add me to the list of folks that you don't post on their Talk.
Folks should note a similar nomination yesterday at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 June 8#Category:Wikify from June 2009. Thanks!
--William Allen Simpson (talk) 03:30, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You contradict yourself by saying first "forget grammar" and then "the nomination uses 'from' incorrectly".
The correct use of "from" is disputed. We had a post about this with a lot of folks agreeing that "from" is fine. And anyway that is not the subject here, as stated in the nomination.
Your comment that "this is an excellent use of abbreviations" contradicts clear instructions from the same page you quoted above. So that's another inconsistency in your arguments.
There is no housestyle of wp:cfd. It has been mentioned before that you specifically show a tendency to own the part of Wikipedia connected with categories for discussion, and it's about time you get the point: there is only 1 Wikipedia, with 1 housestyle. Cfd pages are the same color, the same font etc. and should follow the same naming conventions, as pointed out in the nomination.
You are the person on who's talk page I don't post. Per your expressed wish. Although I would have prefered to work together with you on some things of mutual interest.
About the date format which you claim "is not correctly sorted". In another place somebody already pointed out that you are mistaken and don't seem to understand how this works technically. Do we have to go over old arguments again?
How you maintain that "CfD" is not ambiguous with "deletion" and "discussion" is a matter of academical interest only, because that point has been agreed upon by many and is self-evident.
The length of a category (or page) name is not restricted in any guideline I know of. My proposal is not long. Nor is it in any way longer or otherways different from all other 49 (!) monthly maintenance categories.
Your quote from the instructions page to "choose category names that are ... independent of the way a category is connected to other categories" is a misunderstanding of yours. You don't read the sentence properly. The full quote reads "Choose category names that are not ambiguous, able to stand alone, independent of the way a category is connected to other categories." Meaning that the name of a category should clarify its content in a way that is unambiguous even to one who doesn't know the place of that category in the category tree. See the example there. Debresser (talk) 08:55, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How sad that you refer to a discussion at wp:ani which you instigated, and which had nothing to do with any of the arguments in this discussion. Not to mention that we seem to interpret its result slightly differently. Which we can not say of the result of a certain wp:wqa, which resulted in an unambiguous 3rd-level waring on your talkpage. Please stop clouding discussion with remarks that are off-topic. Debresser (talk) 08:32, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Virtually impossible to reply, as he didn't follow the numbering, so his responses are incomprehensible. Therefore, I'll address the only last bit of diatribe, currently numbered 10:

This category is the very category for which you brought a complaint to WP:ANI after your changes were reverted, and is of the larger class of categories that were reverted again and taken to WP:ANI after you continued in the error of your ways.
- You were shot down both times.
- Finally, you've brought your ideas to the correct place.
Yet, you continue your personal off-topic ad hominem harassment. Reviewing administrators at WP:WQA stated "... using boilerplate templates in instances like this borders on incivility itself." "... most of this thread looks like spurious sock-infested nonsense to me."
- At the moment, I bear the so-called "waring" [sic] as a badge of pride on my Talk.
We cannot help the English as a second language issues that you seem to have. Originally, folks tried to help you, but I've long since given up.
- I wonder why you only have one edit (under this name) at your advertised native language site?
- Perhaps you are banned there under another name? We certainly had that problem with others here in the past....

'Nuff said.
--William Allen Simpson (talk) 17:40, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Wikipedia:DATE#Dates allows the use of yyyy-mm-dd outside of articles as I read that section of the MoS. yyyy-mm seems to be covered by that. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:31, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody said it didn't. And anyways the dateformat is not the main point of this nomination. Although 49 against 1 does say something. Debresser (talk) 08:10, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The nomination speaks for itself. There are many changes in this proposal. One of which is changing from 2009-06 to June 2009. Main format issue or not, it is still part of the discussion. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:27, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I wanted to add something to my oppose above, but things are a little cluttered, so I'll just add it here. WP:IFITAINTBROKE: "If there is no evidence of a real problem, and fixing the "problem" would not effectively improve Wikipedia, then don't waste time and energy (yours or anybody else's) trying to fix it." There has (here and elsewhere) many words said about this topic, and so far, I still don't see what the problem is that needs fixing. --Kbdank71 19:12, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The problems are implied in the five reasons for nomination: ambiguous name of the category, irregularity in the name of the category in comparison with its parent category and other categories on the same level, the breakage of Wikipedia housestyle, the use of abbreviations in a category name.
Two of these are against Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(categories)#General_naming_conventions, which is in itself more than enough reason for the rename. The irregularity argument is present in many of the dicussions here, on way or the other. Convention is as good as any guideline. The "housestyle" argument hasn't been turned into a guideline anywhere as far as I know, but seems self-evident and generally implied, as well as factually applied. Debresser (talk) 23:54, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I read the nomination, I just don't agree that what you presented is a problem that needs changing. --Kbdank71 13:31, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An admin, active in this area, who thinks that non-compliance with guidlines is not a problem?? Debresser (talk) 17:14, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(categories)#Special_conventions_for_Wikipedia-related_categories: All administrative categories shall be placed in the Category:Wikipedia administration tree. Each should have "Wikipedia" (without a colon) as part of the name; exceptions are granted through Categories for Discussion. Seeing as these are administrative categories, no, I don't see the problem, aside from the time wasted trying to fix something that doesn't need fixing. --Kbdank71 17:49, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, this text was changed just a few days ago. In the discussion only 2 people partook, and not all points of this text were discussed outright. Second, I have already mentioned that those conventions are only in addition to all general conventions applying to categories. And finally, please note that going "through Categories for Discussion" is precisely what I am doing here. Your oppose based on "all is well as it was" is duely noted. Debresser (talk) 17:58, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- Debresser took care of everybody's substantive arguments here; he simply deleted the results of many years of CfD decisions recorded on the policy page. And got another administrator to back him up. The page currently says we need to name all administrative categories with "Wikipedia ", and no exceptions by CfD are permitted. If somebody cares, they might fix that.... Until then, I'll just use http links instead of wiki links for policy citations.
--William Allen Simpson (talk) 17:51, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Misleading and off-the-point comment duely noted. Debresser (talk) 16:17, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. As a hidden maintenance category there is no overriding need to change. Personally I prefer category names that sort correctly without the need to pipe in a sort name. If we really believe that this should be renamed then Category:Categories for discussion for 2009-06 seems to be the most logical. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:51, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

May I point out that there is no other maintenance category with such a dateformat. I fail to understand how people can oppose the 49:1 argument. Debresser (talk) 00:21, 17 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:Film awards for Best Cast[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 While we should be removing the POV and subjective "best", I <ahem> agree with Alan that the target name is potentially confusing. We know what it will mean because we have seen what the original name was and why it was changed. But anyone looking at "Films awards for casts" for the first time? I <ahem> also briefly thought of broken bones when I saw the recommended name. Since this close doesn't fix the "best" problem, I suggest a renomination to try and find a name that is clear and NPOV. (shoo, I think I need to go for a walk. Two times in one paragraph? I'll have to play 617 in the lottery) . Kbdank71 15:23, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Film awards for Best Cast to Category:Films awards for casts

Nominator's rationale: With the rest of Category:Film acting awards now successfully renamed, we come to this one, which I didn't know existed. I know we want to get rid of "Best" and capitalization which violates WP:NCCAT, per the other categories. This would appear to be the obvious renaming option. Although I fear that somewhere out there Otto is lurking with another option... Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:10, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Muah-ha-ha-ha-ha Otto4711 (talk) 17:52, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. I suppose Category:Film awards for acting casts is a possibility, though I'm not sure if it's an improvement. And a big congratulations to Shawn in Montreal for getting through these—They weren't always easy to rename properly but you did a good job! Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 10:28, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's very kind. But it's nothing compared to the passion, knowledge and hardwork that you and the other regulars exhibit here on a daily -- nay, hourly -- basis. BTW, there's a few more in Category:Film awards by category left to tackle and I'll raise them, if others don't. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:55, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aw, let's have a love-fest and keep complimenting each other. I love Montreal, especially the old city. Closest thing to real European architecture in N America ... Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:46, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Films awards for best casts six of the seven awards listed here use the term "best cast", and that's what the award is for. The title case belongs in the awards themselves, but should be dropped to lower in a collective category. We're not determining that something is "best", we're simply recording what these organizations have used as a naming convention for this award. Besides, Category:Films awards for casts sounds like something you'd get for appearing on film after breaking your leg, which might ensue after being told to "break a leg" before going on the set. Alansohn (talk) 14:43, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Shawn in Montreal has nominated a bunch of these for renaming, and part of the effort has been to rid the "best" terminology from this category structure since not all film awards are awards for the "best" whatever. So what I'm saying is I'm not sure why we would treat this one any differently, especially when some of the awards aren't for the "best" cast. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:39, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I've looked at the category again and six of seven are listed as "Award for Best Cast", while the seventh is Screen Actors Guild Award for Outstanding Performance by a Cast in a Motion Picture. While consistency does have its benefits and I will frequently use it as a reason in my votes, in this case the removal of the word makes it harder to understand what is in the category. While I admire the effort to get rid of the word, my goal here at CfD is to develop a category system that best serves the needs of all of its users, and I still feel that the name I have proposed best represents the contents of the category. Alansohn (talk) 13:53, 17 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.

Categories:Formerly papal congregations...[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 to Category:Church buildings established in the 11th century and so on for the other categories. I think think that this restores the way things were before a lot of changes. And this is where consensus appears to be. Also this is the least damaging way to remove these categories which seem to be problematic. I'd suggest that if anyone has a need to break these out, that they have a discussion to develop a consensu on what the correct name should be before creating more categories. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:33, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Formerly papal congregations established in the 11th century to Category:11th-century former Roman Catholic church buildings

Propose renaming Category:Formerly papal congregations established in the 12th century to Category:12th-century former Roman Catholic church buildings

Propose renaming Category:Former Roman Catholic Church buildings established in the 13th century to Category:13th-century former Roman Catholic church buildings

Nominator's rationale: Rename. "Roman Catholic" is much clearer term than "papal." In the Middles Ages, the date of church buildings may be more readily determinied than the date of the congregations, if different. This will also give the category a parallel name to like categories, e.g. of the 13th, 14th, and 15th century.-- Carlaude ^talk 16:39, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all, restoring architecture categories as necessary. add - or rename as below. The proposed names would be an improvement, following protests to Carlaude's talk page (as the creator), but looking at several of the 11th century articles, almost all were rebuilds on the sites of earlier churches, usually of debatable dating. See eg Greensted Church (probably 7th century), Lincoln Cathedral, Durham Cathedral, St Albans Cathedral etc. The word "established" therefore seems likely to be wrong, or at the very least debatable, in most cases. That they are "Former Roman Catholic" buildings, if they are in England, Germany etc, hardly needs saying if they are 11th century, though one could not object to Category:Medieval churches now Lutheran/Church of England etc - though the latter would be virtually identical to Category:Medieval churches in England. From the talk page it seems that some purely architectural categories have been replaced with these hybrids, which should not have been done. There is just too much OR involved in trying to extend the "congregations established" tree to medieval parish churches, of which tens of thousands were established across Europe by 1050 with no surviving records as to date, and the great majority of the original buildings now only leaving archaeological traces, if that. We should categorize the surviving buildings by date, style, location etc, and leave it at that. Abbeys and Cathedrals are different, as documented dates for establishment do very often survive. Odda's Chapel is a rare small church with a inscription dating it, though it has not been used as a church for centuries, very probably not since the Reformation (see the external link - the existence of a church was completely forgotten in 1675), so does not belong in this tree anyway, which leads to Category:Protestant church buildings and congregations by century established. Johnbod (talk) 17:11, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:While I am not doubting that "tens of thousands" of churches may have been "established across Europe" in the time from the Schism to the Reformation, this matters not in the least. We only care about churches with Wikipedia articles. If Jon wants to delete them (you can see my talk for Johnbod earlier comments), all we really need to know is if there are sufficient acticles to warrant the categories.

These are not creating "categories by date" where there were none before. It am just taking items from "architecture by year/decade" categories and items from "religious organizations by year/decade" categories and putting them in "church by centuries" categories. If the Wikipedia community doesn't have an issue with "foo by decade" in the Middle Ages, then I fail to see why it could have an issues with "church by centuries"— a much wider time span that can hence be identified with much more certainity.
You have already said that abbeys & cathedrals "will usually be documented." Many— if not most— of these churches that have Wikipedia articles are cathedrals, monestaries, or former abbeys. But I think even parrish churches will be better documentationed than many other items in architecture categories— categories you want to keep— than say, bridges.
If the Wikipedia community does have issues with items being placed in a "foo established in the 12th century" category, we do not for that reason remove or consider removing the whole category. We consider if the item itself has needed documumentation for that categorization, and may ask the authors there for added documumentation. Only if and when the century of establishment of the items could not even in known in principal, might we consider removing the whole category (first) on that basis. Normaly— as yo know— we would just empty the category, and then delete category for being empty.
These are really useful categories. At least more useful than "architecture by decade" and "religious organizations by decade" categories. How often does someone really care about 1250s the architecture over-against 1260s the architecture? They are not that different. On the other hand 13th-century church architecture is very different than 13th century bridges architecture. This applies to religious organizations also. Buddhist temples are more different from churches than 1250s religious organizations are from 1260s religious organizations. Now I admit that while former Roman Catholic church architecture is not much different than Roman Catholic church architecture-- but they are useful in non-architecture parent categories, and you have advocted removing all the "Church buildings by century" categories on my talk page. Here you still seem to seek this but are less clear on that point. --Carlaude ^talk 21:05, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all and restore previous cats ~~if nothing better than these can be found~~. These are not "really useful categories" - they are being created by obliterating more effective ones already in place, and are in many cases, for the reasons given at length by Johnbod, misleading, if not downright wrong.

However, subject to the reservations outlined above about the need for caution when slapping a fixed date on an ancient building, there might be some point in using two cats, an architectural one and a denominational one, e.g., Category:11th-century church buildings (instead of the wordier, and, because of the use of the word "established", also less clear Category:Church buildings established in the 11th century), etc, plus, again e.g., Category:Former Roman Catholic churches in Foo - which In any event, even if these cats are kept in some form they should NOT sit under the ~~"Protestant congregations"~~ irremediable Category:Protestant church buildings and congregations by century established overcat. Let's forget this stuff about "congregations", which just doesn't export either in place or in time. HeartofaDog (talk) 23:14, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:Changing Category:Church buildings established in the 11th century to Category:11th-century church buildings is fine with me.

*Good! HeartofaDog (talk) 09:10, 10 June 2009 (UTC):::As the discussion has developed I've seen no indication that User:Carlaude is likely to do anything apart from what he always does, which is to push forward his own personal programme regardless. So I'm changing slightly what I have said: the nominated cats should be deleted, and should NOT be recreated at all within Carlaude's schema. Any useful information not already in cats can be added from within the architecture tree, with any luck by someone other than Carlaude, ie, someone who is not grinding some socking great personal axe.HeartofaDog (talk) 14:48, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As for Category:Former Roman Catholic churches in Foo, you may notice that there is alreay Category:Former Roman Catholic churches in the United States but it seems to be mostly former churches, that were Roman Catholic at the time. This would not make it a denominational Category, but historical or mixed. A denominational Category would have to be along the lines of Category:11th-century Eastern Orthodox churches.

As for "obliterating more effective ones already in place" maybe there is some misunderstanding. Items have only been removed from "architecture by century" categories if they were put in a sub cat. Most items were not removed from architecture categories, but were only found in "architecture by decade", "religious organizations by century", or "religious organizations by decade" categories. --Carlaude ^talk 02:12, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No misunderstanding: that in itself is objectionable. For example, here [2] you removed Category:14th-century architecture and added Category:Formerly papal congregations established in the 11th century, ie, you've taken out a useful architectural cat and inserted a useless thing of your own devising, which is also entirely wrong, in that it isn't possible to state as fact a definite date for the foundation of the parish (and even if it were, it is anachronistic to insist on terming an Anglo-Saxon entity a "congregation" in the sense in which you use the word). You've consistently been doing this sort of thing elsewhere within your cat scheme, as for example [3], where you have replaced Category:Roman Catholic churches in Rome by Category:Roman Catholic congregations established in the 18th century, which is close to vandalism. A congregation, whatever its precise sense, is not a building. HeartofaDog (talk) 09:37, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You say "misunderstanding: that in itself is objectionable." I don't know just what you are saying but pardon me for assuming good faith. I guess you prefer you I assume that you are purposefully making a making a mountin out of an ant-hill. I am glad to be corrected of my errors but one example is not "obliterating."

Please add as many more as pleases you to your collection of baseless assumptions. Present experience suggests that you may not always as "glad to be corrected of your errors" as you claim - and I make that comment entirely in good faith. HeartofaDog (talk) 14:48, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay-- you are "acting in good faith"-- no one said otherwize. In fact, as I said, I assume good faith. My issues were (1) You were not acting in good English-- you were unclear in your complaint, "No misunderstanding: that in itself is objectionabl." and (2) Since I am assuming good faith that you are only misunderstanding and not anything else, please see it as such; do not get offended when I assume good faith. --Carlaude ^talk 12:20, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was you that brought up the question of good faith, for some reason of your own. I've got no reason to act otherwise than in good faith: I disagree with your cats. My point is the same one all the time, ie, simply that most of your cats don't fit all the articles you want to apply them to; and some of them, like the cats nominated here, don't really fit any articles usefully, and should be deleted. You will excuse me if I disregard most of what you say above - frankly it makes little sense. HeartofaDog (talk) 15:55, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reading Church of Holy Trinity, Stapleton carefull and strictly you are right that it does not tell us what the 14th-century architecture was ...nor even that it is there any longer, so I have fixed the error.

Great (~~assuming I have understood what you were trying to say, and supplying the presumably missing "not" - which you have now done~~)- but clearly you weren't aware of that when you made your original edit, so the point stands.HeartofaDog (talk) 14:48, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, I do not think "the" point stands-- but not stating any point here you obscers what point you think you have made. Correcting this error does not add anything back into "14th-century architecture," and this is still only one example and one example, and one example is not "obliterating." If your point is that I am not make errors-- then yes. I admited this above. --Carlaude ^talk 11:19, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(I don't mean to be uncivil, but you argue rather like a hippopotamus spraying dung). This is an example of your replacing, or appearing to replace, one cat, which was about architecture, with another less useful one, about a congregation: "obliterating" is just a hyperbolic way of saying that. It is one instance to stand for a whole list of instances - that's what an "example" is. You're quite right that it later turned out that the facts of the architecture of this particular building didn't in any case justify the original architecture cat, so the article has ended up more accurate - but you didn't know that when you made the original cat replacement.

The point, which clearly you are always going to try to dodge, is the same throughout: the cats are inappropriate / serve no good purpose (and should be deleted); the schema underlying them, which you created, is also very largely inappropriate / serves no good purpose = useless. This is because you are taking a model based on one limited and specific time/place, which you know, and insisting that it must apply to many other [time/place]s about which you know very little. And it doesn't, so you have ended up wasting a vast amount of time, not just your own. HeartofaDog (talk) 15:55, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As for asking us to "forget this stuff about 'congregations'" and for my "using the word congregation" and the sense you think I use it-- you have missed the point somewhere along the line. This is already a proposed renaming ...congregations... to ...church buildings... and proposed only by yours truly.

...as subcats of the extremely unhelpful Category:Protestant church buildings and congregations by century established, which illustrates the confusion that you created and are perpetuating. The nominated cats should not be renamed within your schema - they should be deleted. Any useful information can be conveyed instead by cats within the architecture tree. HeartofaDog (talk) 14:48, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, rather than "close to vandalism" the edit Santissimo Nome di Maria al Foro Traiano was just doing two edits at once. Category:Titular churches in Rome is naturally a a sub-cat Category:Roman Catholic churches in Rome, making the it a redundancy to have Santissimo Nome di Maria al Foro Traiano in both categories. --Carlaude ^talk 06:12, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But what you have added is a "congregation" cat, not a "building" cat... HeartofaDog (talk) 14:48, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you are tring to say that even though there where two church buildings for seven years, and had a new and separate name, Santissimo Nome di Maria al Foro Traiano never had a separate congregation? HeartofaDog, If you disagree with someone's edit that does not make it WP:Vandalism. --Carlaude ^talk 11:19, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Close to vandalism" doesn't equal" vandalism", but I withdraw the comment as excessive. I realise that the article on Santissimo Nome di Maria al Foro Traiano is not strictly within this nomination, but the nomination / discussion is against the background of your "congregation" based agenda for church building cats, and that article illustrates why those cats are objectionable. There is absolutely nothing notable about the congregation of Santissimo Nome di Maria al Foro Traiano - there's no reason to think it was ever anything other than a straightforward RC congregation of its time and place. What is notable is the building, which is unique and significant. That's why the article is about the building, which is why replacing, or appearing to replace, building related cats with "congregation" related cats is meaningless, misleading and disruptive.

I am well aware that this nomination is to change these particular cats from "congregation" cats to "buildings" cats - but as mentioned elsewhere, only as subcats of the hopeless Category:Protestant church buildings and congregations by century established (which I think had better itself come to CfD very soon), so the end result will be still more confused and dysfunctional.HeartofaDog (talk) 15:55, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Understood-- but this is an awful lot of ink... or pixels... to spill here over some other category that you don't like. --^{Carlaude:Talk} 19:42, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It illustrates a general underlying problem that is causing difficulty with this and similar nominations - and it has clearly taken this long to get you even to acknowledge that perhaps there is some sort of difficulty. The resolution to these endless time-wasting "discussions" is mostly in your own hands. HeartofaDog (talk) 12:56, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all, for the reasons explained by Johnbod. I also endorse what HeartofaDog says above; both comments reflect my views well. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:56, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Heartofadogs renames are also fine by me - we seem to have agreement on those, but categories removed should also be readded. Johnbod (talk) 12:04, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - for it to work at all we would also have to have your suggested Category:Medieval churches in England for buildings with unclear dating (ie, most of them) - but sticking to the cats nominated, I agree entirely that the cats displaced by the nominated ones, should all be put back.HeartofaDog (talk) 17:01, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge all to equivalent church building categories (only): Firstly "papal" is inaccurate since the churches were not established by any pope, but usually founded by a manorial lord and consecrated by the diocesan bishop, without any involvement from Rome. Secondly, any church built in England in the 11th, 12th or 13th century will have been Catholic until the Reformation and then Protestant (unless is was a dissolved monastery). "Congregations" is also rubbish, since the articles will essentially be about the buildings, though possibly also about the present congregations that worship in them. This is a bare-faced attempt by papists to colonise the Church of England builings. The same would apply to Lutheran Churches in Germany. I failed to find the alleged Italian example, but it should not appear, since the headnote of all three says it is about Protestant church buildings. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:50, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By the way— while you are voting to Upmerge— all your arguments exacly favor the proposed rename. The renames proposes (as no one seems to notice) is to [[:Category:##th-century former Roman Catholic church buildings]]. I am also curous what you mean by "papists"? Do you mean a Roman Catholics or anti-Roman Catholics? --Carlaude ^talk 23:10, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He means RCs! PK - that is one thing no one can accuse Carlaude of! (Another question - do you mean "accurate" or "inaccurate" in your 2nd line above). Johnbod (talk) 03:31, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, no-- he called me a "papist"! I created the cats and proposed the rename so he most mean me. I wonder if they would care over at Talk:RCC...?

He must mean "inaccurate"; "in accurate" means nothing and "accurate" does not fit his follow up.--Carlaude ^talk 14:23, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did mean "inaccurate" (now corrected). I was suggesting that the categories were trying to apply a POV agenda to the churches in question. Up to 1530, all churches in England were RC. After 1560, they were all Anglican. After 1687, buildings began to be provided from other Protestant denominations. This refers only to England, but almost everything in the category is English, the exceptions being a few German ones. My referred target is thus Category:11th century church buildings etc. If the focus were to be on congregations, it might be "Congregations using 11th century church buildings", but I doubt that the age of its building is really a notable characteristic of a modern church congregation. I used the word "papist" to refer to RC. This is a term of abuse, which I only used because I was angry. I should not have used it and must apologise. However, I do not withdraw my view that an RC-POV agenda is involved in the choice of the existing names. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:33, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not offended, but I am still amused for being taken to have a RC-POV agenda. I suppect other editors that know me are as well, such as anyone reading this post at Talk:Roman Catholic Church.

Many Anglicans think of themselves as still "Catholic" and would object, I am sure, to them being called "Formerly Catholic churches." etc. I just wanted a way to let people find the currently not-RC churches among the many RC churches to help non-RCs and RCs.--Carlaude ^talk 11:34, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I dispute that "almost everything in the category is English." On my talk page for you I list 15 non-CoE church in these three cats. While most churches are still English, that stems from this being an English Wikipedia-- that and the fact that England as a detailed system for tracking old buildings and churches. --Carlaude ^talk 11:57, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - given the quantity of verbiage here generated, it's may be useful to underline that in among it all there is a consensus that the cats should be deleted. While there's lots of discussion about why, and about what, if anything, might replace them, and lots of odd comments from Carlaude, it's not conclusive enough to add up to the rename as requested in the nom.HeartofaDog (talk) 15:55, 16 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:TMN network shows[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 15:25, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:TMN network shows to Category:The Movie Network original programs

Nominator's rationale: Rename - expand the abbreviation and clarify the scope is original programs only. Otto4711 (talk) 14:09, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:59, 11 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:Kids WB shows[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 15:25, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Kids WB shows to Category:Kids WB original programs

Nominator's rationale: Rename - as below, to clarify that this is for original programs only. Otto4711 (talk) 14:03, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:59, 11 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:CW4Kids shows[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 15:26, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:CW4Kids shows to Category:CW4Kids original programs

Nominator's rationale: Rename - to clarify that this is for original programming only since we don't categorize based on syndication. Otto4711 (talk) 14:00, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:59, 11 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:Cartoon Network shows[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 15:26, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Cartoon Network shows to Category:Cartoon Network original programs

Nominator's rationale: Rename - to clarify that this is for first-run programs only since we don't categorize by syndication. Otto4711 (talk) 13:54, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom and per clarity. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 18:26, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:59, 11 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.

H games to Eroge[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 match article. If "H game" turns out to be the preferred name for the article, we can quickly revert the category change. Kbdank71 15:59, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:H games to Category:Eroge

Propose renaming Category:3D H games to Category:3D eroge

Propose renaming Category:English-translated H games to Category:English-translated eroge

Nominator's rationale: Based on the fact that H game redirects to Eroge, the main category and its sub categories should be moved to phase out the former "H game" usage. 十八 06:41, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the article says the common name is hentai game or H game in English, not eroge. 70.29.210.174 (talk) 05:15, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, with all due respect, this is Wikipedia we're talking about, and the claim is unsourced. I'm merely trying to make the categories consistent with the parent article title.--十八 06:17, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well anecdotally, I've not seen "eroge", but I have seen "H game" and "hentai game" in various forums, so from my standpoint, the article is misnamed. And having the article state so by itself, it would seem that the article should be renamed, not the categories. 70.29.212.226 (talk) 07:32, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Using google search, "H game" gets 92 million hits, "Hentai game" gets 12 million hits, and "eroge" gets 0.5 million hits. So it's pretty clear, "eroge" is NOT the right name to use. 70.29.212.226 (talk) 07:35, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - The google test doesn't always show whether a name is more popular or in proper usage. The main article was moved from H game to Eroge way back in October 2005, and there's been no opposition or discussion to renaming it. As I stated before, I'm not attempting to start a debate whether H game or Eroge is more widely used, as I don't know any accurate way to judge that. What I am trying to do is merely make the categories consistent with the main article which has had the "Eroge" name for over 3 years now. Not to mention, you did the search engine test wrong. You have to put quotes around a phrase to accurately show how many times that phrase is used. When you do it correctly, "H game" gets about 900,000 hits and "Hentai game" gets 1.5 million hits. Eroge gets 1.6 million hits. So, by your test, eroge would seem to be the most popular, but as I said, the google test is not always accurate, and it shouldn't be used.--十八 01:37, 15 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:Atheist thinkers and activists[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:Atheism activists. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:49, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Atheist thinkers and activists to Category:Advocates of atheism

Nominator's rationale: for specificity and clarity of criteria/criterion for inclusion. This page is intended, as explained on it, to list those who have (publically) advocated for atheism. The current name however can mean, of course, that any 'thinker' (ie. philosopher) who has been an activist (for any cause) and atheist qualifies (and besides, there already is Category:Atheist philosophers.) With this nomination, I suggest making this one clearly for those who have publically advocated for atheism, regardless of whether they are a (professional) philosopher or not. Mayumashu (talk) 06:17, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree very good argument of nominator. Debresser (talk) 07:13, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename Category:Atheism activists to match all others others in parent Category:Activists by issue. These are not generic activists that happen to be atheists, rather advocates of atheism.
--William Allen Simpson (talk) 16:21, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Category:Atheism activists per nom & WAS above - this is the standard term here for this. Johnbod (talk) 16:33, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Will support the WAS suggested renaming Mayumashu (talk) 03:00, 10 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:Language acquisition researchers to Category:Developmental psycholinguists[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) 23:26, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest renaming Category:Language acquisition researchers to Category:Developmental psycholinguists

Nominator's rationale:=The category Language acquisition researchers includes researchers in two related, but not necessarily mutually exclusive, fields: that of child language acquisition (developmental psycholinguistics) and that of bilingualism and second language acquisition. I think it is a good idea to separate out researchers who do work in each field since they are relatively different fields, and relatively few researchers do work in both fields. To that end, I have created a new category named Bilingualism and second language acquisition researchers, to which I have added researchers who do work in that field, and I propose renaming this category to Developmental psycholinguists and removing the researchers who do work in bilingualism and second language acquisition exclusively (but not the few who do work in both fields, of course), since they are included in the Second language acquisition and bilingualism category. I will remove the bilingualism and second language acquisition researchers from this category if my cfr is supported. (LMBM2012 (talk) 05:40, 9 June 2009 (UTC))}}[reply]

Comment This rename seems ok, but the new breakaway cat you have set up Category:Bilingualism and second language acquisition researchers is actually a people category that is not described or parented as such, which is wrong. People categories should be kept distinct so they fit into people trees. It should be renamed and reparented. Johnbod (talk) 12:37, 10 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.

Afro-Italian Americans[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 (empty at close). Per the request to identify who emptied the category: I've no idea who did and there is no easy way of finding out. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:47, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Afro-Italian Americans to Category:African Americans and Category:Italian Americans

Nominator's rationale: overcategorization of ethnicity. We don t have cat pages for Ukrainian-Canadian Americans, or Mexican-American Canadians, etc. nor should we Mayumashu (talk) 05:28, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, that's for sure, as per the nominator's rationale. How to process the articles in it, that I am not sure about. Debresser (talk) 07:08, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge to the 2 parents Category:African Americans and Category:Italian Americans per nom (as a matter of principle, and not because the single article mentions neither African nor Italian nor Sicilian except in its categories). Occuli (talk) 10:19, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- the related article has been moved all over the map! AFAICT (in just 2008 alone), Afro-Italians -> African Italian -> African Italians -> Africans in Italy -> Afro-Italians -> Africans in Italy -> Italians of African descent -> Black people in Italy -> Italians of African descent -> Afro-Italian -> Italians of African descent. The article itself is internally inconsistent as to who belongs, in the lede paragraph and in the body. Moreover, it would be virtually impossible to verify (without deduction) whether a person was correctly categorized. We cannot tell (without inference) whether these are immigrants to Italy (residence) or mixed ethnicity (partial derivation).
Heritage categories should not be used to record people based on deduction, inference, residence, surname, nor any partial derivation from one or more ancestors.
Against policy. Fails three or more criteria. Failing one would be enough!
--William Allen Simpson (talk) 14:11, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See also relevant precedent at
Single purpose IP 93.34.54.141 (talk · contribs) added three to this category today. Reverted.
--William Allen Simpson (talk) 14:41, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (merge unnecessary as the category is now empty) per nom, and prior identical CFD and arguments made there (in part by me). Postdlf (talk) 21:38, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Mixed ethnicity categories are overcategorization and consensus in the past has always deleted them. — Σ xplicit 21:54, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge to Americans of African descent and Americans of Italians descent (or whatever the categoreis may in fact be). This is a triple intersection and hence undesirable. If empty, the issue if merging does not arise. I think this is the practice adopted for all non-US categories, but the American melting pot has put people off from trying to rationalise American categories. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:56, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unnecessary race/ethnicity category. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:39, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sharp question How come the category is empty now? Who has been removing articles from here against all rules? I'd like to ask the closing admin to try and find out before making the closure. Debresser (talk) 18:51, 13 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:Sugar Hill Records (folk) albums to Category:Sugar Hill Records (bluegrass) albums[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) 23:25, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This was listed for speedy rename, but doesn't fit those criteria. But at the same time, the record label's article is at Sugar Hill Records (bluegrass), so I think it's probably snowing. Rename. Bearcat (talk) 03:37, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Snowball rename per nom and per WP:WELLDUH. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 04:12, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename (speedily if desired). I'm the only one who questioned whether it was speediable, but now that I understand that we're just matching to the main article, I have no objection to a rename, even if done speedily. It's been tagged for some time now, so an immediate rename would not be without notice. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:03, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename (speedily if desired) – Occuli (talk) 10:54, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. Though now I really want to hear a bluegrass version of "Rapper's Delight".--Mike Selinker (talk) 06:42, 11 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:LGBT fashion designers[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. Kbdank71 20:36, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. This is one of two "typed" subcategories of Category:Fashion designers — the only other is currently Category:Jewish fashion designers.

The occupation naming convention is by nationality. Combining with sexuality (for example, Category:LGBT fashion designers from the United States) would require (1) self-identification, and (2)

The subject's beliefs or sexual orientation are relevant to the subject's notable activities or public life, according to reliable published sources.

Hard to imagine that there were fashion designers that could only work because they were GLBT, or there is a particularly queer-identified fashion design. Otherwise, it's not notable.

--William Allen Simpson (talk) 03:36, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If being an LGBT person in fashion design — a field of endeavour so thoroughly dominated by LGBT people that being non-LGBT would be the unusual position, and which has reams upon scads upon entire libraries of literature documenting the impact and influence of LGBT people on the development of the profession — fails to meet the criterion that the subject's beliefs or sexual orientation are relevant to the subject's notable activities or public life, according to reliable published sources, then what on earth else could the sentence the subject's beliefs or sexual orientation are relevant to the subject's notable activities or public life, according to reliable published sources possibly even mean? Keep per WP:CATGRS. Bearcat (talk) 03:48, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Although I've often found Bearcat's arguments persuasive in the past, where is the main article for this category? Where are the references in each article pointing to these "reams upon scads upon entire libraries"? I've looked several of the current articles, and found nothing. Therefore, this looks like a POV classification based on folks that are not part of the community.
--William Allen Simpson (talk) 13:34, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CATGRS explicitly states that the main article doesn't have to already exist to justify a category; it merely has to be writable. Somebody probably should take it on, certainly — though as I have no personal interest in the topic, that's not going to be me. Bearcat (talk) 17:31, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per argument of the nominator, which is the total irrelevance of this intersection. Such was also my opinion in the abovemention nomination Category:Jewish fashion designers. Debresser (talk) 07:06, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – I share Bearcat's surprise that this intersection should be thought 'trivial'. Occuli (talk) 10:23, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the intersection of "LGBT" and "fashion design" is clearly a topic of encyclopedic interest per any number of reliable sources devoted to the topic. Otto4711 (talk) 11:30, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep After tearing through a lot of these categories of late, it does seem as if we've finally hit one where a person's background or beliefs does have a clear relevance to profession. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:52, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely keep - And we need to overlap some of these from another project,--Amadscientist (talk) 19:01, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Based on the ample reliable and verifiable sources that cover this defining intersection on a regular basis. Alansohn (talk) 14:36, 16 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:American Film Institute alumni[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:American Film Institute Conservatory alumni. No opposes to making more specific with 'conservatory'; general agreement on acronym expansion. Even if AFI were to be the institution's formal name, it's not unambiguous for this purpose. AFI also commonly stands for Australian Film Institute, for eg. With the acronym expanded you know what's in the can.--cjllw ʘ TALK 12:26, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:American Film Institute alumni to Category:AFI Conservatory alumni

Nominator's rationale: Although film biography articles commonly refer to filmmakers and the like as graduates of the American Film Institute, I see that upon closer inspection they are in fact alumni of the school portion of it only: the AFI Conservatory. I'd like to rename the category for more precision. I also see that the school's Web page does not use American Film Institute Conservatory, but the abbreviated version. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:05, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support to more accurately describe the contents of the category. Alansohn (talk) 05:10, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Abbreviations should be expanded. The abrreviation would only be acceptable if AFI is the formal name of the institution, not merely what is used on its website. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:58, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Peter, it does appear to be the formal name. I can't see any usage -- not one -- of the long form "American Film Institute Conservatory" at the school's official site. What's more, AFI Conservatory respects the guideline WP:COMMONAME. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:15, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
They also appear to do the same for their Category:AFI 100 Years series, which is also listed on their site only by acronym. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:54, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support rename to Category:American Film Institute Conservatory alumni per the main article and the following quote on the website in question: ©2009 American Film Institute. If that does not identify the correct name, what does? Vegaswikian (talk) 05:48, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd just like to say that if this threatens to end up as another "No consensus," I'd throw my support to Peterkingiron and Vegaswikian's proposal, since either would be preferable to what we have now, where the critical word "Conservatory" is missing. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:32, 17 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.