Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 March 25

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< March 24 March 26 >

March 25[edit]

Category:Musicians who emigrated to escape Nazism[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:People who emigrated to escape Nazism.--Aervanath (talk) 07:51, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:Musicians who emigrated to escape Nazism to Category:People who emigrated to escape Nazism
Nominator's rationale: Overcategorization by trivial intersection. While there is no doubt that many musicians faced persecution under the Third Reich, the traits of "musician" and "emigrated to escape Nazism" are ultimately unrelated. Many types of artists, scientists, and intellectuals were persecuted by the Third Reich and emigrated to escape Nazism. Just because there are people who have both traits does not mean we should categorize them on the intersection of those traits. –Black Falcon (Talk) 22:55, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and create additional sub-cats for other substantial groups (scientists, artists, etc.) Nearly one-third of the entire contents of Category:People who emigrated to escape Nazism are about musicians. For a reader browsing that category, having the articles grouped by occupation makes the category much more useful -- otherwise they are just a couple of hundred random names tossed in together. Deletion would be contrary to the fundamental purpose of the category structure: to facilitate navigation. Cgingold (talk) 11:56, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • An additional point: something that always gets overlooked with cats of this sort is that they are also part of the other parent category. In this case, readers browsing Category:Musicians can see that there's a category for those musicians who were forced to emigrate in order to escape the horrors of Nazism. That browsing connection would be lost if this were deleted. Cgingold (talk) 23:16, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's true, but that isn't a significant loss if one accepts the premise that this is a trivial intersection, especially since all of the articles would still retain some sort of connection with Category:Musicians through other cats (such as nationality+occupation). I also want to bring up another option: listify. A list would facilitate navigation and may be better suited to this purpose than a category, since it could provide necessary context about when a person escaped, from and to where, and why. But again, my comment is based on the premise that "musician"+"emigrated to escape Nazism" is a trivial intersection. –Black Falcon (Talk) 07:40, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Having to emigrate for the sake of saving ones life is clearly a notable characteristic. This applied to a significant number of musicians. This is therefore not a trivial intersection. It is thorough appropriate is disambiguate escapees by occupation. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:48, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The fact that both characteristics are non-trivial does not automatically make the intersection non-trivial. For instance, both "1900 births" and "French sociologist" are considered to be non-trivial characteristics, but their intersection ("French sociologists born in 1900") undoubtedly is a trivial one. –Black Falcon (Talk) 18:04, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as nominated. Honestly, the think the intersection is trivial. Neither feature (1. emigrated to escape Nazism 2. musician) is trivial, but the intersection of the two would be. There's nothing that makes musicians any different in this regard than everyone else who emigrated to escape Nazism. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:20, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per two non-trivial characteristics do not make the intersection non-trivial. --Kbdank71 14:11, 31 March 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:World War II personal accounts[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename per nom. Clearly a consensus to rename, and nobody seemed adamant about going to one name or the other. I note that "memoirs" was a good idea, and I'll leave this open for a further rename based upon the support that got. The reason this is "per nom" is for consistency (both would be "foo of bar"), whereas the suggestion for memoirs was "WWII memoirs" but "memoirs of the Holocaust". That and "Memoirs of the Holocaust", while correct per BF, sounds awkward to my ears as well. Kbdank71 14:20, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:World War II personal accounts to Category:Personal accounts of World War II
Propose renaming Category:Holocaust personal accounts to Category:Personal accounts of the Holocaust Category:Personal accounts of The Holocaust
Nominator's rationale: I think that these categories need a preposition, since "(Subject) personal accounts" just doesn't seem to flow well. Category creators notified using {{cfd-notify}}. –Black Falcon (Talk) 22:42, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Would you say that e.g. Category:World War II history books or Category:World War II films flow well, or they need renaming too? GregorB (talk) 22:50, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I (weakly) support renaming both, since there is some ambiguity in the titles regarding whether the categories includes books/films that are about World War II or that were published/produced during World War II. –Black Falcon (Talk) 23:04, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Good point. BTW, the reason I'm asking is not because I'm against the renaming, it is because I'm for consistency (where it is reasonable, of course). "World War II people" was changed to "People of World War II" some time ago, so I suppose it makes sense. GregorB (talk) 08:10, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question. Why the proposed caps on "The" in "The Holocaust"? I realize we're dealing with a proper noun here, but does that mean we capitalize the "the"? I've never seen this usage in non-WP writings about the Holocaust. Typically it's just written, "... the Holocaust". Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:09, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • To be honest, I am not entirely sure why we use The Holocaust instead of the Holocaust, or if there is conceptually any diference between the two, but I had three reasons for choosing "The". First, the head article and category capitalize the "the". Second, the word "holocaust" has several meanings whereas "The Holocaust" almost always refers to the genocide of European Jewry (and, sometimes, 5 million non-Jews) by the Third Reich (I'm restating someone else's argument from Talk:The Holocaust/Archive 21#Title of this article). Third, this CFD. –Black Falcon (Talk) 04:15, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sorry for this diversionary point. I understand your rationale as set out. I'm not sure that the first one is determinative, since the first letter of pretty much every category and article is capitalized. And in the text of The Holocaust, it is not capitalized unless it comes at the start of a sentence. The second reason would seem to me to be a very good reason to capitalize "Holocaust", but not the "the". Can you point to any non-WP sources that capitalize "The" in this way? I've just never seen it done like that before, and I've read a reasonable number of books that deal with the Holocaust. Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:43, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I can't think of any off-hand, and I have the impression that all of the books and journal articles that I've read also have used "the Holocaust" rather than "The Holocaust". A look at the first 100 or so results in Google Books and Google Scholar only reinforces this impression. In addition, now that I consider the issue more closely, the third reason I offered (the CFD precedent) does not apply for the same reason that the first one does not—namely, that we almost always capitalize the first word in page titles.
          Thank you for noticing and raising this point; I guess I just did not give the matter enough thought when I drafted the nomination statement. I have modified my renaming proposal and will withdraw the similar listing I made at WP:CFD/S. –Black Falcon (Talk) 07:07, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • You've already arrived at the correct conclusion, so I just want to say that I concur that there's no necessity to capitalize "the". As long as "Holocaust" is capitalized and "the" is present, it's fine. I have seen "The Holocaust", but only on rare occasion. Cgingold (talk) 08:03, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename. With the above burp out of the way, I otherwise support the proposal. I do think that the proposed names flow better and make more intuitive sense. Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:16, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per revised nom. The current names do sound a little strange grammatically. Cgingold (talk) 08:05, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom, and avoids the amiguity of "accounts" and whether they are "of WWII" or merely "during" it. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:45, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename differently. Coming in late, but why not Category:World War II memoirs and "Memoirs of the Holocaust", or "autobiographies"? They are part of the "autobiography" tree. Johnbod (talk) 23:48, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • An interesting suggestion. I think I could support Category:World War II memoirs. But using the word "memoir" in connection to the Holocaust seems jarringly out of place to me. Cgingold (talk) 20:27, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I also could support "memoirs" and think it's acceptable for both categories. From Memoir: "[a]nother category of memoir is the eyewitness type of history by onlookers to major events or particular eras"; there is no requirement that the events or eras not be tragic ones as both the war and genocide were. –Black Falcon (Talk) 18:10, 30 March 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:Nazi concentration camp major trials[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. Kbdank71 14:05, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:Nazi concentration camp major trials to Category:Holocaust trials
Nominator's rationale: I believe that this added layer of categorization is unnecessary and does not facilitate navigation. Upmerging would group all of these pages into one small-sized category (14 pages currently, 22 if merged) and would not sever any category interconnections. All of the pages would still be in the Nazi war crimes category tree through Category:Holocaust trials, and they would also continue to be in the Nazi concentration camps category tree through the individual eponymous concentration camp categories (e.g. Category:Ravensbrück concentration camp). At minimum, the category needs a rename to Category:Nazi concentration camp trials since "major"/"minor" characterizations are inherently subjective and therefore undesirable in category titles. Category creator notified using {{cfd-notify}}. –Black Falcon (Talk) 22:32, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as nominated. The "major" trials terminology is often used because the Allies compiled lists of "major war criminals", so in a trial if any defendant was so identified the trial became a "major" trial. But there were never any standards as such for determining who was and who was not a "major" war criminal, and I don't think it's that easy to determine (I'm not aware of a "master list"). Anyway, I agree that this division is more of a confusing impediment to navigation than an aid, and merging will only help. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:14, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom; the literature distinguishes between major and minor, but not consistently. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:46, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. Determining the boundary between major and minor is a POV issue. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:50, 27 March 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:Planned Holocaust for Palestine[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. Kbdank71 14:05, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Planned Holocaust for Palestine (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Category contains only two members, both of which are biographies (which should ideally be placed in list categories, not topic categories like this one; see here for definitions). Deleting this category will not sever the connection between the two individuals in the category and The Holocaust, since al-Husayni is in Category:Middle Eastern Nazi collaborators and Rauff is in Category:Holocaust perpetrators. Category creator notified using {{cfd-notify}}. –Black Falcon (Talk) 20:44, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, since we don't even have an article on Planned Holocaust for Palestine, it's a bit premature to have a category for it. Are we talking about WWII if the Germans had won at El Alamein? Are we talking if the Arab armies had won the 1948 war? what is on the table here? Can't know, and tossing in some people we don't like and trying to make something tying them together will require some better basis. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:49, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per sound arguments of both Black Falcon & Carlossuarez -- you covered all the bases and left nothing for me to add (which is rather vexing!) Cgingold (talk) 20:47, 27 March 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:Holocaust hoaxes[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. I'm going to move the one article into Cat:Hoaxes, because apparently it was a lie that started in WWI. If anyone wants to further categorize it, please do so. Kbdank71 14:04, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:Holocaust hoaxes to Category:The Holocaust and Category:Hoaxes
Nominator's rationale: Small category with little or no potential for growth, especially since the hoax of soap made from human corpses originated World War I, over 20 years before The Holocaust. Category creator notified using {{cfd-notify}}. –Black Falcon (Talk) 20:09, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. "The Holocaust" and "hoax" aren't exactly words that should be in the same category.--Mike Selinker (talk) 01:54, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and recat article. - I was seriously considering suggesting a rename to Category:Holocaust-related hoaxes. But after perusing the article in question, I feel that the stories of soap made from Holocaust victims (which I grew up hearing myself) cannot be properly described as a "hoax", because that term denotes deliberate intent, which apparently was not the case with respect to the Holocaust (even if it was the case during World War I). Cgingold (talk) 12:11, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not a useful intersection of concepts and the one article in the cat seems as much to do with WWI and historical reassessment and propaganda as with WWII. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:54, 26 March 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:Republic of Ireland templates[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: keep.--Aervanath (talk) 08:28, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Republic of Ireland templates to Category:Irish templates
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 March 18#European navigational boxes categories had no participation other than the person proposing the rename. In the case of this category, it is an incorrect change. Many of the templates contained in this category are nothing to do with the Republic of Ireland, be they relating to Northern Ireland, all-Ireland templates, or templates referring to before the partition of Ireland. Alternate suggestion for renaming is "Ireland templates". O Fenian (talk) 19:48, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Nominator does not seem to have stumbled onto Category:Northern Ireland navbox templates, which is not a sub of this one. Plus the parents are all "per country" cats, & the ROI is the country by WP conventions etc. There might be a case for establishing "Ireland templates" as a parent for both, but the nom as it stands would clearly be a bad idea. Johnbod (talk) 20:18, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be ignorant of the fact that prior to partition the country was called Ireland, and this category contains templates that deal with Ireland throughout history, and also templates that are all-Ireland not to do with the country. Unfortunately for your "per country" argument, due to partition and continuing all-Ireland organisations, Ireland will always be a special case. This is the parent category, it was incorrectly renamed. O Fenian (talk) 20:23, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It clearly isn't the parent category, as it doesn't contain the NI one. All-Ireland templates should be in both categories, or the parent I have mooted. Or maybe there is a case for an all-Ireland cat below the NI & ROI ones. What there is no case for is putting all Irish templates into one category in a by-country scheme. Johnbod (talk) 04:15, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse renaming There was no proposel or discussion other than the person proposing the rename. This effects a number of projects and articles and no notice was afforded to anyone. O Fenian's rationale is correct and it was incorrectly renamed. --Domer48'fenian' 20:40, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as the category for templates dealing with the country-referred-to-in-WP-categories as the "Republic of Ireland" (yes, yes—I know—that's not the "real" name of the country ...) As Johnbod says, there may be a justification for having Category:Irish templates as a parent category to this one and to Category:Northern Ireland navbox templates. Category:Irish templates could also include relevant templates for pre-Republic of Ireland information. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:45, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But this isn't the category for templates dealing with the country-referred-to-in-WP-categories as the "Republic of Ireland", it never has been look at the templates in it. That's why the rename was wrong in the first place. O Fenian (talk) 21:49, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's not as clear-cut as you're making it out to be. Some are ROI templates, some are not. E.g., is not Template:Life in the Republic of Ireland a ROI template? Template:Supermarkets in Ireland—clearly limited to ROI. If some are miscategorized, then the solution is to remove them and to place them in a newly-created Category:Irish templates, which could be a parent category. If we only want one category for all of these, your rename would be appropriate, but with the number we're dealing with I don't see a problem with subcategorization. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:17, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Then fix the problems you are arguing to keep, since you are making more work for the people that have to deal with the consequences of your comments, as I bet you do nothing to fix them afterwards. I am not wasting my time sorting out a large number of templates and categories that are incorrect because of a proposal by one editor that nobody else agreed with that has messed up an entire system. If you want to keep the current system, fix the problems it has created. All the parrot-like repeating of "by country system is correct" ignores that Ireland does not fit neatly into systems like that, and never will because of the political history of the island. O Fenian (talk) 00:29, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is your proposal, so I would hope that you too would be interested in "fixing" things, regardless of the consensus outcome. The fact that other users disagree with your particular proposal is no reason to dole out work assignments. At the end of the day, if you think something is wrong, then you can choose to fix it, as can I, but it's no one's "responsibility" to do so. And please, don't accuse other users of "parrot-like" repetition when they disagree with you. Maybe I actually thought about this before I commented; whether I did or not, you certainly have no information about this. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:39, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My proposal does fix things. If you object the proposal, you can fix it yourself as I have no intention of fixing problems created by one editor when my perfectly reasonable proposal to fix it has been scuppered. And if the cap fits.. O Fenian (talk) 00:53, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
O'Fenian's comment about the "political history of the island" is demonstrably wrong. The mainspace category tree works very well with Category:Ireland and its descendants for all-Ireland categories, and Category:Republic of Ireland and Category:Northern Ireland and their sub-cats for articles specific to those respective jurisdictions. No reason has been advanced why the same cannot work for template categories. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:19, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There was no consensus for this change, and none was sought. This change is not without controversy, and the subject of much debate [1], [2] . The logic of lets break it first and decide who fix’s it later is a none runner. In light of the above discussions it should be returned to its former position the alternative being to ignore the efforts of editors working on a solution. --Domer48'fenian' 19:34, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Or, we could just decide via consensus what to do. That seems to me like the best way to move forward, as opposed to focusing on the past. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:06, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment this category contains templates that related to both parts of Ireland and some that are Republic of Ireland specific. The category should be purged of the former, which should be put into Category:Ireland templates, OR renamed as nominated then purged of the ROI-specific ones, which can be put into a reconstituted Category:Republic of Ireland templates. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:02, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - but we probably need an equivalent "All Ireland" category for (1) cross border institutions (e.g. Trades Unions and Rugby Union) (2) pre-partition Ireland. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:56, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a clear and unambiguous name for templates relating to the 26-county state which is described Irish in law as the Republic of Ireland. By all means create an all-Ireland parent category if needed (per PeterKingiron), but since there are so many templates which relate only to the Republic, this is a better starting point. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:15, 27 March 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:Roller coasters in the Tampa Bay Area[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 13:59, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Roller coasters in the Tampa Bay Area to Category:Roller coasters in Tampa, Florida
Nominator's rationale: These are all at Busch Gardens Africa, which is in the city of Tampa.--Mike Selinker (talk) 16:21, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Are there no other roller coasters in the metro area? -choster (talk) 01:18, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Who knows? (Well, Tampanians, maybe.) But that's not what counts, because this set of roller coasters is in Tampa. If some other articles get written about roller coasters in Thonotosassa or Lutz, a category can be built to include those.--Mike Selinker (talk) 03:11, 26 March 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.

Chicago[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 13:58, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Defunct companies of Chicago to Category:Defunct companies of Chicago, Illinois
Propose renaming Category:Films shot in Chicago to Category:Films shot in Chicago, Illinois
Propose renaming Category:Chicagoland bicycle trails to Category:Bike paths in the Chicago metropolitan area
Nominator's rationale: Here are some stragglers from the rename of stateless subcategories of Category:Chicago, Illinois. While "Chicagoland" is very familiar to those who've lived there (like myself), all other such categories use "the Chicago metropolitan area".--Mike Selinker (talk) 16:21, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose to match title of parent article Chicago, which does not have state in its title per the far broader consensus reached (and described in detail) at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names)#United States. Alansohn (talk) 02:39, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • rename per nom. The goal of an enclopedia is not make people guess, guess, guess. It is to provide information for people looking for information they do not know. This and the other renames clarify the situation. Hmains (talk) 20:21, 27 March 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.

Music[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 but Category:Hawaiian music. Kbdank71 13:58, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Music in Denver to Category:Music of Denver, Colorado
Propose renaming Category:Music in Omaha to Category:Music of Omaha, Nebraska
Propose renaming Category:Music of Detroit to Category:Music of Detroit, Michigan
Propose renaming Category:St. Louis music to Category:Music of St. Louis, Missouri
Propose renaming Category:Lexington, KY Music to Category:Music of Lexington, Kentucky (or upmerge to Category:Culture of Lexington, Kentucky)
Propose renaming Category:Wisconsin music to Category:Music of Wisconsin
Propose renaming Category:Hawaiian music to Category:Music of Hawaii
Nominator's rationale: This is a new nomination of music categories from this nomination, plus a couple others. This time, I've made it match the "Music of (X)" format found throughout Category:Music of United States subdivisions. The last one is debatable; is "Hawaiian music" a genre like "Chicago blues," or a description of where the music comes from? I'd vote for the latter.--Mike Selinker (talk) 15:54, 25 March 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.

New Orleans[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. If I may quote from the "general naming convention" section of the relevant conventions: "Choose category names that are able to stand alone, independent of the way a category is connected to other categories." Nothing explicit is said in this section about "match the category name to the article title", as suggested, but this is a general rule of thumb that has been adopted by consensus for many situations. However, another general convention states that "For a pre-existing category, the article of the same or similar name and (rarely, or) on the same topic should be added to that category." (emphasis added). So the conventions themselves envisage situations where the category name will be similar to, but not identical to, the article name. In any case, this seems to be the general format adopted by general consensus for categories related to cities and towns in the United States, and there is no real need to single out NO for special treatment. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:27, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Bridges in New Orleans to Category:Bridges in New Orleans, Louisiana
Propose renaming Category:Canals in New Orleans to Category:Canals in New Orleans, Louisiana
Propose renaming Category:Hotels in New Orleans to Category:Hotels in New Orleans, Louisiana
Propose renaming Category:Hurricane Katrina recovery in New Orleans to Category:Hurricane Katrina recovery in New Orleans, Louisiana
Propose renaming Category:New Orleans Mardi Gras to Category:Mardi Gras in New Orleans, Louisiana
Propose renaming Category:New Orleans mayoral elections to Category:New Orleans, Louisiana mayoral elections
Propose renaming Category:Parks in New Orleans to Category:Parks in New Orleans, Louisiana
Propose renaming Category:Roman Catholic high schools in New Orleans to Category:Roman Catholic secondary schools in New Orleans, Louisiana
Propose renaming Category:Songs about New Orleans to Category:Songs about New Orleans, Louisiana
Nominator's rationale: Here are a few stragglers in the renaming process of stateless subcategories of Category:New Orleans, Louisiana. These are the related nominations concerning bridges, schools, and hotels and parks; there's also a previous nomination containing the songs category. The Category:Roman Catholic secondary schools tree exclusively uses "secondary schools" rather than "high schools". Finally, while "New Orleans Mardi Gras" is the name of the article, the name of the festival is "Mardi Gras," and it's only because there are multiple Mardi Gras that we need to distinguish, so I picked that formatting.--Mike Selinker (talk) 15:45, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yet again, I have to point out that the rule for category names is not "absolutely always disambiguated by state no matter what"; it's "match the category name to the article title". The article is at New Orleans, not at "New Orleans, Louisiana", and therefore categories get named in the format New Orleans. Therefore the correct thing to do here is the reverse: anything named in the "New Orleans, Louisiana" format should be getting renamed the other way. Do not rename. Bearcat (talk) 18:38, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • rename per nom. The goal of an enclopedia is not make people guess, guess, guess. It is to provide information for people looking for information they do not know. This and the other renames clarify the situation. Hmains (talk) 04:07, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How on earth does "match category name to article title" make people have to guess at anything? Bearcat (talk) 20:05, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose to match title of parent article New Orleans, which does not have state in its title per the far broader consensus reached (and described in detail) at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names)#United States. I'm unsure of what exactly the guessing problem is. Anyone who has spent any reasonable amount of time in article space knows that most major cities around the world use a city-only title, unless there is some likelihood of confusion. There may well be some other places named New Orleans, but New Orleans refers unambiguously to the city on Louisiana to anyone with even the most basic awareness of geography. Most of the city-based categories are for these large cities like New Orleans. Furthermore, we have a broad consensus that categories should reflect the titles of parent articles. Rather than clarifying anything, these proposed renames muddle the situation, creating a clear conflict between the narrow interests of the CfD world and those set by the Wikipedia community as a whole. It's time that we all started respecting that consensus. Alansohn (talk) 02:52, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom for clarity. By the way, the article title for Category:Songs about New Orleans is not New Orleans, it's Songs about New Orleans. Oops, redlink. Anyway, matching the parent article, while yes, has broad consensus, it also has exceptions. "New Orleans" may be unambiguous to everyone in this discussion, but is it for everyone reading Wikipedia? --Kbdank71 13:56, 31 March 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:Muffler Men[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. Kbdank71 13:45, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Muffler Men (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Category for a single article and a single photo which is already on that same article, with very little prospect of expansion. Category:Roadside attractions should be sufficient here. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 15:10, 25 March 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:Communications satellites in geostationary orbit[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: Proposed new category created, renaming not necessary. Non-admin close. Cgingold (talk) 08:10, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Communications satellites in geostationary orbit to Category:Communications satellites in geosynchronous orbit
Nominator's rationale: Geostationary orbit is a subset of geosynchronous orbit, and while the majority of communications satellites are in geostationary orbit, there are some in geosynchronous orbits that are not geostationary. Seeing as there is little distinction, and this category already includes several satellites that are in inclined (non-geostationary) geosynchronous orbits, for example, AMC-14, I feel that the broader title would be more appropriate. An alternative would be to create a separate category for inclined orbits, and move the offending articles there. GW… 11:42, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wasn't sure if the distinction was large enough to warrant two categories. I did list that option as a possible alternative to renaming. --GW… 12:36, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, I read your comment slightly differently since you didn't specify the (same) name and you didn't mention using it as a parent cat. If you agree that this is a good solution, it can be implemented without further discussion here since no rename is required. Cgingold (talk) 19:11, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that this can be split without discussion here. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:21, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)This was split based on the discussion mentioned in the CfR for Category:Geostationary orbit and the name matches the parent. I do not object to splitting Category:Communications satellites in geostationary orbit. So my suggestion is that rather then a rename, we consider the merits of a rename or a split. I know that we have some of the communications satellites in tundra orbit and some in polar orbit. It is my understanding that these polar orbits may or may not be a geosynchronous orbit. While the article is not clear, I don't believe that the Iridium satellites are in geosynchronous orbit. Do you know if that is the case? If not, that would be good reason to not use Category:Communications satellites in geosynchronous orbit for all of these. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:18, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Iridium is LEO, so neither category would be applicable. Perhaps Category:Communications satellites in low Earth orbit? A geosynchronous orbit is any orbit with a 24 hour period. Geostationary orbits are circular orbits with a 24 hour period and zero inclination. --GW… 21:56, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with that. Do we need to worry about a medium Earth orbit category? I believe that one of the Telstar communications satellites was in this type of orbit. Don't know if there are any others. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:11, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Seeing as the new cat has been created, is there any reason to leave this CFD open? If there are no objections, I will close it out in a couple of hours. Cgingold (talk) 03:29, 26 March 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.

Communities in Los Angeles County[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. Kbdank71 13:44, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Los Angeles County communities to Category:Communities in Los Angeles County, California Category:Settlements in Los Angeles County, California [see below for my reasons for changing this proposal]; Category:Census-designated places in Los Angeles County to Category:Census-designated places in Los Angeles County, California; Category:Cities in Los Angeles County to Category:Cities in Los Angeles County, California
Nominator's rationale: All categories dealing with counties in the United States include the name of the state, whether or not that county is the only one of its name nationwide. Thirteen other California counties have their own county-specific categories for communities, and all include "California", even though eleven of the county names are unique. There's no reason that this one should be any different. Moreover, all thirteen other countywide community categories use "Communities in _____ County, California", not "_____ County, California communities", so also proposing this change. Nyttend (talk) 11:23, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Other categories Also adding Category:Census-designated places in San Bernardino County and Category:Census-designated places in San Diego County to this nomination; unlike the remaining census-designated place categories statewide, these too lack the state name. These are the only other "CDPs in _____ County" categories; there are no other "Cities in _____ County" categories. Nyttend (talk) 11:31, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename Category:Los Angeles County communities to Category:Unincorporated communities in Los Angeles County, California instead, to match parent Category:Unincorporated communities in California; support other renames. Though honestly I would prefer to see all of these upmerged to their respective state-level parents and the general county categories. Subcategorizing classes of settlements by county hinders navigation at both the state and county levels, particularly if applied to counties with few settlements (and such systems tend to expand). Overly localized and specific categories are just a nuisance, particularly where templates already organize this information for each county (see, e.g., Template:Imperial County, California). Though maybe we could compromise by maintaining only state-level categories for specific classes of settlements, working with general settlement categories at the county-level? Postdlf (talk) 18:51, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • While I dislike this idea for most places, the sheer number of communities in Los Angeles County means that, in my mind, it's good to have a category to include all communities. Rather than renaming it to "unincorporated communities", what about renaming it simply to "communities" and creating a separate unincorporated communities category, thus using this as a parent for cities, CDPs, unincorporated communities, and neighborhoods? Nyttend (talk) 19:01, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's what we use "settlements" for in the category structure, as in Category:Settlements in California; there should then be a parent Category:Settlements in California by county. I think there's been some concern that "communities" may be ambiguous, as it can refer to a sociocultural community rather than a geographical location. Postdlf (talk) 19:11, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I see that all the county-level categories of this sort in Florida — the only state that has all its communities categorised in this fashion — use "Settlements in _____ County, Florida". Change proposal to rename this category to "Category:Settlements in Los Angeles County, California". Nyttend (talk) 19:24, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename. Consistent with what we're doing elsewhere.--Mike Selinker (talk) 18:55, 25 March 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.

Miami[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 13:42, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Films set in Miami to Category:Films set in Miami, Florida
Propose renaming Category:Neighborhoods in Miami to Category:Neighborhoods in Miami, Florida
Nominator's rationale: I missed these two in Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_March_10#Culture and Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_March_11#Geography.--Mike Selinker (talk) 09:12, 25 March 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:Categories named after criminals[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:Criminals.--Aervanath (talk) 08:20, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:Categories named after criminals to Category:Criminals
Nominator's rationale: Merge - I intend for this nomination to serve as a test nomination for the various categories and subcategories of Category:Categories named after people. This was discussed once previously in the context of IIRC a rename proposal to bring some categories into line with the naming format. Editors at that time questioned whether this layer of categorization was necessary between the subcategories and the "grandparent" category. I don't believe it is, any more than Category:Categories named after chemical elements is needed between Category:Chemical elements and Category:Oxygen. There is no research value in the question "are there other categories named after criminals?" and even if there were, simply clicking on Category:Criminals will answer it. In this particular instance, this is also a small category and two one of its sub-cats are is up for deletion, but given the size of some of the sibling categories that may not be completely germane. If consensus is to delete then I'd want us to look at other similar categories within the Category:Eponymous categories structure. Otto4711 (talk) 05:50, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Specifically, what is the difference between a category for a criminal and a category named for a criminal? Otto4711 (talk) 08:47, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The argument is not necessarily the same. It may be that some "named after" category schemes are warranted while others are not. Many/Most of the categories named after people seem unnecessary and redundant to their various grandparent categories. Why should someone looking for articles related to a specific person be made to go through a "categories named for" subcategory? Otto4711 (talk) 09:10, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no such implication. A category named after an actor can contain anything without contradiction. (This is why these 'named after' categories have to be kept apart from normal ones.) Occuli (talk) 09:52, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait. The inclusion of the Capone category in the criminals category implies that Ness is a criminal but inclusion in other "named after" categories doesn't imply that included articles are part of the parent cat? Does...not...compute... Otto4711 (talk) 09:56, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • For goodness sake. The category is named after an actor; the article and subcats can be anything at all. That's all. Over and out. These are more imaginary windmills. Occuli (talk) 10:30, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Over your head and out of your mind, maybe. First you say that including Category:Al Capone in Category:Criminals "would list Eliot Ness via subcats as a criminal". Then you say that there "is no such implication" regarding another type of named after category. You're directly contradicting yourself. Otto4711 (talk) 19:54, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Or there something wrong with your logic. Hmmm. Occuli (talk) 20:49, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
From WP:CAT - "When making one category a subcategory of another, ensure that the members of the first really can be expected (with possibly a few exceptions) to belong to the second also." Ergo, Category:Al Capone is not a subcat of Category:Criminals (a people category), because Category:Al Capone includes a church, several films, a memoir, a play and a whole subcat of law enforcement people, none of which are criminals. Ergo, your nom is seriously flawed. Occuli (talk) 21:52, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
By that logic, much of the sub-categorization system should be dismantled, including removing all albums by, songs by, books by, etc. sub-cats from the creator category (a song is not a singer, after all), removing all Foos by city subcats from the city categories (a church or a train station in Chicago is not a city) removing all chemical compound sub-cats from element categories (a compound is not an element). The idea that the criminal Al Capone can't be categorized directly as a criminal because his category includes a church or what-not is just stupid. Otto4711 (talk) 17:56, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the church from Capone's category, as the connection (his sister was married there) is far too tenuous for categorizing. Otto4711 (talk) 17:58, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • NB, that is not a discussion of categories named after people. I have already said that some branches of these named after may be warranted while others are not. Instead of trying to sidetrack the issue, try staying on the topic of categories named after people rather than categories named after universities, m'kay? Otto4711 (talk) 19:54, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Categories named after criminals - the members are categories.
Category:Criminals is Category:Articles about criminals - the members are articles.
A category is not an article so Category:Categories named after criminals cannot be a subcat of Category:Criminals; so a merge does not make any sense. ('We should not have "categories named after..." categories' is a separate argument.) From WP:CAT - "When making one category a subcategory of another, ensure that the members of the first really can be expected (with possibly a few exceptions) to belong to the second also." It follows that Category:Al Capone, which includes films, a play, and a variety of people who are not criminals, cannot be a subcat of Category:Criminals, just as Category:John Lennon, although named after someone from Liverpool, is not a subcat of Category:People from Liverpool. Occuli (talk) 01:27, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, Category:Criminals is Category:Criminals. If Category:Criminals was Category:Articles about criminals, a)it would be named Category:Articles about criminals, and b) we'd have to remove the 50 subcategories. If you really don't want to merge, at least rename it to something better, like Category:Criminals by name, to match other "FOO by state/nationality/status/hair color/hair colour/BAR/etc/etc/etc". "Categories named after..." is a horrible way to name categories. --Kbdank71 15:09, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You haven't understood this at all - a standard category comprises articles. A subcategory of it comprises a subselection of its articles. Category:Categories named after criminals is a category of categories. Its subcategories will be a subselection of its member categories. There is a very good case for getting rid of all these Category:Categories named after criminals, namely that non-mathematicians don't understand them and misplace them in standard categories. The intersection between Category:Categories named after criminals and Category:Criminals is empty. (Category:Criminals by name is something else again; these would be articles, not categories.) Occuli (talk) 16:06, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm understanding it just fine. Problem is, you are artificially creating limitations to categories and I am not. A "standard category" comprises whatever is put into it, be it just articles, just subcategories, just media, or a combination of any or all of the above. There is nothing that states certain categories can only contain articles. Nothing that states a category that contains other categories must be named "Categories named after..." These are self-imposed limitations that cause unnecessary duplication and create poorly named categories. I can't tell you how many categories there are that contain both a subcategory and an article of the same name. Why should criminals be any different? It's really not that difficult or confusing. --Kbdank71 17:46, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A standard category contains only articles as members. A subcategory is a subcategory, not a member. You have not understood this. This is why we upmerge; the articles in the subcat are transported upwards into the cat, the subcat disappears and no members are lost. If we upmerge Category:Al Capone into Category:Categories named after criminals we would get a lot of nonsense. This is because it is a member of Category:Categories named after criminals, not a subcategory. Indeed, as you say, it is not that difficult. Occuli (talk) 14:47, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean, the subcat is lost on upmerge? Not at all. When upmerging, everything in the subcat, be it articles, other categories, files, whatever, are upmerged. "the subcat disappears" is false. What exactly am I not understanding? As for Al Capone, I wouldn't upmerge it into Category:Categories named after criminals because that wouldn't make sense. --Kbdank71 13:35, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Never mind, I got what you were saying. We might as well leave it at you think articles should go into Category:Foo and categories should be subcats of something named Category:Categories named after Foo. I think both articles and categories can go into Category:Foo with no need for the "Categories named after..." layer. I don't think either of us are going to convince the other at this point. --Kbdank71 13:41, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But I'll try one more time. Category:Cities in Los Angeles County, California is a perfect example in which categories and articles can co-exist in the same parent category. We don't need to have Category:Categories named after cities in Los Angeles County, California, it's just unnecessary. --Kbdank71 16:44, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. First, the category system is whatever we the editors make it into. And IMHO categories with titles like Categories named after... should only contain categories, but Category:Criminals should contain whatever we deem fit to put in there. The question is - what use are these named after... cats ? Well they have interest value. If you are browsing the encyclopedia rather than searching for something, then you can go "Oh, look this person has their own category, let's have a look at the articles about this person". They also make it easier to find such categories rather than being scattered amongst a more general category such as criminals. What should happen in my opinion is that Category:Categories named after criminals should be made a subcategory of Category:Criminals and likewise a similar thing should happen to all these named after ... cats - they should be made subcats of cats that people might be browsing. Occuli argued against this above on the grounds that categories are not articles. So what ?. The category Category:Criminals will be browsed by people interested in the subject and they would certainly be interested in criminals who have their own category. Charvest (talk) 01:09, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, jc37 08:54, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - not again ... As a more general comment on these, which seem to be more trouble than they are worth, how is it decided to put Category:Al Capone into Category:Categories named after criminals (the article is not directly in Category:Criminals) and not into Category:Categories named after people from Chicago, or Category:Categories named after XXX where XXX could be anything from the 12 categories in which Al Capone has been placed or indeed something more trivial? (I don't agree with Charvest that categories should be independent of the laws of logic, although many are as anyone can fiddle around with category inclusions. {{CatRel}} can be used to link Cat:XXX to Cat:Categories named after XXX.) Occuli (talk) 11:36, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. I really don't want to get into the debate about Category for X versus Category for categories for X (in general, I don't think the two should be separate in the absence of special circumstances), but in this case it's not worth having a separate "Categories named after..." category for just two subcats. –Black Falcon (Talk) 19:48, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. I essentially agree with Black Falcon. I'm not sure what I think about this issue more broadly, but I agree that in this case there's little utility for the category. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:47, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. I find this idea of categories of categories that are parallel to the structure of categories, subcats, and articles more confusing than helpful to users. --Clay Collier (talk) 09:27, 2 April 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-inclusive rugby union teams[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:Rugby union teams with six White guys, three Blacks, and a Latino. Whoops, I meant rename to Category:International Gay Rugby Association and Board member clubs. Kbdank71 13:22, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:LGBT-inclusive rugby union teams (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - at first glance this appears to be overcategorization on the basis of shared opinion about whether or not including LGBT people on rugby teams is a good thing. Some of the included teams are primarily LGBT in origin while others are simply "welcoming" or "inclusive". If this is kept, something needs to be done about the name as, as it stands, if a team simply has an openly LGBT player or say they wouldn't mind if they did it falls under this category. Otto4711 (talk) 07:03, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • A category for LGBT-specific rugby union teams might not be a bad idea, if there are enough to support one, but one that crossgroups LGBT-specific teams with mainstream ones that simply welcome LGBT members is indeed less than useful. So I propose a two-pronged approach here: remove non-LGBT-specific teams first. Then rename the category to a more specific title if there are enough left over to support a category, but delete it instead if there aren't. Bearcat (talk) 15:03, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can't see any "mainstream" clubs, & the cat note seems to exclude them (in the most PC-possible way of course). But IGRAB may be the route to take - see below. Johnbod (talk) 20:25, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank God we have you to stem the tide Carlos! :) Johnbod (talk) 20:25, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2nd choice would be ok - or restriction to IGRAB members could just be added to the cat note. Johnbod (talk) 20:22, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It would be if this is what was happening. But it seems fairly clear that "welcoming" is PC-speak for "almost entirely composed of". The Washington Renegades RFC are "welcoming" but from the ref this means "predominantly gay" and looking at the squad photo their attempt also to recruit "men of color" seems to be doing about as well as the US Senate. Bears rule! Johnbod (talk) 04:19, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Correct! "Welcoming" is code-word in LGBT culture that you don't have to be openly-LGBT; this is similarly employed in Gay-Strait alliances and PFLAG groups. It also allows that, for instance, two brothers, one gay, the other not, could join regardless of labels. -- Banjeboi 14:50, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename to Category:International Gay Rugby Association and Board so the cat can include BLPs, etc. It can be divided later if needed. -- Banjeboi 14:49, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Which biographies do you think should be included? Thanks, –Black Falcon (Talk) 18:58, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Mark Bingham would certainly be one, as the history of the organization is expanded Scott Glaessgen would likely be a candidate; I recall seeing a film about him and the New York team he founded. -- Banjeboi 03:01, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thank you for your response, but would not Category:(Club name) players be more appropriate for individuals who played for IGRAB member clubs? –Black Falcon (Talk) 07:13, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Once there's enough to populate a category, sure. But until then having one category for all the related articles and then subdividing would seem to be the way to go. In this case we'd have a parent and likely a subcat of the clubs that have articles. -- Banjeboi 17:09, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep / consider rename Looking through the articles in the category, it's clear that most describe their LGBT-welcoming nature as a fundamental and defining aspect of their structure and organization, despite my assumption that this would be a likely delete. While it's not unusual for Otto and I to be on opposite sides of the fence on CfD issues, this probably also marks one of the few times I have ever seen Otto voting to delete an LGBT-related category. No opposition to a rename to reflect IGRAB membership. Alansohn (talk) 03:12, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Honestly, the only reason it's marked as delete is because the cfd2 template, unlike the cfr2 and cfm2 templates, doesn't put the word Delete on the screen when one is typing out one's reasons for taking the action and I couldn't be arsed to go back in and edit my comment (to say Delete? or Discuss) once posted. As I've said before, whoever changed cfd2 so that it quit allowing for that modification did a real disservice and I really hope someone takes the initiative and changes the template back to the way it was. I'd do it myself if I knew how to code it. Otto4711 (talk) 04:34, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I changed templates cfd and cfd2 and cfd2 should work the same way as cfm2/cfr2 now, Otto. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:06, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support rename to include only IGRAB teams. (disclosure: am creator of cat in question) The intention of the cat was for IGRAB-type teams (though could not call it "LGBT teams" since not all players are LGBT, resulting in the awkward "LGBT-inclusive" naming). Applying the category only to IGRAB teams would snag most of not all of the articles, fufilling the spirit of the cat while avoiding the problems of the current naming. Outsider80 (talk) 23:04, 30 March 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:Indian vegetarians[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 13:14, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Indian vegetarians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete I don't think this category is adding value to the encyclopedia. Anshuk (talk) 06:38, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You may well be correct in your surmise as to what motivated this CFD. If it were the case that ALL Indians were vegetarians, with no (or only very rare) exceptions, then we could perhaps simply make Category:Indian people a sub-cat of Category:Vegetarians by nationality. But of course, that would, in reality, be a silly thing to do. Cgingold (talk) 20:38, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Otto, although it is perhaps akin to 'Iraqi teetotallers' as Goodolf points out. Occuli (talk) 12:50, 27 March 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:Moderates[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. Kbdank71 13:14, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Moderates (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. This category is being used to house American (and a few Canadian and various other random nationalities) politicians that somebody has decided are "moderate". Recall that the following have been deleted: Liberals, Conservatives, American liberal politicians, Neoconservatives, American conservatives, and American liberals. The argument supporting deletion of this category is similar to those set out in these discussions. This is just one more category that was created in an apparent attempt to make Category:People by political orientation "comprehensive", but the category is problematic because of the subjective nature of how "moderate" could be and is defined. (For a great example of a problematic attempt to define, see the category "definition".) And even if we can adequately define "liberal", "moderate", and "conservative", no one is uniformly "moderate" on every conceivable issue. The result is people will be added to the category for a variety of reasons, the vast majority of which will be subjective and POV. Who decides John Kerry is a moderate? There are a vast number of people who would consider him a flaming liberal. But we don't categorize him as liberal, because that's POV. So too is this. Gerald Ford—a moderate? Purely an opinion, and one that depends mightily on your POV. We could go on (don't get me started on Ellen Tauscher), but I'm sure you get the idea ... Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:52, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom as irredeemably subjective. The meaning of the term "moderate" is subjective and highly context-dependent; its definition varies across political systems and issues, and from person to person. In addition, the political orientation of politicians is variable over time and across issues. Politicians' positions on any single issue are constantly (albeit usually gradually) changing to adapt to new circumstances. Also, just because a politician happens to be at the middle of the political spectrum on one issue does not guarantee that she will be at the middle on other issues. –Black Falcon (Talk) 06:08, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Americans are not the totality of the world. 76.66.193.69 (talk) 06:30, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom & precedent. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:13, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and precedent. It's clearly a term in widespread use, but it's a characterization, which makes it POV and context-dependent; i.e., a lousy basis for a category. Postdlf (talk) 19:28, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Black Falcon (talk · contribs). A highly subjective category. ♪Tempo di Valse ♪ 03:22, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A person may be a moderate in one area and a radical in another. The whole idea is highly subjective, which makes it a POV category. If it should remain at all, its only contents should be any political parties using the term "moderate" in their name. The term was once used in English local government, but no longer. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:02, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all above as hopelessly subjective. The category definition is almost comic in its recentism. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:36, 27 March 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.

Cuisine[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/merge per nom, with the expectation that some of these may be deleted or further renamed to replace "cuisine" with "food and drink" (or something similar). Kbdank71 13:13, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming: Category:Boston cuisine to Category:Cuisine of Boston, Massachusetts
Propose renaming: Category:Chicago cuisine to Category:Cuisine of Chicago, Illinois
Propose renaming: Category:Cincinnati cuisine to Category:Cuisine of Cincinnati, Ohio
Propose renaming: Category:Detroit cuisine to Category:Cuisine of Detroit, Michigan
Propose renaming: Category:Lancaster, Pennsylvania cuisine to Category:Cuisine of Lancaster, Pennsylvania
Propose renaming: Category:Louisville cuisine to Category:Cuisine of Louisville, Kentucky
Propose renaming: Category:New Orleans cuisine to Category:Cuisine of New Orleans, Louisiana
Propose renaming: Category:New York City cuisine to Category:Cuisine of New York City
Propose renaming: Category:Cuisine of Omaha to Category:Cuisine of Omaha, Nebraska
Propose renaming: Category:Philadelphia cuisine to Category:Cuisine of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Propose renaming: Category:Pittsburgh cuisine to Category:Cuisine of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
Propose renaming: Category:Food and dining in the San Francisco Bay Area to Category:Cuisine of the San Francisco Bay Area
Propose renaming: Category:St. Louis cuisine to Category:Cuisine of St. Louis, Missouri
Propose merging: Category:St. Louis Food to Category:Cuisine of St. Louis, Missouri
Propose merging: Category:St. Louis Drinks to Category:Cuisine of St. Louis, Missouri
Nominator's rationale: Though the predominant leaning of these categories is "(X) cuisine," I think it flows better as "Cuisine of (City), (State)," as per Category:Cuisine of Dallas, Texas. St. Louis is the only city to have its Food and Drinks broken into two categories, which seems overkill.--Mike Selinker (talk) 02:54, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all per nom and upmerge the St. Louis food and drinks categories. I agree with the nom that "Cuisine of [City]" and "Cuisine of [City], [State]" flow better than "[City] cuisine" and "[City], [State] cuisine", respectively, and there is ample precedent for changing "[City]" to "[City], [State]". –Black Falcon (Talk) 06:14, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a lot of these - come on, are there really that many dishes that can be defined at the city level to warrant this structure? To take the first off the list, is clam chowder really associated with Boston to the extent that it is not defined by other New England cities? A submarine sandwich? I had a really good sub sandwich just the other day. Category:Cuisine of Madison, Wisconsin? Consider how many categories would end up on Submarine sandwich and other foods (whose origin in many cases is the subject of speculation of the "some say that the first spoo was served in Wilkes-Barre in 1807 although others claim it was Hoboken in 1806" variety, in many instances without sourcing for either W-B or Hoboken) if this scheme were allowed to proliferate. Otto4711 (talk) 06:29, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't want to know where the first spoo was served. But I agree with Otto that at least a few of these seem suspect. (I certainly buy New Orleans, Chicago, New York, Philly, and St. Louis, though.)--Mike Selinker (talk) 07:03, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I also support emptying and deleting several of these categories, especially the ones that are populated primarily with articles about restaurants, shops, and clubs—their inclusion makes these categories seem like local dining guides. However, with 15 categories under consideration, discussing deletion of particular ones could really muddle the debate. –Black Falcon (Talk) 07:27, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Sure, that makes sense. Let's clean these up and then if there are some that people want to delete later, they can be nominated for deletion.--Mike Selinker (talk) 09:14, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename, the typical style for community categories (both big cities and smaller communities) is to have "_____ of [community, state]", so this would be most consistent. And definitely merge the St. Louis categories. Nyttend (talk) 11:38, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom and clean up at subsequent cfds if desired (I expect these are not the only cuisine cats that are suspect). Occuli (talk) 11:58, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all to Food and drink in/of Foo avoiding "cusine" which implies special regional dishes widely eaten, which is only a part of what these contain, & to non-US ears is likely to confuse or not be understood, or just sound pretentious. Johnbod (talk) 18:48, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • That change would affect many hundreds of categories in the Category:Cuisine tree. This nomination just concerns 15 categories. If you want to make that change, I suggest nominating the parent category.--Mike Selinker (talk) 18:58, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I like that idea. I find calling St. Louis-style pizza cuisine somewhat questionable. The only issue is what to do with any categories that might really be about cuisine? Vegaswikian (talk) 19:44, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, but... I have no objection to the "Cuisine of Foo" format, but to match the title of parent articles Boston, Chicago, Cincinnati, Detroit, New Orleans, Philadelphia and Pittsburgh, which do not have state in their title per the far broader consensus reached (and described in detail) at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names)#United States, the state should be omitted in all of these category titles. Alansohn (talk) 03:23, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom under the assumption that there will be cleanup and renames to follow. I think that a rename to Food and drink in/of Foo is going to be needed for most of these, but that can happen in the near future. I also don't oppose the emptying of the cuisine categories if someone actually decides to create the Food and drink in/of Foo categories. As far as adding the state goes, it is a long standing consensus that category names should not be ambiguous. The nature of categories makes miscategorization all to easy when you allow ambiguous category names. Clearly names like Detroit, Philadelphia and others are ambiguous and must to be avoided. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:22, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_March_25&oldid=1140250911"