Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 October 20

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< October 19 October 21 >

October 20[edit]

Category:Dio[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. postdlf (talk) 18:42, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Dio to Category:Dio (band)
Nominator's rationale: Rename. To match main article Dio (band). Dio is ambiguous. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:00, 21 October 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:Can[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: postdlf (talk) 18:56, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Can to Category:Can (band)
Nominator's rationale: Rename. To match main article Can (band). Can is ambiguous. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:55, 20 October 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:Abrocomidae[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:40, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Abrocomidae to Category:Chinchilla rats
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Same thing again: main article is at chinchilla rat. Ucucha 16:47, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename - straightforward common name. --Aranae (talk) 16:59, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Rename to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 20:19, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nominator. gidonb (talk) 11:23, 28 October 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:Capromyidae[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:40, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Capromyidae to Category:Hutias
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Same as for Ctenomys below: main article is at hutia. Ucucha 16:45, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename - straightforward common name. --Aranae (talk) 16:59, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Rename to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 20:19, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nominator. gidonb (talk) 11:24, 28 October 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:Ctenomys[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:40, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Ctenomys to Category:Tuco-tucos
Nominator's rationale: Rename. The main article is located at "tuco-tuco", which is a well-established common name and should therefore be used for the category. Ucucha 16:42, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename - straightforward common name. --Aranae (talk) 17:00, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nominator. gidonb (talk) 11:23, 28 October 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.

Minesweepers, Minelayers, and Minehunters by navy[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 all. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 16:22, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming or merging (as appropriate):
Minesweepers by navy
Category:Royal Canadian Navy minesweepers to Category:Minesweepers of the Royal Canadian Navy
Category:Canadian Forces minesweepers to Category:Minesweepers of the Canadian Forces
Category:Indian Navy minesweepers to Category:Minesweepers of the Indian Navy
Category:Royal New Zealand Navy minesweepers to Category:Minesweepers of the Royal New Zealand Navy
Category:Royal Navy minesweepers to Category:Minesweepers of the Royal Navy
Category:United States Navy minesweepers to Category:Minesweepers of the United States Navy
Minelayers by navy
Category:Royal Navy minelayers to Category:Minelayers of the Royal Navy
Category:United States Army minelayers to Category:Minelayers of the United States Army
Category:United States Navy minelayers to Category:Minelayers of the United States Navy
Minehunters by navy
Category:United States Navy coastal minehunters to Category:Minehunters of the United States Navy
Nominator's rationale: For consistency with common naming style employed by other subcategories of Category:Minesweepers by navy, Category:Minelayers by navy, and Category:Minehunters by navy. — Bellhalla (talk) 16:02, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Renames for consistency with other entries in the respective parent categories. Alansohn (talk) 20:24, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all per nominator. Debresser (talk) 20:05, 22 October 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:Myotis[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; no prejudice for which name is correct - current choice is based on currnet location of article. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:47, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:Myotis to Category:Mouse-eared bats
Nominator's rationale: Merge. Duplicate, and the article is at mouse-eared bat. I am not entirely convinced that "mouse-eared bat" is a common enough name for Myotis to be used here; I would also be happy with merging in the other direction. Ucucha 13:35, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, but I don't have strong feelings as to which direction. This is actually one of the few examples where the genus actually is used as the common name with some frequency. Nevertheless, it may be better to go with the article title for the category and let the discussion of which name to use take place there. --Aranae (talk) 17:04, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with light preference for the direction that was suggested by the nominator. gidonb (talk) 11:43, 28 October 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:Paleoconservatives[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. --Xdamrtalk 23:31, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Paleoconservatives (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. This category for an imprecise, informal political characterization. Category:Conservatives, Category:Neoconservatives, and Category:Liberals have been deleted previously. Another problem is that many of the articles in the category have no mention of the affiliation in their text.   Will Beback  talk  05:48, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - too ambiguous of a category. One man's 'Paleoconservative" is another man's "conservative" is another man's "libertarian." This will just lead to edit warring over what characterization to give to a bio.--Blargh29 (talk) 06:04, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and per extensive precedent against the use of similarly vague political characterizations in category names. Postdlf (talk) 23:07, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- too vague, possibly even an attack category (not sure). To me as an Englishman a Conservative is a member of a certain political party; a conservative is a person holding a certain kind of view (usually traditionalist), but a person may have a conservative attitude in one area and a liberal one in another. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:21, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I've wondered about this. I don't think this category is any different than the "neoconservatives" category, and people are probably less likely to self-identify as a "paleoconservative", as it has a bit more of a negative tinge to it. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:16, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. At least the others were moderately well-defined in modern usage (but still worthy of deletion). I'm not sure this would even have that going for it. --Aranae (talk) 21:30, 22 October 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:Campaign 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: NOT MERGED. postdlf (talk) 18:59, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:Campaign managers to Category:Political consultants
Nominator's rationale: The difference between being a "campaign manager" and a "political consultant" is almost imperceptible. Blargh29 (talk) 05:23, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I would have thought that a manager takes on a one-time task/campaign; whereas an advisor/consultant is there on a long-term basis. They appear to be sufficiently different although very closely related. Twiceuponatime (talk) 13:33, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disagree I think there is a conceivably huge difference between a "campaign manager" and a "political consultant". Debresser (talk) 20:04, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Debresser. gidonb (talk) 11:30, 28 October 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 campaign 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: NOT MERGED. postdlf (talk) 19:00, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:American campaign managers to Category:American political consultants
Nominator's rationale: The difference between being a "campaign manager" and a "political consultant" is almost imperceptible. Blargh29 (talk) 05:22, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disagree I think there is a conceivably huge difference between a "campaign manager" and a "political consultant". Debresser (talk) 20:04, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep both as the difference is not at all almost imperceptible. For the overlap, categorize "campaign managers" also under political consultants. gidonb (talk) 11:44, 28 October 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:Food utensils[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 Category:Food utensils to Category:Cooking utensils. --Xdamrtalk 23:33, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Food utensils to Category:Cooking tools
Nominator's rationale: Category:Eating utensils has been broken out (both should be under Category:Kitchenware). Also, the stub category is called Category:Cooking tool stubs already. FiveRings (talk) 04:47, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Amazon (which actually pays people to do lexicon work) uses "Bar and Wine tools" and "Baking Tools" but "Cooking Utensils". I have no idea why. FiveRings (talk) 18:38, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Cooking utensils after some web research, per use common names. gidonb (talk) 11:39, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm ok with this, though perhaps Cooking tools should then be a meta-category under kitchenware, but including Cooking utensils and (the existing category) Cooking appliances. FiveRings (talk) 20:37, 29 October 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:Wikipedians of Breton ancestry[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. postdlf (talk) 19:30, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Wikipedians of Breton ancestry (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - Per past consensus, "Wikipedians by ancestry" categories do not support collaboration (i.e. don't benefit the encyclopedia), as you can't choose your ancestry so categorizing such users together is as meaningless as categorizing users by eye color. VegaDark (talk) 03:53, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the Wikipedians by Ethnicity actually refers to ancestry. Just look at the Gaelic category ("the blood of the Gaels runs through their vains"). I care little about genetics or the outdated concept of race, however, ancestry matters to those who care about the culture they are descended from.

If that category doesn't "benefit the encyclopedia", then neither do any of the ethnicity categories either. SO if delete that, you would have to delete the others. Ethnicity on an English encyclopedia (with the possible acception of the ethnicities that speak the English language) is as meaningless as categorizing users by eye colour". How can you really choose ethnicity and nationality, pray tell? Yes, you can gain citizenship but you cannot quite change your ethnicity (and in the case of some countries (e.g. the UK) you cannot lose your nationality if you are born into it). So you have no real, valid argument in my opinion. The Mummy (talk) 10:46, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Most of the "Wikipedians by Ethnicity" actually refers to ancestry - I agree, which is why I have nominated several for deletion. See here and here. ancestry matters to those who care about the culture they are descended from - This is exactly my problem with this category, the key part being what I emphasised - Some people go through user categories and simply add everything that applies to them, regardless of interest. This is why categorizing users by a characteristic they can't choose is meaningless. Some may indeed wish to collaborate, while others have no knowledge or interest on their ancestry and simply add the category to their userpage because it applies. A far better name for a category geared towards collaboration would be Category:Wikipedians interested in Breton ancestry. SO if delete that, you would have to delete the others - I'd like to delete the others as well. The rest of your points I'm not sure what you mean - I never contended you could change your ethnicity, in fact I said just the opposite, and I never even mentioned nationality. VegaDark (talk) 22:05, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep I would actually keep all "ancestry" categories, because it is very likely that users who have a common ancestry would like to work together on articles related to their common ancestry. Note that often expatriates or people of a cetain ancestry, in short those who do not live in their ancestral homeland, are more actively interested in their ancestry than those who actually live there. Debresser (talk) 20:01, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oddly enough I actually am inbetween both opinions. I do think it should be kept (although I would actually wish to change it to Breton wikipedians as that implies someone from Brittany and people of Breton descend that claim Bretonic heritage), but I do think that ancestry is meaningless in regards to editing style for the most part and thus agree with you, VegaDark. And I think that actually genetics is always meaningless.

However, the popular consensus is that the wikipedian ethnic categories should remain. I do not see any of the Wikipedias by... as valid in the first place, merely a collection of little facts about each memember. Of course, if you plan on editing categories regarded your own ethnicity, then ancestry may come into play, as Debresser has stated - though I must admit that I really do not wish to edit Breton or Briton topics myself. The Mummy (talk) 08:09, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep belongs to the kind of user categories that may come helpful. gidonb (talk) 11:41, 28 October 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:Protected by Symantec[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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 11:32, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Protected by Symantec (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - First and foremost, this category has no indication it is a user category so it at minimum needs some sort of rename. However, categorizing those users who use Symantec products does not benefit the encyclopedia so I would strongly prefer deletion. VegaDark (talk) 03:53, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But there are other user catagories that does NOT benifit Wikipedia as well. Such catagories includes Users who use Internet Explorer, User using Microsoft Windows, etc. If I rename the catagory, will you consider not deleting it? --Tyw7  (Talk • Contributions) 12:53, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, Category:Wikipedians who use Windows was deleted for not supporting collaboration, while Category:Wikipedians who use Internet Explorer hasn't had a CfD, although I don't particularly think "Wikipedians by web browser" categories are very helpful. Either way, you should see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, as just because something else bad exists doesn't mean we should keep a different bad category. VegaDark (talk) 21:41, 21 October 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:Ernie Ashworth songs[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:36, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Ernie Ashworth songs to Category:Ernest Ashworth songs
Nominator's rationale: All of his singles were credited to Ernest Ashworth (see this Billboard page as an example) and the article is at Ernest Ashworth. Joel Whitburn also lists him as Ernest in the Hot Country Songs book. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 03:36, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Rename to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 20:54, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support to match title of parent article and per use common names. gidonb (talk) 11:19, 28 October 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:David Gilmour songs[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: keep. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:34, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:David Gilmour songs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - superfluous cat as only one song (Hushabye Mountain) is not and could not be in Category:Songs written by David Gilmour, which can contain all songs he has had a hand in (and few of his solo songs have wiki articles) Declan Clam (talk) 01:56, 20 October 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:Syd Barrett songs[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Keep. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:49, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Syd Barrett songs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: All Pink Floyd members have a 'songs written by' category, Syd's being Category:Songs written by Syd Barrett, as he has no great history of performing songs not written or co-written by himself this cat is superfluous and should be deleted Declan Clam (talk) 01:44, 20 October 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.

Rulers in Europe by century[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: NOT MERGED. While there is a clear consensus against merging the rulers categories to the monarchs categories, the discussion did not evince a clear consensus against reverse merging, so feel free to propose that in a future CFD. postdlf (talk) 19:04, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging

Category:8th-century rulers in Asia to Category:8th-century monarchs in Asia
Category:9th-century rulers in Asia to Category:9th-century monarchs in Asia
Category:10th-century rulers in Asia to Category:10th-century monarchs in Asia
Category:6th-century rulers in Europe to Category:6th-century monarchs in Europe
Category:7th-century rulers in Europe to Category:7th-century monarchs in Europe
Category:8th-century rulers in Europe to Category:8th-century monarchs in Europe
Category:9th-century rulers in Europe to Category:9th-century monarchs in Europe
Category:10th-century rulers in Europe to Category:10th-century monarchs in Europe
Category:11th-century rulers in Europe to Category:11th-century monarchs in Europe
Category:12th-century rulers in Europe to Category:12th-century monarchs in Europe
Category:13th-century rulers in Europe to Category:13th-century monarchs in Europe
Category:14th-century rulers in Europe to Category:14th-century monarchs in Europe
Nominator's rationale: Merge. These categories only contain monarchs. This change removes a layer of complexity from the category tree. Matches larger category system of rulers in Foo by century; see Europe, Asia, Africa, the Middle East. These categories were largly created and filled by me.
The very small number of non-monarch rulers recorded in monarchies can be just covered in the likes of Category:10th-century viceregal rulers or Category:9th-century heads of government-- without further dividing by continent until maybe the 17th- or 18th-century. Carlaude:Talk 01:04, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - not all rulers are monarchs. --Mais oui! (talk) 09:10, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - were the patriarchs of Constantinople monarchs? I've never heard to the referred to as such - and if they weren't, the two category names are not going to contain identical article lists. There also appear to be a handful of regents listed. Grutness...wha? 23:29, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment Various statements above about empty categories does not seem to match the facts of the actual categories or what they would become. Hmains (talk) 03:01, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I feel that it is important that participants in this deiscussion are made aware of the fact that the proposer has been going round emptying these cats AND blanking them, in explicit contradiction of WP:CFD instructions. Eg. please see the Users edits on 7 October. --Mais oui! (talk) 13:42, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • To me the edits on that date just look like the user was taking a category and creating a subcategory within it, believing that "monarchs" would be a subcategory of "rulers". If I had to guess, I would say the user worked on this for a bit and then decided that all the articles would belong in the subcategory, so he decided to do a rename proposal. (Carlaude can correct me if this guess is wrong.) Is there a diff you could provide for "blanking" of the categories? I couldn't see one. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:07, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK Good Olfactory, here ia an edit where he blanks the cats on 7 October (observe the revealing Edit summary!):
And other relevant diffs:
Note also that I caught the User removing the "rulers" cat from several medieval rulers, often adding the "monarchs" or "vice-regal" cats to neither monarchs nor vice-regal rulers, in his attempt to empty the cats.--Mais oui! (talk) 12:08, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
These look like questionable edits to me. That being said, I think now that this issue has been brought to this forum, it's best to give everyone the benefit of the doubt and leave the issue in the past. But if these types of edits continue they should be brought to an admin's attention. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:10, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mais oui!'s point is fair. In my experience of usage, a monarch is a ruler with no sovereign, but undeniably the duke of Saxony, counts of Flanders, earls of Northumbria, Lords of Galloway, and so on, are still rulers and are described as such in literature. Most rulers in the period of the cats in question are not monarchs. Renaming this cat narrows the meaning, so this has to be accommodated. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 22:50, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- I think the "rulers" category would make a good parent, for monarchs, head of government, and viceroys, but the articles should mostly be in monarchs, not rulers. I am not sure how this will be best achieved. It may be by the closing admin merging rulers to monarchs and then re-creating the rulers to be a new parent, but with a headnote discouraging it from being populated with articles. It might be useful to split the monarchs between Christian and Muslim, since some of the ccategories are becoming inconveniently large. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:33, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reverse merge -- Monarch usually implies King or emperor, whereas ruler is broader and the use of this term would enable, viceroys, regents, etc to be included. German princes in Flanders, Saxony, etc, who had at least an element of severeignty could also appear, but these should primarily be parent categories, with few actual articles. see my commetn above. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:24, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • So you prefer having viceroys and regents mixed in with monarchs, and not just in their own category?
    By the way a Monarch can "have various titles — king or queen, prince or princess... emperor or empress... or even duke or grand duke" and the many other titles as listed in two charts later in the same article. Carlaude:Talk 01:56, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I indicated before (9:08 pm, 21 October) I still do not understand what you are suggesting. Your statements conflict. How would "rulers... make a... parent, for monarchs, head of government" at all? How would we "reverse merge" and yet "these... be parent categories, with few actual articles"? Carlaude:Talk 02:05, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Either keep, and yes, the parent categories will be mostly empty, but still a valid structire. Or reverse merge, more or less per Peterkingiron, that is undo the nominator's work in creating these categories as unnecessary. Debresser (talk) 20:53, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clarification -- I am suggesting that the parent category should be "rulers" not monarchs. This should be a parent to rulers by country. The article contents of each category should be distributed by country, as the present category is a hotch-potch, which is too wide-ranging to be useful. It is too much to expect the closing admin to distribiute the contents, probably creating carious new categories in the process, so that initially the articles may need to be transferred (temporarily) to a continuing monarchs category, but this should be emptied by distributing the contents to (new) subcategories. Ultimately the monarchs by centuries categories should disappear and the rulers by century categories should primarily be parents to rulers by country and century categories. (Perhaps my previous comments have eben inconsistent). WE should not have articles both in parent and daughter categories, asa matter of principle. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:28, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • So it would be like this?
If so then I will point out that that is the way it is arranged now-- at least for the categories under discussion. If we did a "reverse merge" per your vote then it would undo most of this. If you want it to be like this then you should change your vote to "keep." PS-- I do not understan your comments re a "continuing monarchs category," Carlaude:Talk 07:01, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My view is that the next category under Category:10th-century rulers in Europe should be Category:10th-century rulers in France, etc. and these should (generally) be the ones to contain articles. I still think that a "continental" category for the Islamic world (which staddled Europe, Asia and Africa) might be useful, but this would either have to be a subcategory of the continental ones or the scope of those would need to be limited by measn of a headnote. I was suggesting a temporary continuing "monarchs category" for the articles to be placed in pending distribution to "by country" categories. I would hope that user:Carlaude or others can distribute its contents to new natioanl categories over a few weeks and that this (or rather these) can then be deleted. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:49, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you want this change them, then you can help spend the months (or longer) on it to make your proposal happen. It certainly could be done your way-- but I have spent months on it already just to get it where it is-- namly by continent only and only thru the 10th-century. I don't even have the 21st century done yet, much less the 11th to the 20th. If you have a bot that can be used for this then it might go a bit faster.
I will also point out that a host of issues with this proposal will result from the fact that the idea of country is a modern idea. Even with the "category by continent" it can sometimes be hard to figure where they rulers ruled. E.g.--when did the Huns leave Asia and rule in Europe? Carlaude:Talk 21:43, 30 October 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:Beitar/Shimshon Tel Aviv F.C. 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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 03:45, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Beitar/Shimshon Tel Aviv F.C. players to Category:Beitar Shimshon Tel Aviv F.C. players
Nominator's rationale: Rename. This strange slash was introduced everywhere into the club's name on the English-language Wikipedia. They write their name with a space. Dash would have made sense for a combination, but they chose not to introduce. Space, which they chose, is fine. Slash would mean it is one club or another, rather than Beitar Tel Aviv and Shimshon Tel Aviv combined, and makes no sense whatsoever. gidonb (talk) 00:37, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Rename to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 20:53, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Rename to match title of parent article. 128.42.153.195 (talk) 01:49, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nominator (who used many words to say the same as Alansohn, basically. Debresser (talk) 19:57, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good point, however I also changed the name of the article and many of the links. I explained the rationale for all changes, without justifying by means of the name of an article that I had just set myself. gidonb (talk) 01:48, 24 October 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_October_20&oldid=1144513477"