Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 July 13

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< July 12 July 14 >

July 13[edit]

Category:Digimon by level[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 23:15, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Digimon by level (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Yet more Digimon cruft. These categories are primarily made up of redirects to a list article which just lists the names of the Digimon. This content is of no real-world significance, and would not exist in the mainspace; as per previous discussions (here and here) it should be deleted. I am also nominating the subcategories: J Milburn (talk) 23:43, 13 July 2011 (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:Digimon by attribute[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 23:14, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Digimon by attribute (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: More Digimon cruft. These categories are primarily made up of redirects to a list article which just lists the names of the Digimon. This content is of no real-world significance, and would not exist in the mainspace; as per previous discussions (here and here) it should be deleted. I am also nominating the subcategories: J Milburn (talk) 23:30, 13 July 2011 (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:Forest Hill Community High School alumni[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Keep. Timrollpickering (talk) 20:37, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Forest Hill Community High School alumni (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Non importence Bobherry (talk) 20:29, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There are six other notable alumni of the school. It has some 1,800 enrollment. Quite a few high schgools have alumni categories. Billy Hathorn (talk) 20:32, 13 July 2011 (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:Types of baseball venues[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 20:24, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Types of baseball venues to Category:Baseball venues by type
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Standard naming convention for categories that hold only sub-categories of specific things by type, rather than generic articles about types of things. (Compare others in Category:Categories by type, and the explanation at Category:Types of organization.) Not eligible for speedy renaming because of "no rename" decision as part of recent group nomination. - Fayenatic (talk) 20:07, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. --Kevlar (talk • contribs) 05:10, 19 July 2011 (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.

Types to be changed back[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: No consensus on main issue; rename Category:Types of university and college to Category:Types of university or college; revisit individual categories if needs be to switch to a totally different form. This one may have to remain a mess for now. The point about "and" vs "or" is relatively straight forward so I'll put that up for a rename. "Types of horse(s)" vs "Horse types" has some opposition and would need a separate discussion. Timrollpickering (talk) 20:43, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Types of university and college to Category:Types of universities and colleges
Propose renaming Category:Types of horse to Category:Types of horses
Propose renaming Category:Types of business entity to Category:Types of business entities
Nominator's rationale: Rename. These were renamed in June 24 discussions and the July 6 discussion had a consensus to retain the other form. So I'm bringing these back here to see if we really want these to be different or if all of these should be returned to their original names to match the others. The business entity one was actually renamed from Category:Types of companies to Category:Types of company and then to its current name. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:45, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would say rename Types of horse to Horse types so it is similar style to the parent category horse breeds.RafikiSykes (talk) 08:39, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just quit: I don't give a rat's rear what is decided, I'm just tired of the debate. Gramatically, I think Types of horse, etc. is actually gramatically correct. "Types of" is a little clearer, possibly, but I don't really care deeply. Just end it soon, please. Montanabw(talk) 18:35, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Rename as indicated. Grammar matters. Perhaps "Horse/horses" is alternate acceptable usage, but the other two are not. DGG ( talk ) 14:01, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, 'Oppose, obviously. Yes, grammar matters, that is why I made the initial proposals. The vast majority of "types of" categories use the singular form and are thus logically and grammatically correct. That there was a consensus not to rename those the use the plural (even if I did not see anyone other than myself attempting to cite any sort of academic or scholarly source in that debate) is unfortunate, but done. But to try to move these three back seems absurd. Please either cite proper scholarly sources that demonstrate convincingly that the singular form is completely unacceptable in US English (as the plural form is in UK English), or leave well alone. Thank you. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 12:16, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. In wikipedia we often ignore the "proper" name. The issue is more often the actual usage in actual speech. We side with descriptive, not restrictive, grammarians. My search on google excluding any reference to wikipedia for "types of horses" turned up lots of uses of that phrasing from Youtube, equestrian.com and so forth. "Types of horse" usally was the star of discussions like "what are the types of horse feed" or horsemanship101's discussion of types of horse bits. The general current usage seems to in general favor types of with of followed by a plural form, be it horses or horse bits.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:17, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The singular is correct. There are over 10 times as many google results for "types of horse" as "types of horses". Even if you take out those refering to types of horse bits, ect., the singular form has a substantial majority. The Proffesor (talk) 15:12, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename the "university and college" one, which sounds wrong; "types of university or college" would have been OK. I have a slight preference for leaving the other two as they are, but I don't really care; it's a matter of local usage. - Fayenatic (talk) 21:48, 18 July 2011 (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:Tuber (genus)[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:Tuber (fungus), create other categories & revisit if & when necessary. There's no support for the current location and the current article is at Tuber (fungus). It may be better to have a separate category for the family as suggested. Timrollpickering (talk) 20:30, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Tuber (genus) to Category:Tuber (fungus)
Nominator's rationale: To be consistent with most (eventually all) other fungal genus dabs. Sasata (talk) 19:00, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: for the record, the current name of "Tuber (genus)" was only recently changed from "Tuber" following this CFD. See also the current discussion #Category:Truffles on this page about the head category. - Fayenatic (talk) 20:35, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question. Can we have a link to the other fungal genus categories that use "(fungi)"? I can't find any. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:32, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Tuberaceae which is the family name (see Tuberaceae). I too looked through the category tree of Category:Fungi and cannot find any other categories for a genus. In this case there is not currently a category for the family, so it would be sensible to start with that. There are currently 5 articles for the Tuber genus and this hardly justifies a separate sub-category for the genus alone. - Fayenatic (talk) 17:02, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sounds like a good solution. Sasata (talk) 17:41, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: After further investigation, there is at least one category for a genus of fungi: Category:Helvella. That one does not currently have an intermediate parent category for its family Helvellaceae but if we created that it would contain at least 5 existing articles in addition to Category:Helvella. I'm coming round to think we should rename as originally nominated, and set up more intermediate categories at the family level within the well-populated Category:Pezizales, including Category:Tuberaceae. - Fayenatic (talk) 18:08, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Former Roman Catholic church buildings established in the 15th 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: Merge. Timrollpickering (talk) 08:29, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:Former Roman Catholic church buildings established in the 15th century to Category:15th-century Roman Catholic church buildings
Nominator's rationale: Merge. We normally don't classify by former v current and these are really converted to use by another religion. This discussion did remove the former but converted to use completed in the name. However the parent here already exists and rather then create two categories for the same purpose, better to merge in and clean this up. Someone can do the mass nomination in this tree to add completed. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:53, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge as nominated. No info will be lost as I have added the contents into new Category:Lutheran church buildings converted from Roman Catholicism or "Anglican" equivalent as appropriate, as there was some support for this at the CFD linked above. - Fayenatic (talk) 20:11, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Also rename the parent cat to Category:Roman Catholic church buildings completed in the 15th-century. The current title invites any building used during that century, and that was not the intention. I think the emerging consensus is to go to completed for church buildings so it matches things like Category:Buildings and structures completed in 1924 to give just one of hundreds of possible examples.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:44, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • The nominator did say that there should be a mass renaming including the parent later. - Fayenatic (talk) 18:19, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. To JPL: most of the English examples were not "completed in the 15th-century" at all! St Michael on the Mount Without is not the only one that was mostly built much later, but has a 15th century tower. I agree these categories are an appalling mess, as these institutions were mostly not "established in the 15th century" either. What they are is wholly or partly "built in the 15th century" & this is what the name should reflect. Johnbod (talk) 22:02, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per previous discussion for 14C. Cjc13 (talk) 11:32, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Category meaningless. Buildings are not established, they are constructed. The Proffesor (talk) 15:16, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If buildings were not "completed" in the century in question than they should not by in that church building by century category. This may in some cases require creating a redirect for an earlier incarnation of the building. The fact that some of these buildings were not really built as they currently exist until a later century shows this category needs monitoring, not that we need to keep the unwise names.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:39, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • New vote:Merge. I am not sure how to strike my old vote. Thinking about the isse I think we should merge these two cats. I also think if possible we should rename them now and not wait, but I have come to the conclusion that a former x type building from year-type Y is not a logical formation of a category name.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:42, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • You can strike superseded material with <s> </s>tags. I've added these above on your behalf. - Fayenatic (talk) 16:36, 27 July 2011 (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:F5 tornadoes[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: No consensus, recommend revisit with a nomination covering the whole tree. Timrollpickering (talk) 20:32, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:F5 tornadoes to Category:F5 or EF5 tornadoes
Nominator's rationale: Since the United States switched to the Enhanced Fujita Scale in 2007, all maximum rated tornadoes have been on the Enhanced Fujita Scale (EF5), with the only exception being Canada's only F5 tornado in history. It's probably about time that this category's name reflects the fact it's used for both F5 and EF5 tornadoes (which is fine since the ratings are considered equivalent). Note that I'm not sure whether it should be "F5 or EF5 tornadoes" or "F5 and EF5 tornadoes", so if the one with "and" is better I'd still be open to that. Ks0stm (T•C•G) 18:41, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Definitely should reflect the creation of the Enhanced Fujita Scale. Inks.LWC (talk) 20:35, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The old name is simpler.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:46, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Really, to be honest, does that even matter? Are we striving for accuracy or simplicity here? Ks0stm (T•C•G) 05:30, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or rename to 'Maximum strength tornadoes' or some such. F5 is obscure specialist jargon, and as the F scale was only invented in 1971 and the EF scale in 2006, most of the events referenced predate the scale and can't be accurately categorised! Ephebi (talk) (Besides, I thought it referred to a type of fighter jet) 07:51, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would wholeheartedly disagree with it being specialist jargon; most everyone in tornado prone (and I use this term very loosely) areas that use the F or EF scale know what these tornado ratings are/mean. Events that predate the scale were oftentimes retroactively rated, such is the case with all tornadoes in the US 1950-1971 officially and most significant tornadoes before that date unofficially (an example being the Tri-State tornado). Deleting this category is a bad idea, as is renaming it "Maximum strength tornadoes" since not all tornado rating systems are created equal (a maximum rated TORRO scale tornado won't be equal to an EF or F scale maximum tornado, etc...see here). Ks0stm (T•C•G) 16:25, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I lived in such a region in the US for a few year and can't say I ever heard of it then. Still seems to be jargon for the sake of it, and it seems obvious that EF and F are different, so I don't how that argument applies, either. When I saw it referenced I immediately thought I'd seen a variant of the F3 Tornado Ephebi (talk)
  • Oppose the proposed duel named target. If this is to be renamed it should be to Category:EF5 tornadoes. But is renaming really needed? How many EF5 tornadoes would not be classed as F5 tornadoes? Also the current name better matches the rest of the related categories (Category:F2 tornadoes, Category:F3 tornadoes, Category:F4 tornadoes and Category:F0 and F1 tornadoes with the last one needing to be split). So I don't see a case for adding a different name into this series of categories or making all of the others dual named. Now if we wanted to categorize by country, the result could be different, but then we have to deal with that 'or' in the name again. So for now, leave as is. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:20, 20 July 2011 (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:Manga series published in Weekly Shōnen Champion[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 16:44, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Manga series published in Weekly Shōnen Champion (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Excessive categorization. Many of these article already have a half-dozen or more categories and the article on Weekly Shōnen Champion already links to series that have ran in the magazine. —Farix (t | c) 12:17, 13 July 2011 (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:Truffles[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:Truffles to Category:Truffles (fungi). Timrollpickering (talk) 16:46, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:Truffles to Category:Tuber (genus)
Nominator's rationale: Merge. According to the article Truffle (fungus), all truffles (with this meaning) are of this genus. The nominated category only holds that article and the target category. Add all its head categories onto the target. Fayenatic (talk) 12:14, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Downmerge per standardCurb Chain (talk) 16:47, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose See category rename proposal above (#Category:Tuber (genus)). The article was incorrect, there are many fungal genera that have species considered "truffles". I'll be working the next few days to fill out both these categories (i.e., Category:Truffles, and Category:Tuber (fungus). Sasata (talk) 19:06, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support a rename to whatever the 'experts' decide. But the current name can not be retained as it is completely ambiguous. Clearly this category should be about a type of chocolate and it is not. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:57, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: for the record, the current name of "Tuber (genus)" was only recently changed from "Tuber" following this CFD. - Fayenatic (talk) 20:32, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indifferent on genus name because I know nothing about fungi and their classification, but agree with Vegaswikian that at the absolute minimum it needs to be renamed to "Truffles (fungi)" or something of the kind. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:24, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Truffles (fungi) or Category:Truffles (fungus). I am not sure which is better. Even if all truffles are part of the tuben genera, it does not follow that all tuber (genera) is truffles. As long as terms have distict meaning they can have distict categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:50, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changing my opinion to Rename to Category:Truffles (fungi) to avoid ambiguity. Thans to the editors who have corrected the previously inadequate/misleading information. Can anyone confirm whether the Tuber genus includes any species that are not truffles (presumably this would coincide with them being not edible)? - Fayenatic (talk) 17:28, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • All of the Tuber species are truffles. Renaming the cat to Truffles (fungi) sounds logical to me. Sasata (talk) 17:47, 18 July 2011 (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.

Indian people[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: keep.--Mike Selinker (talk) 11:19, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming:
Nominator's rationale: Relisting & expanded nominated following this previous CFD. The original rational was as follows:
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Ambiguous title - the word "Indian" also refers to Indigenous peoples of the Americas. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 05:07, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Timrollpickering (talk) 11:40, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose The people of India are widely called and known as Indian.Shyamsunder (talk) 12:23, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Using the adjective is consistent with categories for most other nationalities, and the meaning is sufficiently clear from the context. There would be a lot more work to do on sub-cats afterwards and I am not convinced that it would be worth it. I note that Commons has had Commons:Category:People of India and Commons:Category:People of India by occupation from the beginning. The latter has lots of sub-cats "Foo-ists from India" and a few "...of India" or "...in India"; "from India" is better, e.g. "educators/judges from India" rather than "educators/judges of India" (ambiguous). But it seems inconsistent to have "from" at that lowest level and "of" at the top. I'm therefore currently inclined to oppose this. - Fayenatic (talk) 12:34, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – this doesn't seem ambiguous to me: no other nationality is Indian AFAIK. Occuli (talk) 15:30, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Personally, I don't find the term to be ambiguous. Calling indigenous Americans "Indian people" seems pretty retro to me when I hear it, but that's just me. The main article is Indian people and I think the category and article name should match. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:49, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Umm, not retro (see Native American name controversy), but it's also more usuallly "American Indian" as opposed to "Indian" going back some years.- choster (talk) 19:35, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speaking from a small-l liberal Canadian perspective—yes, retro. American terminology is pretty retro on this issue, from my perspective. But then again, in the 21st century the U.S. President has publicly referred to the leaders of Pakistan as "the Pakis", so ... what can one say? Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:27, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the US the term Indian is still primarily used to refer to Native Americans. If you run into something in Spanish and find the term "Indios" the term means the indegenous peoples of the Americas. I took a class at a US univeristy about 7 years ago that was titled "the Indian in Latin America" and out subject was the indigenous people of Latin America, from the days of the Toltecs to the present. Indian people as a category will be assumed by many to mean Native Americans. I have done more to try to end this confusion but I know that the official US census term is American Indians and Alaskan Natives, so to pretend this term is not ambiguous is to ignore reality.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:13, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the sampling we are getting to this discussion is largely those who are used to using Indian in situations to mean people from India. We are largely drfawing people who pay attention to the category as a whole. This may indicate that editors understand what these categories mean, but I think they are ignoring the fact that wikipedia categories should be useful to readers, and to a great many of our readers Indian means first and foremost the people who live on Indian Reservations and so forth.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:13, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. The fact that there are still "Indian Reservations" just shows that this is not a "retro" thing. In Hispanic circles it is almost universally Indian, never American Indian. In actual speech many people still speak of Indians when they mean Native Americans, and to pretend that this does not present potential confusion in these titles is to ignore reality. This is not an unambiguous term and so we should change it to make it more clear what is meant.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:17, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The rename is clearer. There is indeed some remaining ambiguity. People will not always search by the currently correct term, and I suspect about half of the US still thinks of Native Americans as Indians. We need to accommodate whatever people may use. DGG ( talk ) 14:04, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Should it not matter what other half of US and the world minus US think.Shyamsunder (talk) 22:40, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the 500 million plus inhabitants of Latin America almost universally use Indio to mean people indigenous to the United States. There is no reason to think they would expect "Indian people" to mean anything else than this in English. I would say that at least a third of the US would absolutely assume that this means Native Americans, and another third would be unsure. Even at that I might be underestimating the percentages. I would say there are clearly enough people who would say the form as too ambiguous to be sure what to do with it. The current form is ambiguous to some so we probably should go to an unambigious form.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:24, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I had no idea that inhabitants of Latin America were so US-centric! Don't they use Indio to mean people indigenous to Latin America? - Fayenatic (talk) 20:11, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose DGG's (and Johnpacklambert's) reasoning is based on what "half the US" thinks, which is arbitrary and not justifiable. I see no reason to change this.  Office of Disinformation  11:09, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Of India is the most common meaning of Indian. The Proffesor (talk) 15:19, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose it should match the parent article where possible. There are 125m English speaking Indians and I'm sure that any problem with the ambiguity of the parent article would have been sorted out by now. Remember that WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a valid reason to change things. Ephebi (talk) 16:44, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. "Indian people" is clearly understood by the majority of the world to mean people from India. This CFD is not about the terms "American Indians", which clearly means something else, or "Indios" which does not need a category in English wikipedia. Renaming the nominated categories would make them inconsistent with their sister categories; their sub-categories would either be inconsistent with these parents, or require an extensive and messy renaming. Navigating to a category and finding something unexpected is usually more educating than frustrating. As old terms in America are on their way out of fashion, the ambiguity will decrease. So although some ambiguity remains, the benefits of renaming do not outweigh the disadvantages. - Fayenatic (talk) 20:11, 20 July 2011 (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 homicide victims[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 11:58, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:American homicide victims to Category:American crime victims
Administritive note: The target category is currently under discussion for renaming; the result of that discussion has no affect over this discussion, but may result in te target being redlinked for some time until some one gets around to updating it. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 15:36, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Merge. It's populated by only a subcategory, Category:American murder victims, which appears to have an identical scope. And it adds nothing other than categorization in a never-existant category, Category:Homicide victims. No other country has a "homicide victim" category separate from its "muder victim" category. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:06, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomCurb Chain (talk) 11:24, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete there is no difference in homicide and murder.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:51, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep In American law there is indeed a distinction between homicide and murder--see the separate articles. Homicide is by far the more general term. And "crime victims" is much too broad for this. The victim of a robbery or a rape is a crime victim. DGG ( talk ) 14:05, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. There is Category:Manslaughter victims, which theoretically should be a subcategory of a Category:Homicide victims. "Homicide" is usually any death that results from the actions of another person, whether culpable or not, so it's exceptionally broad. (Eg, it would include someone killed in a motor vehicle accident, even if no one was criminally "at fault" in the accident.) I'm not sure what the best thing to do would be. I suppose for now I'm in weak, weak keep, but I would think Category:Homicide victims should exist before this subcategory does. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:54, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment with the Manslaughter victims category only having 17 entries it is hardly worth splitting along national lines. As it is the only thing in Category:American homicide victims is Category:American murder victims. We could specifically delte this without prejudice until someone decides to create Category:Homicide victims. Right now this just adds an extra step to jump through for people searching through American crime victim cats.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:28, 17 July 2011 (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:Narrow buildings[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 11:59, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Narrow buildings (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Subjective definition. What is "narrow? And are we talking length-to-breadth ratio, or physical width in metres? Grutness...wha? 09:03, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete inclusion criteria unspecifiedCurb Chain (talk) 11:29, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, there is no way round WP:OC#SUBJECTIVE; I can't even suggest criteria to justify a list. Some relevant pages are listed at the disambiguation page Skinny House and the article Spite house; that will have to do. - Fayenatic (talk) 20:20, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. "Narrow" is subjective. Even if we defined it either as say buildings less than 4 meters in width or buildings with lengths at least five times their widths, these would just be arbitary definitions and would not have any clear reason for being.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:53, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep These are all buildings which are notable specifically for their narrowness, as judged by the WP:RS that report them as such using terms such as "nation's skinniest house" and "narrowest building in New York". It should therefore be possible to source this from press coverage. -- Gigacephalus (talk) 14:19, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Terribly subjective for a category. Good Ol’factory (talk) 11:34, 18 July 2011 (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:Plays by Chambers Stevens[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Withdrawn by nominator. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:00, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Plays by Chambers Stevens (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: This category is populated solely by some dubious notability articles on plays by a non-notable playwright whose own page has been deleted four times. I don't think the category stands up. Jezhotwells (talk) 08:42, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: My issue isn't with the category, but with the plays themselves. It's the plays in the category that are of dubious notability, not the category. Aristophanes68 (talk) 17:16, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As part of the structure plays by author. If the articles within the category are deleted due to notability issues and it becomes empty, then delete the category. Lugnuts (talk) 18:08, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all plays and category; non-notable. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:45, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Desperate for Magic, Travels with Jack Lemmon's Dog and Twain and Shaw Do Lunch probably meet notability guidelines, so I shall withdraw this nomination. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:52, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There is no reason to categorize things by their relationship to a non-notable figure. Of course just because someone is notable enough to have an article does not mean we need a category for their work. This is a case of A implies B does not mean B implies A. We should have no categories for the works of people who are not notable enough to have an article on them.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:30, 17 July 2011 (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:Double categories[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Speedy deleted. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 11:24, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Double categories (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: *Delete. Unused and unnecessary. See also Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2011_July_5#Template:Double_category. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 08:05, 13 July 2011 (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:Authors of Doctor Who books[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 as a G7, no reason to wait a week on a creator request.. Courcelles 07:18, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Authors of Doctor Who books (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Created in error. No pages in category. Created category Category:Writers of Doctor Who novels instead. mooncow 02:02, 13 July 2011 (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.

Singers by gender[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: No consensus. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:01, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Category:Female singers
Delete Category:Male singers
Nominators rationale the existence of these two cats seems to violate WP:Cat/gender. Specifically this passage Do not create separate categories for male and female occupants of the same position, such as "Male Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom" vs. "Female Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom". The various voice types I think should be retained, while many of the other categories may need to be deleted, although there may be specific nationalities where specific categories should be retained.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:26, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – as container categories for the various subcats, some of which are certainly valid (much as we have Category:Men, and Category:Women, without inferring that all gendered categories are valid). Occuli (talk) 09:56, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as parent categories only. Diffuse articles on individuals into sub-cats. - Fayenatic (talk) 12:07, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - in this context, job occupation, not biology, is not only a WP:CAT guideline problem, seems a distinction that is unneeded, but also creates edit wars over transgendered people and those who choose for artistic purposes to be gender-ambiguous. Music would be one of the worst possible places to segregate genders. Montanabw(talk) 23:04, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. All of these are better parented by Category:Singers by voice type. While there will be some crossover, those basically sort out the male v female singers. Since someone's voice type is basically a result of biology and age, the logic behind the positions of John Pack Lambert and Montanabw seems reasonable. Since there are better parent categories, I'm not convinced that these need keeping as container categories. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:05, 20 July 2011 (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:IR Constructivists[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Speedy rename C2C. Timrollpickering (talk) 22:54, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:IR Constructivists to Category:Constructivist international relations scholars
Nominator's rationale: To expand the abbreviation, and per Category:International relations scholars. Also, see the main article: Constructivism (international relations). -- Black Falcon (talk) 00:04, 13 July 2011 (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/2011_July_13&oldid=1142606064"