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.
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. Has only two entries....William 15:16, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nominator, as a WP:SMALLCAT unlikely to expand. But please re-create as a {{category redirect}}, to assist editors to categorise any further articles which do appear. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 13:34, 5 September 2013 (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.
People from Bethel Township, Delaware County, Pennsylvania[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.
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. Has only one entry....William 15:16, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nominator, as a WP:SMALLCAT unlikely to expand. But please re-create as a {{category redirect}}, to assist editors to categorise any further articles which do appear. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 13:34, 5 September 2013 (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.
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.
Nominator's rationale: the proper capitalisation is Rhodes Scholar. The Rhodes Scholarship is a named scholarship, and "Rhodes Scholar" is a title and a proper noun. Thus, it requires capitalisation of the 'S' in 'Scholar'. Accordingly, categories containing 'Rhodes scholar[s]' should be renamed to 'Rhodes Scholar[s]' for a rationale similar to this.
I understand any reasonable opposition and that there must be a considerable deal of inertia or momentum against which I am pushing against; but, for what it is worth, and I should hope to think a considerable deal, University of Oxford documents, for internal and external distribution, widely and consistently refer to recipients of this award, or scholars (and please duly note that I use this in the generic sense) who have received this award, as "Rhodes Scholars" or "Scholars". --Qwerty Binary (talk) 13:33, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rename All - I think the nominator has made a strong and convincing case for this change. Cgingold (talk) 10:52, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
REname all -- This seems to be the correct capitalisation. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:26, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge all To Category:Alumni of the University of Oxford, but subdivide out by specific college where possible. This is basically an award category, which we discourage, ad has the added disadvantage of putting many people in two categories for attending one edutational institution, which just leads to category clutter.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:53, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
rename all per nom This is a rename and not a category structure change, which is pretty pointless anyway. Hmains (talk) 17:48, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support proposed renameHugo999 (talk) 23:50, 10 September 2013 (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:Insurgency in the Republic of Macedonia[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. WP:NAC ~ Cgingold (talk) 23:14, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category has only one member (which is in plenty of other categories) and no parent categories.DexDor (talk) 05:46, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
CFD withdrawn by nominator. DexDor (talk) 18:12, 5 September 2013 (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.
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 "City councils in the Philippines" and "Provincial boards in the Philippines". Despite the lack of consensus at Talk:Sangguniang Panlungsod to move that lead article, the other one uses an English name, and there are good arguments below for using the English name in categories. The new names will be a better fit within Category:City councils and Category:Legislatures of country subdivisions. – FayenaticLondon 19:41, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Categories of state-based topics should include the name of the country in their generic, neutral, english forms in line with the general naming convention of country categories. Their individual member pages are titled city councils and provincial boards respectively, hence the need to rename to match those pages. --RioHondo (talk) 05:41, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rename as proposed. It is essential use terms that are intelligible to English-language readers whenever possible. Cgingold (talk) 07:04, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sangguniang Panlungsod as title of the main article is still being debated (see Talk page). But regardless, the main rationale behind creating this category in the first place is to group all the different City Councils in the Philippines whose articles are titled nowhere near Sangguniang Panlungsod. A good analogy would be the German Landtag. Although it could be the main article or topic for German state legislatures, they are all to be found and categorized under Category:State legislatures of Germany following the general naming convention that is intelligble to English-language readers. -- RioHondo (talk) 08:05, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I support matching the category names to the main article names whenever possible, so as long as the article is at Sangguniang Panlungsod, I support the category being at that name, regardless as to whether it's being debated or not. If and when the article name changes, then I would support a name change for the category as well. (I would prefer that Category:State legislatures of Germany be at Category:Landtag of Germany. It's not a perfect analogy, because Landtag is not solely about the state legislatures of Germany. Other countries have Landtag.) Good Ol’factory(talk) 17:47, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - To elaborate on what I've already said on the subject: I have no problem at all with category names that use foreign-language terms which are reasonably familiar to English-language readers. Moreover, I have no particular objection to using unfamiliar foreign-language terms in the names of articles, when there is good reason to, because with articles we can have redirect pages with categories, thereby making such articles accessible to the general readership. On the other hand, I think it is categorically absurd to have category names that are utterly unfamiliar and completely meaningless to the vast majority of readers, unless it is absolutely necessary because there is no acceptable equivalent in English. This IS the English-language Wikipedia, for crying out loud, and we should not be using category names that demonstrably impede navigation for the great majority of readers. Cgingold (talk) 11:40, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Agreed on all counts. We are not touching the articles in their vernaculars. But you are right in saying that the categories that would lead us to these foreign articles should be comprehensible to us English language readers, otherwise it defeats the purpose of categories (that which helps readers locate articles and navigate through the world directory that is in english as this is the EN WP). --RioHondo (talk) 12:00, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Cgingold, I don't think it impedes navigation. All a user has to do is click on the category (i.e., navigate) and then click on the corresponding main article to find out what it means. Also, category definitions can easily be added if you want to lessen navigation by one click. In my experience, having a main article be a different name from a corresponding category name almost always causes more confusion amongst readers than having an "unfamiliar" term being used that is the same as an article name. Good Ol’factory(talk) 16:52, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support in principle -- I am unfamiliar with the detail, on which I am not commenting. However it is desirable to have the English WP in English as far as possible. I think this applies more to categories than articles. This measn that cases may (indeed should) exist where the category is in English, but ther main article is in the vernacular, with the English translation redirecting to it. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:32, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Peter, I am so very glad that we are in fact in agreement on this issue. This is the very same principle I have been arguing for with regard to Category:Haskalah. Would you please be good enough to revisit your initial comment in that CFD (which is still open), and make it known that you actually do support renaming to Category:Jewish Enlightenment, rather than keeping the current name? Thank you. Cgingold (talk) 12:27, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support We should use English in the English Wikipedia. That said, I have seen lots of references to Haskalah, it is clearly the standard English phrase for the thing, so bringing that up here makes no sense.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:57, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me, but "Haskalah" is hardly a "standard English phrase". It's Hebrew, for goodness sake. Cgingold (talk) 10:49, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is the accepted English phrase for a cetain phenomenon, which is used in English with very specific meanings that are not directly controlled by its Hebrew meaning.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:00, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rename: Under WP:Category names, at section "State-based topics", there appears to be a specific template or format for categories such as these nominated two. Therefore, it seems reasonable to rename them as nomination.
Regarding the side issue, that regarding the renaming of "Category:Haskalah", I concur, as the term is not as well known in English as, say, the terms "kosher" or "Tanakh" are. To simply rename it simply because it isn't English is utterly offensive to all decent people, however.
As a faithful translation with no significant loss of meaning and nuance, "Jewish Enlightenment" could pass as a valid and reasonable category for Haskalah and Haskalah-related articles. --Qwerty Binary (talk) 10:10, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If I may amend my comment or vote, my support for the nomination is dependent on the proposed categories being "City councils in the Philippines" and "Provincial boards in the Philippines".
With regard to Sangguniang Panlungsod article, perhaps it would be better if this were moved to something more searchable; the Sangguniang Panlungsod page were made a redirect to that more-searchable page; and this equivalence were explicitly stated in the lead section. This would be consistent with the established principles of Wikipedia, would it not? --Qwerty Binary (talk) 10:13, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's the order I would have thought things would have been undertaken here: rename the articles, then get the categories renamed to match. Good Ol’factory(talk) 22:17, 17 September 2013 (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.
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.
Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary category - just the eponymous article (which is in other categories) and no parent categories.DexDor (talk) 05:38, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn by nominator. DexDor (talk) 18:18, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Populate -- The category clearly does serve a useful purpose. I suspect that there will be other areas where terraces ought to appear. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:35, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Now that the category has been populated, there is no longer any reason to delete it. Btw, I have added the obvious parent categories, which were completely missing. Cgingold (talk) 12:14, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A couple of side-points: It's always good for the Category creator (in this case, User:Jarble) to identify him/herself when they post a comment at CFD. Also, when I come across a recently-created category (like this one) that only has one or two things in it, I usually try to ask the Category's creator directly (on their talk page) if they will be adding more to it in the very near future, before I take the step of starting a CFD discussion. Not required, to be sure, but sometimes it has saved me/us the bother of an unnecessary CFD discussion. Cgingold (talk) 12:14, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note - This could simply be withdrawn by the nominator and closed out, if he/she so desires. Cgingold (talk) 15:58, 5 September 2013 (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.
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.
Nominator's rationale: Currently, we have only three articles about orders, decorations, or medals of the Solomon Islands, and there is no need to split the parent category by type (Orders of..., Decorations of..., Medals of...). If there is no consensus to merge, then rename to Category:Orders of the Solomon Islands. -- Black Falcon(talk) 04:18, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nominator....William 10:55, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nominator's rationale. --Qwerty Binary (talk) 14:32, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. There are not enough to be worth splitting. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:36, 5 September 2013 (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.
