Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 April 29

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< April 28 April 30 >

April 29[edit]

Category:Association football players with an unknown status[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: Remove category for main article. This should just require an update to the template. However before that is done, the talk page needs a template modified or added. Note: Keeping a subcategory that is automatically added by a template would be a bit more work and may need approval of the project unless you want to tag talk pages manually which is generally a bad idea. If someone wants to take on the task to modify the template, leave a note with this entry on the manual work page. If that the template is updated, this close does not prevent changing this to be a subcategory of the other maintenance category. I think this should cover what was discussed. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:54, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Association football players with an unknown status (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: This category seems to be an intersection of Category:Wikipedia articles in need of updating (a general maintenance category) and Category:Football articles needing attention (a WikiProject maintenance category). It is populated by transclusions of {{Footballer-unknown-status}}, which is a topic-specific version of {{Update}}.
WikiProject-specific maintenance categories should generally appear on talk pages only and not directly on articles (see e.g. Category:Military history articles needing attention), and I propose to apply this principle to this category through a two-step change:
  1. Tag the talk pages of the articles in this category with {{Football|attention=yes}} (or, add |attention=yes if {{Football}} is already present), which will automatically place all tagged talk pages in Category:Football articles needing attention.
  2. Merge this category to Category:Wikipedia articles in need of updating.
WikiProject Football has been notified. -- Black Falcon (talk) 21:58, 29 April 2010 (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:900s BC[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: nomination withdrawn. -- Black Falcon (talk) 00:11, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:900s BC to Category:900s
Nominator's rationale: This also per my previous rationale for 10th century.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 21:17, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose these are two very different sets of data. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:57, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • What the... oppose. These are two separate decades. On happened around 1100 years ago, the other around 2900 years ago. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:04, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • - I request closure of these two, I wasn't thinking too clearly, and I don't have the time to do it at the moment. (DOH!)   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 23:04, 29 April 2010 (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:10th century BC[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: nomination withdrawn. -- Black Falcon (talk) 00:12, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:10th century BC to Category:10th_century
Nominator's rationale: Since it is quite obvious that the 10th century is "BC", and given the fact that there are quite a few pages in the 10th century BC category, is there an easier way to merge the content?   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 21:14, 29 April 2010 (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:Newcastle Falcons 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 to Category:Newcastle Falcons (basketball) players. — ξxplicit 19:58, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Newcastle Falcons players to Category:Newcastle Falcons basketball players
Nominator's rationale: Rename. The category for players of the Newcastle Falcons rugby union team exists at Category:Newcastle Falcons rugby players. Therefore, the category for the Newcastle Falcons basketball team should be moved to Category:Newcastle Falcons basketball players. – PeeJay 18:05, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support User:Occuli's rename for the reason's s(he) gives and nominate a rename for the rugby club's player cat Mayumashu (talk) 00:55, 30 April 2010 (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:Family Office[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. -- Black Falcon (talk) 00:59, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Family Office (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Unused category, created by spam editor whose article has been deleted. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:57, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note The editor has now been re-created the article and added it to the category, but the editor is currently blocked and the article is tagged for speedy deletion. In any case, a category with only one article in it is not much use. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:03, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The article has been deleted again.... JamesBWatson (talk) 16:11, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What is/was the article? Occuli (talk) 18:49, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Puffy spiced ham from the leg of a peacock. Basically it was an advertisement for/history of the "Marcuard Family Office", a firm the article compared to the organisations established in the 1800s by J. P. Morgan and the Rockefellers. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:07, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The article (Marcuard Family Office) was created and deleted 4 times within 26 hours. Its deletions were under WP:CSD A7 (no indication of importance) and G11 (unambiguous advertising). It is now 5 days later, and the author seems to have given up re-creating the article, so the category is empty and looks like staying that way. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:06, 4 May 2010 (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:Multi Family Office[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. -- Black Falcon (talk) 01:00, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Multi Family Office (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Unused category, created by spam editor whose article has been deleted. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:57, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note The editor has now been re-created the article and added it to the category, but the editor is currently blocked and the article is tagged for speedy deletion. In any case, a category with only one article in it is not much use. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:03, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The article has been deleted again.... JamesBWatson (talk) 16:11, 29 April 2010 (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.

Settlements by population[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:Transcendental Meditation communities and Category:Vegetarian communities. -- Black Falcon (talk) 00:58, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Transcendental Meditation settlements to Category:Transcendental Meditation populated places
Propose renaming Category:Vegetarian settlements to Category:Vegetarian populated places

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Per Wikipedia talk:Categorization/Categorising human settlements and Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 April 17#Category:Settlements. Note that the format parallel to Category:Populated coastal places doesn't work, because the places aren't Transcendental Meditation or vegetarian. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 14:45, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rename but to 'communities' as they are both subcats of Category:Intentional communities as well. 'Vegetarian populated place' is a strained construct IMO. Occuli (talk) 15:52, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to communities. There can be various communities within a single settlement. A community for each religion or spiritual grouping for example. Or a vegetarian community. --Timeshifter (talk) 19:15, 1 May 2010 (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 Jewish 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: rename. — ξxplicit 02:51, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming: Category:American Jewish people to Category:American Jews
The following discussion was copied from Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Speedy:
Category:American Jewish people to Category:American Jews (revert redirect) - C2C, there are 120 subcategories of Category:Jews by country and this is the exception (not named ".... Jews"). Davshul (talk) 08:05, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Object, I think? I don't have a strong view about which should be used, but this one was just renamed via speedy, so I assume it was the first in a long line of renames about to take place to conform these with the parent Category:Jewish people. It's silly to speedily ping these back and forth from one name to the other. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:27, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Object. The parent cat is at Category:Jewish people. (The change to this occurred via full CfD, about a month ago.) Mayumashu (talk) 14:21, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Object. Same reasons as objections above (and seeing another "...Jews" to "...Jewish people" further up the list, too...) - The Bushranger (talk) 18:37, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Strongly Support own nomination. The parent category is Category:Jews by country, not Category:Jewish people, as claimed. Category:Jewish people is a parent category of Category:Jews by country and contains many other categories with the word "Jews". The original nomination to change this category was not only illogical, it did not appear to be correctly based on the C2C criterion. Davshul (talk) 19:15, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
There are parents and then there are parents—call them "grandparents" if you wish. The parent of a parent is still a parent of the child. Both Category:Jews by country and Category:Jewish people are correctly referred to as "parent categories". I hope you do realise, however, that once a proposal is objected to here, it can't really be moved forward in this section by adding your reiterated strong support to the idea. It seems a full CFD would be in order. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:27, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
I agree that a full CFD is the only way to resolve this issue and revert this category back to Category:American Jews and, hopefully, forestall what I believe is this silly proposal to replace the word "Jews" by "Jewish People" literally throughout the Wiki categories. Davshul (talk) 12:44, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale:
  • In the first place, I consider the initial renaming of this category from Category:American Jews on 19 April 2010 using the C2.C criterion under the Speedy renaming process not to be in accordance with the C2.C criterion. C2C is explicitly to be used to bring a category “into line with established naming conventions for that category tree”. The criterion also states that “[t]his criterion should only be applied when there is no ambiguity or doubt over the existence of a category naming convention. Such a convention must be well defined and must be overwhelmingly used within the tree.” Neither the immediate parent category Category:Jews by country, nor any of such parent category’s 126 other subcategories use the term “Jewish people”, nor did any of the approximate 340 sub-subcategories of Jews by country, of which approximately 155 used the term “Jews”. A similar pattern is repeated in the sister categories of Jews by country, as well as the various articles in the categories mentioned. It is clear that the change fell far short of the C2.C criterion, was not in line with established naming conventions for that category tree and certainly was not used overwhelmingly within the tree. In fact, it was almost not used at all within the tree. Accordingly, such change should not have been permitted, nor should it be allowed to stand.
  • If it was the intention the change the name of all of the subcategories of Jews by country, the correct procedure would have been first to nominate Jews by country for full Cfn (not the Speedy procedure, as none of the criteria apply), together with the various subcategories (which change I certainly would oppose). Instead the nominator chose an indirect procedue (a sort of slipping in the back door), by choosing a single subcategory and which could then be used by others as a precedent (as has been the case in at least one instance). I am not accusing the nominator of bad faith, but his was not the transparent and correct procedure.
  • The original name of the category is clearly the generally accepted term, the new name being highly artificial. This is born out by the fact that until a couple of days ago, approximately 20 articles had already been listed in Category:American Jews (notwithstanding the redirect), being just one week or so since renaming. In the last day or so, someone has removed these 20 articles. However, such a situation (dual categories) will clearly continue unless the name is reverted.
  • The change of name last month of Category:Jews to Category:Jewish people was used as the basis for the original change of the nominated category. However, this change of category was not a justifiable reason for changing the name of the nominated category for a number of reasons, including the following:
    • The change to Category:Jewish people was part of an omnibus change to bring the name of the large number of nominated categories nominated in line with other categories in the same group. These categories are primarily principal container categories that hold widely differing subcategories related generally to the parent subject. The name of the principal category should not automatically govern the terms used in its subcategories in these circumstances, let alone a sub-sub category, as is the case in question.
    • The term “Jewish people” is a term used not merely to express the plural of a “Jewish person” (which is itself sounds awkward), the Jewish people is an expression that denotes the whole Jewish nation or ethno-religious group. Accordingly, such a category would, and should, attach, subcategories relating not just to individuals Jews but those relating to the Jewish people, as a whole.
    • The category Jewish people is one of five parent categories of Category:Jews by country. There is no reason why the name of that category should govern the name of the subcategories rather than say Category:Jews and Judaism by country, another of the parent categories.
    • If one accepts that categories, such as Category:Jewish people and Category:Arab people and the many other similar categories govern all their subcategories, this will result in the almost complete removal of the terms "Jews", "Arabs" and many other generally accepted terms from the Wikipedian categories, and we would end up with such artificial categories as “Arab people in Ottoman and British Palestine” “Medieval English Jewish people”, and so on.
  • The category Jews by country appears to be unique as regards an ethnic group, although there are 25 categories of people by religion and nationality (e.g. Muslims by nationality, Bahá'ís by nationality. None of these include the word “People”. Davshul (talk) 11:33, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note. Discussion on reverting the Category:Jewish people to Category:Jews, following the DRV, has now been relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 May 10#Category:Jewish people. Davshul (talk) 18:34, 11 May 2010 (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:TV stub templates[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. — ξxplicit 19:58, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:TV stub templates (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. We don't use special categories for stub templates in specific areas. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:35, 29 April 2010 (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:Television preservation[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge to Category:Lost television programs. Courcelles (talk) 19:59, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Television preservation to Category:Missing television programs Category:Lost television programs
Nominator's rationale: Rename. After removing articles that did not include preservation in them, we are left mostly with missing and lost programs and a few articles that mention preservation. I think we need to keep something in this area. So maybe a rename and moving any articles that would not belong in the renamed category into Category:Preservation or someplace else if that is renamed. I should also add that the current name is ambiguous since this could be taken to mean preserving televisions. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:19, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. At least two of the articles that were removed from the category today were removed with the edit summary drop category not supported by article text when the article text actually supported the category.[1][2] Please check to see if you removed other articles from this category incorrectly. As it stands, there are still six valid articles in the category, and the category already has one subcategory named Category:Lost television programs, making a proposed Category:Missing television programs a little redundant. Firsfron of Ronchester 13:04, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'll disagree with that assessment. Tele-snaps were simply photographs taken off of a screen while a show was being broadcast. While they preserved a few images from selected shows, they are not preservation efforts using the lead articles definition of maintaining or restoring access to artifacts, documents and records through the study, diagnosis, treatment and prevention of decay and damage. Preservation of the tele-snaps might be included in Category:Preseveration if work is being done on those. The DuMont Television Network article is more about the destruction of kinescopes and congressional testimony by an actress for preservation. I hardly consider dumping archives into Upped New York Bay preservation. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:58, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
According to Wikipedia's article, "Tele-snaps have been used to reconstruct lost television shows". And naturally, no one considers "dumping archives into Upper New York Bay" preservation; it's the dumping of those archives which led Ms. Adams to speak out on television preservation, as discussed in the article, and referenced to the U.S. National Film Preservation Board's Television Preservation page. It's a little hard to argue that an article which cites the U.S. National Television Preservation page has nothing to do with television preservation. Firsfron of Ronchester 01:04, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Categories are based on article content and not citations. The testimony by Edie Adams, does not grant entry to a category for an article that includes this comment. That single line seems out of place there and might be better placed in her article. Even if that was done, this would not justify her article being in this category. If either case, this is a passing reference and not notable to the point of adding this category to either article. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:13, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's a whole paragraph, dude. Just stop. Firsfron of Ronchester 13:52, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. Merge to Category:Lost television programs for reasons set out by nom. Per point made below, no need to create Category:Missing television programs since there is a pre-existing category by a slightly different name. (Mind you, "missing" is probably better than "lost" due to the existence of that TV series called "Lost".) After reading the above and considering both sides, I have to say that I agree with Vegaswikian's approach here. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:45, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There's already a Category:Lost television programs, so a Category:Missing television programs will only result in duplication. Senseless. Firsfron of Ronchester 05:05, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Then it could just as easily be merged to Category:Lost television programs to avoid duplication, couldn't it? Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:08, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
King Cole's Birthday Party, Let's Rhumba, and Geographically Speaking are examples of lost television programs. Jackie Gleason, Tele-snaps, and DuMont Television Network aren't lost television programs. The idea of categorization is to sort articles, not mix them together. Firsfron of Ronchester 11:46, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you can't nullify my opinion by trying to frame both options as "senseless". Either it would be duplication or it wouldn't be. Either way, the nominated one should be deleted, IMO. But I question whether those last 3 articles you mention should be in the category in the first place. Is this defining for Jackie Gleason? Um...I'm going to say "no". The more I look at this, the more it just looks like a case of pure overcategorization. A straight-up delete could almost work just as well. Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:49, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please strike what you've written above. I said that the option to create Category:Missing television programs when Category:Lost television programs already exists was "senseless". And it is. I didn't say that the option to merge was "senseless". I said the idea of categorization is to sort articles, not mix them together, and this is true. When you falsely claim that someone said something they didn't say, you are attempting to nullify a position by framing that person's argument as unreasonable. Please don't do that.
Vegaswikian removed Category:Television preservation from nine articles in eight minutes,[3][4][5][6][7] [8][9][10][11] with the edit summary Drop category not supported by article text. There is, of course, no way he could have read those nine articles in eight minutes, and the article DuMont Television Network, despite the edit summary, explicitly contains the phrase "preservation of television", with a sourced paragraph on the topic of the destruction of the DuMont television film archive and Edie Adams' subsequent testimony on television preservation to the panel of the Library of Congress, cited to the national film preservation board. He was reverted by two editors working independently.[12][13] These edits were made in good faith, but were quite careless; his subsequent proposal above to rename Category:Television preservation to Category:Missing television programs when Category:Lost television programs already exists was just as careless. But you apparently "agree with that approach". When you support careless editing like this, you are helping to ensure that it will continue. Your own work with deletion of categories is much better than this; I'm quite surprised and dismayed at your support of poor editing. I suppose when you work with another editor in the same area for a while, you start thinking that they aren't making mistakes; it's only natural.
Category:Television preservation almost certainly belongs on articles UCLA Film and Television Archive, BFI National Archive, David Francis (film archivist), and many other articles which currently do not have the category. Firsfron of Ronchester 17:05, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I understand the background—I actually did look into and it and I understood the situation and your positions before you summarised it above. I just disagree with you—I'm sorry, but it does happen. I agree with Vegaswikian's approach to catgorization on these, as I feel that the changes he made were warranted. Categorizing those articles in that way was overcategorization, in my opinion. I do agree that no user is perfect, but my support for Vegaswikian's approach was not based on such an assumption or an assumption that he must be correct because he frequents CFD. Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:46, 16 May 2010 (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:Preservation[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. This will be renamed per nom, with absolutely no prejudice towards a follow-up nomination to change it to something else. There's a consensus here to change the name, and while there isn't a crystal clear decision to what it be changed to, one of the usual conventions is to use the name of the main article, which is supported by this discussion.. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 06:04, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Preservation to Category:Preservation (library and archival science)
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Rename to match main article and remove ambiguity in the name. Some cleanup may be required to remove material not related to this topic. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:55, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suppport. Perhaps create a new Category:Preservation as a holding category a level above this? - The Bushranger (talk) 13:15, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The problem with a category like Category:Preservation is that it would tend to group items related only by name. What does food preservation have to do with media preservation? Yes, they both extend the life of something, but I think it is a stretch to say that preservation of media and food are related. On the other hand, aircraft preservation probably would be in this area and may well be able to be placed in Category:Preservation (library and archival science) since they tend to be classified as museum material. So in the end, you pose an interesting question which simply be the scope of the name I proposed. Maybe something to better include any museum material would be more appropriate? Vegaswikian (talk) 18:06, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm. Category:Preservation (historical) might work in that context, perhaps? Or would that seem to be too tightly defining? - The Bushranger (talk) 19:26, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Pending other input, that could work. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:34, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I fear that would be confused with Category:Historic preservation. - Eureka Lott 16:29, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • This needs renaming, but probably not as nom. However, I am not sure what the right answer is. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:44, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom, or to Category:Preservation (historical) would be OK. On balance I probably prefer the latter to the nom's initial suggestion, but neither is perfect. It needs to be changed to something, though, so perhaps it could be renamed without prejudice to a future change if anyone comes up with something better. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:47, 11 May 2010 (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:Mexican American Major League Baseball 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. — ξxplicit 19:58, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Mexican American Major League Baseball players to Category:American baseball players of Mexican descent
Nominator's rationale: This is a quadruple-intersection of nationality (American), descent (Mexican), occupation (baseball players), and organization or level of play (Major League Baseball). MLB players are already categorized by national origin (by home state if American), by position, and by team. However, with the exception of this and perhaps one other category, we do not categorize MLB players by nationality and ethnicity. I am proposing to rename the category so that it becomes a natural subcategory of Category:Mexican American sportspeople (currently nominated for speedy renaming). (Category creator notified using Template:Cfd-notify) -- Black Falcon (talk) 04:27, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Query – further down this page we have the assertion that being a footballer of Turkish descent is not defining. Does the same not apply to baseball players of Mexican descent, or indeed Category:Sportspeople of Mexican descent? Moreover Category:People of Mexican descent is not divided by occupation except for Category:Mexican Americans. Occuli (talk) 09:02, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    You raise an interesting point. It did not occur to me to consider the category in this light because nationality-ethnicity-occupation intersections abound in Category:American people by ethnic or national origin and occupation. However, per WP:CAT/GRS, thnicity-occupation and ethnicity-nationality-occupation intersections should exist only when a particular intersection is "recognized as a distinct and unique cultural topic in its own right".
    Hispanic-American writers and politicians probably are "unique cultural topic[s]" since there is a distinct Hispanic-American culture surrounding these occupations, but I don't know whether this is the case for Mexican-American baseball players. Do Mexican-American baseball players play baseball differently than, say, Honduran-American baseball players? Are there membership organizations specifically for Mexican-American baseball players? Is "Mexican-American baseball player" a distinct topic of real-world academic or popular interest, or is this category mainly the result of intersecting higher-level Wikipedia categories?
    If the answers are "no", "no", and "the latter", then the proper course of action would be to merge to Category:Mexican American sportspeople (soon to be speedy-renamed to Category:American sportspeople of Mexican descent), which may need to be discussed in a future nomination. -- Black Falcon (talk) 16:13, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. - The Bushranger (talk) 13:16, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support nom. I do not see there needs to be distinct and unique cultural significance for each category page of people - there is navigational worth in breaking up certain lists in certain ways and it seems to be that subcatting people by ethnic and national descent by occupation can work - I wonder though if there could not be some sort of minimum populating number required to have (such) a category page, say 5 article page links; without which, upmerging would be required Mayumashu (talk) 00:49, 30 April 2010 (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.

Football (soccer) players by types of national teams[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename reflecting option B. — ξxplicit 19:58, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Option A: Football (soccer) players of foo national teams to Association football players of foo national teams
This option involves a speedy-able (criterion C2.C) change from Football (soccer) to Association football for non-national association-football-related categories.
Option B: Football (soccer) players of foo national teams to Association football players by foo national team
This option involves the same, speedy-able change as Option A plus it rescopes these categories into container categories (similar to Category:Association football players by national team).
  • As nominator, I have no preference at this time. -- Black Falcon (talk) 04:08, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Option B nomination, as the disambiguate 'football (soccer)' should be entirely replaced with 'association football' across WP Mayumashu (talk) 00:36, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Option B. I like the decision to make container categories, because it chases out individual player articles (or at least suggests it should).--Mike Selinker (talk) 02:53, 30 April 2010 (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:Silver Ferns[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:New Zealand international netball players, and recreate as a category redirect. -- Black Falcon (talk) 00:54, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Silver Ferns to Category:New Zealand international netball players
Nominator's rationale: Rename, in line with other categories for New Zealand sports representatives: e.g., Category:New Zealand international rugby union players (which was recently moved from Category:All Blacks), Category:New Zealand international footballers. Surprisingly there's no parent category for New Zealand sports representatives, and nothing approaching a clear-cut naming convention for these sorts of categories. – Liveste (talk • edits) 03:16, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom; would probably be OK to include a category redirect, since anyone searching for the team might search by nickname. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:33, 3 May 2010 (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:Terminal illness[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. -- Black Falcon (talk) 00:52, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Terminal illness (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Category has no clear purpose and contains only 3 articles. Diseases are not categorized as being terminal, rather a patient's condition may be terminal as the result of advanced disease or failure of treatment. Almost any disease could be terminal, so categorization by such would be inappropriate. I would consider the non-eponymous articles in this category to be miscategorized here. All of the articles, including Terminal illness, are already categorized in other, more appropriate categories. Scott Alter 02:47, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Many "illnesses" are terminal (as is life) and I can't see the utility in such a category. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 09:34, 30 April 2010 (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:Football players of Turkish descent[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. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:48, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Football players of Turkish descent (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Both "football player" and "of Turkish descent" are defining characteristics for individuals when considered individually, but their intersection is non-defining—people of Turkish descent do not play football any differently than people of non-Turkish descent. This appears to be the only by-ethnicity category for association football players of this type; furthermore, Category:People of Turkish descent is not subdivided by occupation. All five articles are already in appropriate Fooian football players and Fooian people of Turkish descent categories, so merging is not needed. (Category creator notified using Template:Cfd-notify) -- Black Falcon (talk) 02:45, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Definite delete. The intersection may be interesting to someone, but it is certainly not defining. Classifying people by occupation and ethnic descent is rarely defining. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:36, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – unrelated characteristics. Occuli (talk) 08:51, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - the point is raised above, but should this not mean that most if not all of Category:American people by ethnic or national origin and occupation etc. be deleted. (I m a "completist" so) I do have trouble with judging case by case whether certain intersections of the same type be considered noteworthy and others trivial but I sense this viewpoint goes against the tide, so to speak. There is the view that despite being trivial certain subcatting aids navigation in breaking up long lists, such as the Category:Canadian expatriates in the United States. Mayumashu (talk) 00:43, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    If the majority of intersections of a particular type are significant, then (generally speaking, of course) I think would be worth creating categories for not-so-significant intersections of the same type in order to achieve completeness. However, with regard to nationality-ethnicity-occupation categories, I think that Category:American people by ethnic or national origin and occupation is the exception rather than the norm.
    More generally, I think that a certain degree of case-by-case evaluation is useful and necessary, in the sense that certain occupations and nationality-occupation intersections should not be subcategorized by ethnic descent, and vice versa (e.g., consider the hypothetical case of Category:American computer programmers of English descent). -- Black Falcon (talk) 03:09, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I guess it then comes down to the majority's ruling on each case, by case, as to whether a particular sub-cat is too fine a distinction to make, based on either its cultural significance or its usefulness as a list 'break-upper'. I sense that with the nationality-ethnic descent-occupation cats, often they are created for reasons of ethnic pride, and then those of us active here judge as to whether they fit the tree scheme properly or not, which is fine, as we volunteer to do what we do here. Mayumashu (talk) 19:18, 30 April 2010 (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:Organ disorders[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. -- Black Falcon (talk) 00:51, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Organ disorders (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Diseases and disorders are generally categorized by organ system, which is the basis of Category:Diseases and disorders. This category is not useful because all diseases and disorders effect at least one organ. Additionally, "organ disorders" is not a commonly-used medical term. This category contains a few random articles, which are already better categorized within Category:Diseases and disorders. Scott Alter 02:34, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This looks like an attempt at a high-level category for Category:Organ failure (which will need to be re-categorised). Keeping this category will tempt the inclusion of more articles like BXO which as a penile disorder and therefore not a disorder of an "organ" in the clinical sense. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 09:45, 30 April 2010 (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:Okataina Volcanic Center[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:Okataina Volcanic Centre. Per Hugo999's suggestion, I have initiated a nomination for Category:Tongariro Volcanic Center; see here. -- Black Falcon (talk) 00:50, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Okataina Volcanic Center to Category:Okataina Volcanic Centre
Nominator's rationale: NZ English spelling for NZ geographical location. Wasn't sure if speedy renaming criterion C2.C was applicable. – Liveste (talk • edits) 01:19, 29 April 2010 (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:Upper West Side (Manhattan)[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. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 06:11, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Upper West Side (Manhattan) to Category:Upper West Side
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Make it consistent with article. Gryffindor (talk) 23:45, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Black Falcon (talk) 01:09, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: Category was not tagged. It is now tagged. -- Black Falcon (talk) 01:09, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment shouldn't it be relisted at the same time? People only looking at the category would not have known. 70.29.208.247 (talk) 12:02, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I did relist it; compare the time stamps of the nomination and of the relisting and tagging notices. -- Black Falcon (talk) 17:25, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question Does the target unambiguously refer to Manhattan? Peterkingiron (talk) 21:45, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to match article name. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:47, 11 May 2010 (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:Fuzhou 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: rename. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 06:07, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Fuzhou people (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Procedural listing of a contested speedy renaming nomination. No opinion. -- Black Falcon (talk) 00:51, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Copied from Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Speedy:

Category:Fuzhou people to Category:Ethnic Fuzhou people C2C (to disambiguate from Category:People from Fuzhou, for people from the city of Fuzhou) Mayumashu (talk) 16:39, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Does not meet C2.C, in my opinion, since the Ethnic Foo people format is not "overwhelmingly used" within the Category:People by ethnicity tree. -- Black Falcon (talk) 18:31, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
But it is the only used disambiguate within the tree. Mayumashu (talk) 22:08, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
That's true, but there are only two instances of it in a tree which contains over 200 categories. -- Black Falcon (talk) 06:17, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
I agree that this one should probably go to a full CFD, not because I don't think it's a good idea, but because it doesn't really fit into the criteria and may be controversial with other users. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:49, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Rename as proposed. As I mention above, I think this is a good idea. The possibility of confusing this category with people from the city is entirely plausible. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:58, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose use of "Ethnic" which is non-standard. The main article is Fuzhou people. If confusion is feared, rename to something like Category:Fuzhou (Hokchew) people, which would be sufficient to make it clear it is not the city. There is only one entry (a sub cat) in this category anyway. Sussexonian (talk) 07:28, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think it's "non-standard" because only rarely can an ethnicity be confused with something else. That's the point of adding it, not to conform it to some standard. Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:44, 7 May 2010 (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:Less-lethal weapons[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 for proposed rename. The target category remains a soft redirect. There was also no consensus in the discussion to move the article, so right now the two do not correspond. Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:29, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Less-lethal weapons to Category:Non-lethal weapons
Nominator's rationale: Article moved from less-lethal to non-lethal. Marcus Aurelius Antoninus (talk) 00:37, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: Non-lethal weapons is most appropriate. Additional subcategories to consider for inclusion: "Non-lethal Military Equipment" and/or "Non-lethal Capabilities" might be helpful subcategories as well (for further differentiation consider NLs that are: Antipersonnel or Antimateriel; kinetic, chemical, and electromagnetic; developmental and/or fielded) Harmonia1 (talk) 02:38, 29 April 2010 (UTC)Harmonia1 (talk) 02:33, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Harmonia1 has been blocked indefinitely because CheckUser confirmed that he or she has abusively used 4 accounts. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Harmonia1/Archive. --Timeshifter (talk) 11:53, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Non-lethal weapons as title and category. Also would support categories for Antipersonnel, Antimateriel, Kinetic, Chemical, Electromagnetic weapons categories which are appropriate for type-classifying non-lethal weapons, as well as peace-keeping, policing, crowd control .Harmonia1 (talk) 15:34, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment/Query:Oppose I'm not quite sure, but I think "Less lethal" is the preferred terminiology by the people actrually using these weapons. Since even a rubber bullet can be quite lethal in the right/wrong circumstances. - The Bushranger (talk) 13:18, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - as The Bushranger states, "less-lethal" is the terminology used by the major manufacturers of products in this class. It is a very important distinction. There is little in life which is truly 'non-lethal', e.g. too much ingested water can kill, too much salt can kill either acutely or chronically, too much sitting on the couch will eventually kill you, but none of these things are produced and/or marketed as to do harm to the user/subject. Less-lethal weapon systems are designed on the basis that they will do SOME harm, but usually not enough to be the direct cause of death in the person they are used upon. However, the statistics show that a certain percentage of those people Tazed or hit by a capsicum pellet or active area denial system will expire. There are usually other factors present such as drug use or pre-existing medical condition, but these factors would also be in play if a person was the victim of an injury from what is generally accepted to be a lethal weapon such as a knife or a gun. "Less-lethal" is the industry terminology and the correct terminology. Riddley (talk) 18:50, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose' as above. --Foroa (talk) 14:43, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • As above, Harmonia1 supports. Ridley, "less lethal" is the terminology for U.S. law enforcement and some other law enforcement. The Unoted Nations and NATO and the US Department of Defense and the British Ministry of Defense and the Italian (including their police) and the German governments, plus others, choose "non-lethal" when they mean items that can be used across the spectrum of conflict to limit casualties and collateral damage. Militaries incorporate privately developed or police-developed items advertised as "less lethal" whenever appropriate, since military police and others can use them without expensive safety and legal determinations, which is where the confusion begins: sometimes privately-developed or Institute of Justice supported low-cost, items can be adapted for military use in crowd control or security missions. As said on other discussion pages, non-lethal includes expensive, high tech items that manufactures are not making primarily for police and these cannot and should not be included in a category called "less lethal" since they are subject to the rules and requiements of the various militaries involved. For example, the US Marine Corps has a program officer in charge of non-lethal weapons for the Marines; non-lethala have what in defense are called "requirements" that less-lethals (cheaper, more easily fielded, but less comprehensive in use), may sometimes fill. Less lethals have few or no requirements that non-lethals will fill. For example, the "Active Denial Technology" (ADT) fielded by the Joint Non-lethal Weapons Directorate of the U.S. Deparment of Defense is far too expensive, large, and special-purposed to ever belong to a police department. Over 32,000 police departments have separate budgets and buy inexpensive, "off-the-shelf" items. The coordinated research and development necessary for non-lethals is far beyond the "less lethal" folks. Surely Wikipedians will be guided by logic, not by the number of manufactures hawking their wares on the internet or the number of police personnel free to comment. Many non-lethal development projects are classified until they have pased their safety checks and legal issues and are ready to be fielded. How will Wikipedia handle the very expensive, multi-year development program such as ADT in a category called "less lethal" which if it exists at all should be strictly devoted to police and riot gear that's small and cheap? I said early on that the two should be treated separately, having a page for LLS and a page for N-Ls. Some thought this would cause confusion. The depate over the name for these weapons starts anew every time someone discovers the activity. It has been going on since 1980s and it will never stop. The U.S. Congress created direction and a Department of Defense program to develop "non-lethal weapons," and it is the law of the land that this be so. I believe the rationale employed in renaming the page N-L is sound in that anythng used by police can be used by the military, where it is not true that anything used by millitaries can be used by police, except where police are nationalized and martial law is imposed. I understand that this is a highly charged area, but reaonably there is no way to link the high-tech, high-impact programs such Ground Combat Vehicle, which calls out a requirement for Non-lethals, not Less Lethals, in its contract solicitation, to Less Lethals, which are for deployment by shot guns, police cars, riot cops, and at the most high-tech, helicopters. Marcus Antonius Antoninus has done the next best thing to separating the pages by opting for the more inclusive term, Non-lethal, rather than the more limited term, Less Lethal.Harmonia1 (talk) 15:30, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]


*:le·thal �(l"ÆthÃl), adj.
1. of, pertaining to, or causing death; deadly; fatal: a lethal weapon; a lethal dose.
2. made to cause death: a lethal chamber; a lethal attack.
Made to cause less death? We discussed elsewhere that no weapon is one hundred percent lethal; most are 30% lethal and categorized as lethal despite that. So ALL weapons are "less lethal" (even A-bombs, if you insist on zero survivability as your definition of lethal) if that term is not total gibberish. In the 80s, NATO went from 7.62 NATO to 5.56 NATO so that fewer would be killed and more wounded, the strategy being that it would then take 2 to carry the wounded 1 off the field, taking 3 shooters out of play temporarily. So is the 5.56 less lethal? Depends on where you shoot it. In the ear, not hardly. This is a slippery slope. I have my sled ready, but I've been here many times since the name-game started in the 80s. I say again and for the last time, so as not to irritate anyone: The police want to call their small arms equipment "less lethal" because their funding and support channels are different; they will continue to buy under that rubric. All these name changes came about as a result of funding wars: different channels of support and money to different organizations. When NLs got hot politically, the Institute of Justice was formed to institutionalize LLs. Before that, unclassified small arms could still be pushed to their users in small numbers and with a minimum of red tape. Since you have done what you have done, you are the quick-draw expert on hand. Everyone here knows more about how to negotiate WP than I. Wouldn't you just redirect all the other names (so many) to the N-L label? What about all the other silly things people have tried to call this, if you use multiple names will you have to use every single one? (DARPA wanted to call it "non-threatening weapons": not sure how anything can be a weapon and be nonthreatening; one of the values of any weapon is its deterrent effect upon presentation.) However, having an article that needs to consider semantics over substance becomes unhelpful. One thinks that the old way is the best way: Type-classify by intent: the intent of the weapons is non-lethal; the effect of any weapon may well be less than lethal. Less lethal isn't English as I understand it, but that's never stopped anyone before. What bothers me is seeing Wikipedians get caught up in branding arguments that have to do with obligated constiuencies more than with the proper definitions of words. I have no dog in this fight but the dog of reason. Harmonia1 (talk) 20:26, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Examples of deaths:
Deaths (and risk of) in normal use:
Rubber bullets. "They may cause bone fractures, injuries to internal organs, or death."
Bean-bag rounds. "A flexible baton round can severely injure or kill in a wide variety of ways."
Taser. Many deaths. Also, skull fractures (and deaths) from falling without muscle control.
Teargas. Deaths from teargassing prisoners in restraint chairs. Also, prisoners lying on their stomachs with hands and legs shackled all together behind them ("hogtied"). Leading to suffocation combined with cardiac problems, etc.. --Timeshifter (talk) 03:17, 13 May 2010 (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:Trade association[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 both as suggested by Vegaswikian. Renaming sub-cats should be handled by a subsequent nomination. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 06:14, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:Trade association to Category:Industry trade groups
Nominator's rationale: Merge. This seems to basically be a duplication. Note that Industry trade group redirects to Trade association. (The nominated category could perhaps be a subcategory of the target, but if that scheme were maintained it would seem that the only reason we would categorize anything in the nominated category as opposed to the other one is because the name of the group contains the word "association" in it, which seems an awful lot like categorization by shared name. I could be wrong about this; if anyone thinks I am, I hope someone will be willing to move all of the "associations" articles presently in Category:Industry trade groups into the nominated category. There are a lot of them.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:16, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge both to Category:Trade associations to match the main article. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:02, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • That would require a subsequent renaming of some of the subcategories, but I otherwise have no objection to that solution. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:02, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as Vegaswikian. This is effectively reverse merge. Trade association is the more satisfacotry term. However we should not be doctrinaire about necessarily renaming subcats. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:50, 10 May 2010 (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:Models[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:Models to Category:Models (occupation). NW (Talk) 11:30, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Models to Category:Models (occupation)
Nominator's rationale: The category scheme encompassing models, conceptual models, scientific models etcetera would benefit greatly by being able to reside under this name. Please support this effort to organize some otherwise difficult to classify articles. Furthermore, of the ten options that were presented in the previous discussion, Category:Models (occupation) was the only one which resolves the ambiguity in the current title, was supported by more than one participant, and to which no one directly objected. Greg Bard 00:00, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Individual models. It does resolve the ambiguity of the current title (when do individual nonhuman models gain the noteworthyness to have an article-- and how do you have so many individual nonhuman models that it warrants a category?), and yes I object still (as I did then, by implication) that Category:Models (occupation) seems more about the whole occupation (and not the people) or articles like Miss Hollywood, etc. In fact this type of rename would retain ambiguity in the category purpose. Is the purpose for articles on types and classes of models, or is the purpose for articles on individual models? şṗøʀĸɕäɾłäů∂ɛ:τᴀʟĸ 02:02, 29 April 2010 (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/2010_April_29&oldid=1140753443"