Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 July 7

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< July 6 July 8 >

July 7[edit]

Category:Socialist Party[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename all. Should I forget, will someone please create disambig categories after the bot runs? Courcelles (talk) 01:47, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Socialist Party to Category:Socialist Party (England and Wales)
Propose renaming Category:Socialist Party members to Category:Socialist Party (England and Wales) members
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Propose disambiguating to match main article Socialist Party (England and Wales). Presently the names are a wee bit ambiguous: see Socialist Party. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:56, 7 July 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:Geothermal communities[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. Courcelles (talk) 01:09, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Geothermal communities (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. This category only had one entry, Klamath Falls, Oregon, where the claim for inclusion is that The older part of the city is located above natural geothermal springs. Right now all of northern Nevada could be considered for inclusion here since a reasonable portion of their power comes from geothermal sources. Maybe at some time in the future, this type of category with clear inclusion criteria may make sense, but I don't see that being today. Note the category is now empty so if anyone thinks this can be speedied, feel free. Further note that this is not from the trio of banned users. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:30, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The article Klamath Falls, Oregon was put back in the category after an editor added a new section on geothermal energy. However, there's no main article explaining what constitutes a "Geothermal community", which leaves a big question mark over the category because it has no inclusion criteria. If there is a widely recognized definition of what a "Geothermal community" is and is not, I supposed a set of inclusion criteria could be formulated, and we would have some basis on which to evaluate the usefulness of the category. Cgingold (talk) 12:18, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The category is hopelessly vague right now, for "Communities that use geothermal energy." For what? From where? Klamath Falls does seem to be quite interesting in that it has this heating system within its boundaries. But countless other communities around the world use geothermal energy if they live in a area where geothermal generated electricity is part of the power grid. I say Delete this as a vague and SMALLCAT. Someone can start a category on "Communities with geothermal heating systems" if they like and the community can judge that one on its own merits. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:39, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. There is Category:Municipalities powered by 100% renewable energy. Don't knew if it is possible to re-categorize Klamath Falls, Oregon there. Beagel (talk) 06:45, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless some one can come up with a watertight definition of what a geothermal community is. I suspect that a lot of communities in Iceland are wholly heated geothermally. Bath is a spa town with a thermal spring, and I think there are other places with thermal springs. My vote is this without prejudice to the creation of one or more similar, but more tightly defined, categories. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:10, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete could be confused for a biology category. 76.66.192.55 (talk) 22:41, 12 July 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:Delivery trucks[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. Courcelles (talk) 01:48, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Delivery trucks (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. This two entry category meets the requirements for OC small. We do not have an article on delivery trucks. That was a redirect to mail truck which represents only a tiny subset of delivery trucks. That redirect will be changed after this nomination to Delivery (commerce) which includes coverage of delivery vehicles. If we create a new category, it probably needs to be also included in Category:Commercial item transport and distribution. I'm not convinced that renaming the current category to Category:Mail trucks is needed at this time unless someone can find more articles to populate it. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:45, 7 July 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:NASCAR race wins by manufacturer[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 all. Courcelles (talk) 23:14, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:NASCAR race wins by manufacturer (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Chevrolet NASCAR race wins
Category:Chrysler NASCAR race wins
Category:Toyota NASCAR race wins
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Overcategorisation. WP:OC#PERF. Never likely to be completed unless every NASCAR race along its three-tiered race system (as per definition in category) is completed. Falcadore (talk) 21:18, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Grouping NASCAR races by their winner's car manufacturer isn't a useful way to categorize them. It's nearly arbitrary and unlikely to ever be completed. If anything it should be a list, but Wikipedia is not excessive statistics. Royalbroil 12:17, 8 July 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:Greed[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. Courcelles (talk) 19:14, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Greed (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. First off, greed is ambiguous and the 2 entry category is basically not being used. Secondly I'm not sure that miser is a manifestation of greed so that does not belong. Then we get to Category:Speculation. Again this may in some cases be driven by greed, but to imply that speculation is greed may be stretching the definition a bit far. So let's delete this and if there are articles for a different category with a clearly defined focus allow it to be created. Note, I also have concerns with Category:Speculation, but I'm not ready to nominate this for anything quite yet. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:05, 7 July 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:Direct biofuels[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. Courcelles (talk) 23:16, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:Direct biofuels to Category:Biofuels
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge this Mac/Noeptro category. Nopetro's (short for "No petroleum") category is defined as "biofuels that can be used directly in a petroleum engine." Only Biodiesel which "is meant to be used in standard diesel engines" and possibly Green diesel fit the bill (the latter article makes no mention of the standard engine issue at all). The other two articles are: Bio-Blend Fuels, a company producing bio-diesel; Butanol fuel which may or may not be produced from fossil fuels. Even the Biodiesel article makes it clear that vehicles have had to be adapted in some cases to use the stuff, reducing, to my mind anyway, the distinctive difference between this and a 'non-direct' biofuel such as Ethanol fuel. I'm most concerned about the fact that my Google search of this term had Nopetro's category as its top hit, suggesting that it doesn't have a lot of real world currency? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:49, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - direct and non-direct is currently not a useful division of biofuels

Jebus989★ 21:55, 9 July 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:Guinness Premiership[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. Courcelles (talk) 19:12, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Guinness Premiership to Category:English Premiership (rugby union)
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Since this competition has had numerous sponsors in its history (Courage, Allied Dunbar, Zurich, Guinness, and now Aviva), and given that sponsors are subject to change from time to time, I believe this category should have a more generic name. Dale Arnett (talk) 17:10, 7 July 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:Good articles on German Wikipedia[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: Move to talk pages. I'll set up an AWB run and do this within the hour. Courcelles (talk) 06:09, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Good articles on German Wikipedia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: I suppose this category has some possible uses, though it doesn't seem to be in much use at the moment. I don't think if it's kept it should remain in its current location in main category space (indeed in Category:Germany) or that it's a good idea for it to contain the actual articles rather than article talk pages. I am open to deletion, renaming, or rescoping really - but it is clearly a category that merits wider community discussion. TheGrappler (talk) 12:20, 15 June 2010 (UTC) TheGrappler (talk) 12:20, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. As the author I don't have strong feelings about this. The category is automatically inserted by Template:Lesenswert which generates the 'tag' you can see on the template page. We can take it out. On the other hand it may be a useful admin category to enable translators to identify and work on articles that are rated as 'good' on de.wiki and bring them up to an equivalent standard on en.wiki. So perhaps someone could transfer this into a suitable admin category area and I could start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Germany to determine whether it has utility and what its relationship to {{Link GA|de}} should be. HTH. --Bermicourt (talk) 16:16, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ξxplicit 07:39, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to talk pages. This is a maintence category, and does not belong in mainpsace. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)
  • Keep But make it a hidden category. Lugnuts (talk) 17:39, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to talk pages -- The German WP (uniquely - I think) has tight standards on who can edit. A german GA should thus be authoritive, but this is properly a maintenance category, not an article-space one. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:13, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to talk pages per above comments. This is a valuable category, but does not belong in mainspace. cmadler (talk) 19:12, 15 July 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:FP7 Projects[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. Courcelles (talk) 23:16, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:FP7 Projects to Category:Seventh Framework Programme projects
Nominator's rationale: Rename to match main article. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:23, 7 July 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:Cranes by type[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. Courcelles (talk) 23:18, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Cranes by type (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

  • Delete - I'm puzzled as to why this category was created as it's only contents are two sub-cats -- both of which are also already in the parent, Category:Cranes, and one of which is about to be deleted because it's empty. Notified creator with {{subst:cfd-notify}} Cgingold (talk) 16:19, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think I may have emptied Category:Huletts as a side effect of removing images for files on commons that were categorized here. There were a bunch of images categorized in maybe 5 different categories. Since they are on commons they don't need categories here. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:33, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It was created to follow the general pattern of a Category:<foo> by type for similar articles. cf. Commons:Category:Cranes by type too. Cranes certainly have enough scope to justify this. A more useful edit might be to organise and populate it, rather than calling for deletion. Some of the already-existing articles (and even sub-categories) of Category:Cranes belong within it. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:20, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless there is a plan to have Category:Cranes by somethingelse. There are not enough subcats to justify this extra level of subcattery. Occuli (talk) 23:20, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There's no need for the extra layer of categorization at the present. - Eureka Lott 17:38, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Bizarre category, no need for it. CRGreathouse (t | c) 03:25, 14 July 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:Cranes[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:Cranes (machines) and leave category redirect.--Mike Selinker (talk) 16:28, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Cranes to Category:Cranes (machine)
Nominator's rationale: Rename. These are not birds. Rename to match main article. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:11, 7 July 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:Electric scooters[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 and split contents with Category:Electric motorcycles. If someone wants to merge the two, they can nominate them together.--Mike Selinker (talk) 16:28, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Electric scooters to Category:Electric motorcycles and scooters
Nominator's rationale: Rename to match main article. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:45, 7 July 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:Garages[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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 16:28, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose splitting Category:Garages
Nominator's rationale: Split. Garages is completely ambiguous. We probably need Category:Garages (house), Category:Garages (car repair), Category:Garages (parking) and maybe a few others. I'm convinced that the first two would have enought articles. Very unsure about the last. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:42, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Where the three etc. are related, shouldn t we keep Category:Garages as a supracat and just start up the three plus? Mayumashu (talk)
  • Keep -- All have the same origin; they are merely differnet aspects of the use of the same term. Its present population is already only small. I therefore see no reason to split it. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:19, 12 July 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:Linux compatible hardware[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. Courcelles (talk) 19:10, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Linux compatible hardware (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. What hardware is not linux compatible? The software runs on small machines and on supercomputers. I'm not seeing the value of this underused category. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:18, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Linux/Unix/Ubuntu etc are all software and potentially can run on all hardware. Twiceuponatime (talk) 08:23, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Linux doesn't run on all hardware (I tried it on my toaster and it wouldn't boot), but it does run on nearly all PCs, as well as many other types of computer. The category may be attempting to capture the fact that Linux support is unavailable or limited for for some components of some PCs (such as video cards), and for some peripheral devices. However, the extent of support (or lack of it) for hardware is a very complex issue: some video cards are supported by poor drivers or by proprietary drivers, and different distributions raise difft compatibility issues. The resulting picture is far too complex and nuance to be captured in the category system. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:17, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. CRGreathouse (t | c) 03:24, 14 July 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:Philosophy pages by type[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: upmerge.--Mike Selinker (talk) 10:09, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Philosophy pages by type (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

  • Upmerge into the parent, Category:Philosophy. While I understand & appreciate the apparent motivation in creating this category -- which I presume was to reduce the clutter in that parent cat -- placing all of those sub-cats into this inscrutably-named category only serves to impede navigation. The typical reader will have no idea whatsoever what the category is being used for, and will therefore never look inside to find all of the sub-cats that have been tucked away there. If I thought there was any real prospect of coming up with a better name that would actually aid navigation I would have proposed renaming rather than merging/deleting -- however, in the unlikely event that somebody comes up with a truly helpful name I will of course reconsider. Notified creator with {{subst:cfd-notify}} Cgingold (talk) 15:17, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very strong keep -- I think you are presuming a lot about how people use Wikipedia. This category is extremely valuable in reducing clutter, and grouping like categories. Take a look at how wonderfully organized the philosophy category is. This proposal is very inappropriate. Greg Bard (talk) 20:03, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whoa. I'm a little taken aback by the tenor of your response, Gregbard. I went out of my way to acknowledge your obvious motivation in creating the category, explained at some length what the problem is, and offered to reconsider if you or anybody else could come up with a truly helpful name. Instead of engaging in a constructive dialog, you simply chose to ignore/deny that there is a real problem with the category. When I first came across the name in the related CFD below, I was mystified as to what else might be in the category -- and when I saw what it was in fact being used for, I was quite surprised. The simple fact is that the name you chose for it gives the reader no clue as to its contents. Despite my extensive experience in naming of categories, I was unable to come up with a suitable name for it. But as I said above, I am leaving the door open to that possibility -- so you are more than welcome to take a whack at it. Cgingold (talk) 13:08, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Btw... I was (already) aware that a lot of good work has gone into organizing the contents of Category:Philosophy in a coherent fashion. But that's not to say that it was flawless and could not be improved upon. In fact, the categories that are displayed directly in the main category were not as well-organized as they might have been -- so I went through the lot of them and applied the appropriate sort keys. And as you are aware, I also found that some of the 2nd-tier sub-cats were not really in the proper parent cats. So I moved them out of those inapt parents -- and to make a long story short, I went ahead and created a new top-level sub-cat (Category:Philosophy and society) that fits in very nicely with the existing scheme. However I'm afraid this category still sticks out like a sore thumb.... Cgingold (talk) 17:16, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge per well-reasoned nomination. This category is a strange mixture, and I know of no other category like it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:31, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What is so strange about a category that organizes by namespace and major types of pages? These are the categories that arose out of the philosophy category. This was a natural evolution. Greg Bard (talk) 23:26, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, one more try: It's because no reader will have a clue as to what is in the category unless they are for some reason so overcome by curiosity that they actually click on it to find out what is inside. But that is not how categories are supposed to function. The most basic rule of categories is that the name must convey to the reader a good idea of its contents. So if you want this category to be retained you are simply going to have to come up with a name that achieves that objective. But as I've already said, I think that's unlikely -- surely it's no accident that there are no other categories of this sort, undoubtedly because nobody has ever come up with a suitable way to do it. But hey, maybe you're the guy! Cgingold (talk) 03:07, 9 July 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:Philosophy-related lists[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) 10:12, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Philosophy-related lists to Category:Philosophy lists
Nominator's rationale: In order to be consistent with other categories in Philosophy pages by type. Greg Bard (talk) 03:31, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose renaming - I think it's far more important for this category to retain the name which follows the predominant formulation in the other parent cat, Category:Lists, where the great majority of sibling categories take the form "Xyz-related lists" -- which allows for slightly greater breadth in usage. It's also worth noting that the edit history for the category indicates that it was moved to its current name from Category:Philosophy lists -- the proposed rename -- on April 8, 2006, per the results of a previous CFD discussion. Cgingold (talk) 15:01, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Cgingold and per convention of Category:Lists. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:18, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This category was created long before there was a substantial and active philosophy department. We should not be stuck with it. "Philosophy-related" implies that things like theosophy, esoterism, spirituality, etcetera are ok. They are not ok. The motivation is to create a category that is solidly within a formal academic area, rather than just some informal area of interest. This type of proposal makes WP appear more credible.Greg Bard (talk) 20:08, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Greg, the fact that WP:PHILO exists and has done great work in expanding and deepening Wikipedia's coverage of philopsophy is really neither here-nor-there wrt to the name of this category. The main thing here is that a stable naming convention exists and works well: "Foo-related lists" makes it clear that the category is for lists of things related to Foo, rather for "lists of Foo" or for articles about "Foo lists". I appreciate that WP:PHILO doesn't want the category used for things which are not really philosophy, but that's a matter of category maintenance which would apply just as much (if not more) if the name was changed to "philiophy lists". What you want could really be achieve only renaming it to something verbose like Category:Lists of things related to philosophy, which mean the academic discipline thereof and not any hippy-dippy stuff about spirituality or uplifting aphorisms or any other such cack ... and as I'm sure you've noticed, that sort of explanation belongs in an intro on the category page, not in the title. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:59, 7 July 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_July_7&oldid=1140753312"