Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 April 30

< April 29	May 1 >

April 30[edit]

Category:Irish Karateka[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: speedy delete (error) by Mike Selinker. Bencherlite 16:52, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Accidental creation with wrong capitalization. Correct capitalization (Category:Irish karateka) already in place as intended. Scott Alter 23:29, 30 April 2007 (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:Satirical opera[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. >Radiant< 09:45, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As discussed by the Opera project here, this isn't a genuine stylistic opera genre but a vague subject category which is neither well-defined or useful. --Kleinzach 23:23, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Johnbod 01:25, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Doczilla 07:24, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Folantin 11:24, 4 May 2007 (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:Zines and Zinesters in the Philippines[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. >Radiant< 09:45, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Zines and Zinesters in the Philippines to Category:Philippine magazines

Merge. Poorly named, one inhabitant. Her Pegship (tis herself) 23:19, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Category:Zines - I think that the magazine categories are supposed to be for those with more formal publication. Otto4711 15:05, 6 May 2007 (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.

English surnames[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. >Radiant< 09:45, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Exactly what categories should not be used for - a collection of unconnected people who happen to share the same surname. Warofdreams talk 22:42, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - there seem to be other similar cats. Johnbod 22:49, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - if the people aren't related, it's overcategorization based on having the same name. If they are related then the articles can be interlinked through the texts with no need for the categories. Otto4711 00:36, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Doczilla 07:25, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Brandon97 11:57, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Sleep On It 21:13, 3 May 2007 (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.

Elections by year[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. >Radiant< 09:45, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Elections in Canada, 2007 to Category:2007 elections in Canada
Category:Philippine elections, 2007 to Category:2007 elections in the Philippines

Nominator's Rationale: for consistency with other [year] elections in [country] categories. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:54, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename (clarifying intent as nominator). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:54, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Seems unlikely to be controversial in any way. -Pete 21:58, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom and add the new form to the naming conventions. Tim! 16:48, 2 May 2007 (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:Schizophrenic fictional characters[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: listify & delete. >Radiant< 09:45, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arguably defining, but in many cases unsaid and left unexplicit. Subjective inclusion. Requires medical diagnosis on fictional characters etc. etc. Precedent with psychopaths, sociopaths, narcissists, alcoholics, shopaholics, compulsive eaters categories stands. Instead, I suggest an annotated Schizophrenia in fiction article. Delete. ~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 20:44, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and listify because the public applies the term incorrectly more often than not. An annotated article would be very appropriate because it can cite specific references to a diagnosis of a schizophrenic disorder. Doczilla 07:20, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless one of the characters is verifiably schizophrenic It looks like none of the three articles in this category are for characters who are verifiably schizophrenic, as in you can point to something in the fictional work that explicitly states "this character is schizophrenic". There are fictional characters who are, according to the fiction itself, schizophrenic. So if any of those verifiable characters have articles then I'm ok with using this category for them. But in the meantime, since the three articles currently there aren't verifiable candidates, delete the category. Dugwiki 16:21, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The only verifiably schizophrenic character I can think of is Don Konkey (not listed) who says it in the opening montage of every episode of Dirt.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 11:44, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The section Schizophrenia#Popular_culture lists a few other fictional characters that are supposedly identified as schizophrenic. Dugwiki 21:26, 2 May 2007 (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:People's Republic of Mongolia[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. >Radiant< 09:45, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Replaced by Category: Mongolian Peoples Republic. Yaan 15:22, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Johnbod 15:51, 30 April 2007 (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:Williams County Townships[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. >Radiant< 09:45, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Williams County Townships to Category:Townships in Ohio

Merge, it's not specific which state (it's Ohio) and no other county has such a category. As well, the only page that was in it had an erroneous name and has been redirected to a page not in the category. The statewide townships page has been established as the proper place for all township pages. Nyttend 14:45, 30 April 2007 (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.

Drought[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was No Consensus. --Xdamr^talk 15:30, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Droughts to Category:Drought MrZaius^talk 05:55, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from speedy. Pretty sure I don't agree with de-pluralizing this.--Mike Selinker 14:29, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do not rename - The convention is to use plural nouns for category names. Dr. Submillimeter 15:16, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep & split per the Dr. belowJohnbod 15:52, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and oppose rename per Dr S. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:59, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/split/comment - similar categories for weather phenomena use plural form for specific instances and singular form for the science behind them (thus we have both Category:Tornado and Category:Tornadoes). Given that this category contains both specific instances (e.g., 1984 - 1985 famine in Ethiopia) and the science (e.g., Keetch-Byram Drought Index), splitting may be a better option. Grutness...wha? 23:10, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - This solution will lead to confusion, as people will have problems understanding the difference between the categories. The difference between "drought" and "droughts" will mean little to the average editor, as the two words basically communicate the same thing (that the category is about droughts). Moreover, many editors could potentially accidentally miscategorize articles given these names. Maybe a Category:Drought science would be a more appropriate name for general articles on droughts. Dr. Submillimeter 07:28, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd agree with that, plus I notice that Category:Tornadoes is not a sub-cat of Category:Tornado, which seems odd - each is referenced on the other's page, but being a sub-cat would be more natural. Johnbod 11:45, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've certainly no objection to renaming along those lines (and the same with Category:Tornado → Category:Tornado science and any others that are like that. It would mean keeping the plural for the category on the individual weather events though, no? Grutness...wha? 00:01, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's Category:Tornado science with sub-cat Category:Tornadoes surely? Johnbod 17:59, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um... that's what I said. The individual weather events would be at Category:Tornadoes or {{Droughts}}, etc - not Category:Tornado or Category:Drought (i.e., keeping the current name up for renaming). They would be a subcat of the "X science" cats, and presumably of some other parent cat like Category:Weather events. Grutness...wha? 02:21, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, the arrow is confusing for simple folk like me Johnbod 02:31, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep/split per Grutness for the reasons given Hmains 02:02, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as above, Category:Tornado definitely needs renaming too. Tim! 16:50, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Split per Grutness. We have numerous cases of both plural (for specific instances) and singular (for the general topic), and this is endorsed by WP:NCCAT, which specifically mentions Category:Opera and Category:Operas. Side note: I strongly oppose renaming (or merging) Category:Tornado in violation of existing guidelines. I suggest that any changes to our naming conventions be done on the appropriate talk page, rather than unilaterally decided here. Xtifr _tälk 11:31, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

People by city in Wales[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: do not rename. >Radiant< 09:45, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People by city in Wales to Category:Welsh people by city Speedy criterion #4.— SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 20:26, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose due to conventions of Category:People by city and Category:People by city in the United Kingdom. -- Prove It ^(talk) 18:21, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per ProveIt. OrchWyn 19:43, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Moved from speedy. Seems clearly wrong to do this, so oppose.--Mike Selinker 14:26, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per conventions. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 17:10, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose due to conventions of Category:People by city Rgds, --Trident13 22:00, 30 April 2007 (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.

British Georgian[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 "of descent". Deletion was also suggested, but should be discussed in a new nomination if desired, for clarity's sake. >Radiant< 09:45, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:British Georgian to Category:British Georgians Philip Stevens 05:27, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Delete as a neologism, but if we must have it, rename to Category:British people of Georgian descent. OrchWyn 19:45, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- But the one person in the category, Katie Melua, isn't of Georgian descent, she is Georgian, however she immigrated to Britain and now has dual nationality. So she's a British-Georgian. There is an example of this, people who were born in Poland and emigrated to Britain go in Category:Polish Britons, whereas people who were born in Britain but have a Polish ancestor (normally parent or grandparent) go into Category:British people of Polish descent. --Philip Stevens 19:55, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Moved from speedy. No idea on this.--Mike Selinker 14:26, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:British people of Georgian descent for clarity & consistency. I thought this was about achitecture when I saw the list. Distinguishing between descended & native-born is over-categorization in my view, and is very inconsistently applied indeed. Johnbod 15:45, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per OrchWyn and Johnbod; for better or worse "Georgian" ambiguously refers to the country, the US State, and various British time periods when the king was named "George". Carlossuarez46 19:54, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose any renaming per Philip Stevens. Hera1187 20:12, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per OrchWyn Katie Melia is of Georgian descent. All the "Xian Britons" categories should go, as this form of categorisation is an American import with an unwelcome agenda. Haddiscoe 22:36, 30 April 2007 (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.

Hollywood movie studios[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. Perhaps a new speedy criterion could be instated fo this. >Radiant< 09:45, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Hollywood movie studios to Category:Hollywood film studios per convention of Category:Film studios. Otto4711 04:51, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- I don't disagree with this rename, but which of the 5 criteria above does this fall under? --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 12:40, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? 2+3, 1, and 4 respectively. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 01:51, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry are we both talking about the same item (Hollywood movie studios)? I see no change in capitalization, pluralization, or typographical errors, nor do I see how changing the word movie to film is a by/of/in conformance. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 04:13, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

D'oh. I seem to've confused myself. When I wrote that, your comment looked like it was addressing three items, MPO, Bahamiam and Hollywood, as a group, because I wasn't paying attention. <fzzzt, spark pop> Anyway, the Hollywood one is a naming conventions no-brainer; we consistently always use "film" in category and article names. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 20:22, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

discussion of "film" vs "movie", with consensus in favor of "film" in film-related categories - Her Pegship (tis herself) 18:32, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that you may have consensus at that location, but that is not a by/of/in conformance and it is not at WP:NCCAT as specified in #4 and it is not linked to in #4, so a) it's a bit hard to make the leap that anyone would find that and b) I'm not convinced that it meets the criteria, unless you are asking me to WP:IAR. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 03:46, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd prefer to see this moved to the discussion section of CFD. Though I understand Peg's (and others') comment on naming conventions, it seems to directly contradict the convention of using US English for US-specific subjects. The latter suggests that we can have "English footballers" and "American soccer players", and could similarly have "English film studios" and "American movie studios". Since we've got a clash of naming conventions, perhaps it needs to be sorted out below. Grutness...wha? 00:20, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from speedy. No opinion on this.--Mike Selinker 14:26, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
?? I wasn't aware that "film" and "movie" had geographic issues. I'm not suggesting anyone IAR, the discussion I listed is the only guideline regarding film vs movie, and I honestly have no preference. Let me know what you-all decide, and may I suggest you consult WP:FILM? Her Pegship (tis herself) 17:36, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom, though I agree that this was probably best dealt with through CfD. To address Grutness's point, I am an American and a Californian, and I think I can say with some authority that both terms are widely used here, although "movie studio" is more common. Nevertheless, this not a case where Commonwealthish and American are disjunct, as with "footballers" vs. "soccer players". This is a case where they overlap heavily, and thus one could reasonably refer to "film studio" as international usage. Xtifr _tälk 14:02, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- In that case I've no objection to the rename as per the originally cited convention. Thanks for clearing that point up - I always assumed that "movie" was the US standard. Grutness...wha? 00:06, 2 May 2007 (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:Seventh-octave singers[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. >Radiant< 09:45, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This shares one of the core problems experienced in Piccolo (coloratura) (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Piccolo (coloratura)), which is that documentation of this phenomenon appears to be confined to a few very enthusiastic fans of a few individual singers. By common ocnsent, one does not sing in this register, it is described as "unmusical" in some sources, but that's not the problem, the problem is that the sourcing for inclusion is generally original research, with YouTube videos being cited as proof of ability to sing high notes. All these individuals are in any case included in the less contentious Category:Whistle register singers. So this category is largely redundant, sparsely populated and will always be so, redundant per another category only marginally larger and with less contentious inclusion, inclusion is based on original research, and I'm not convinced that someone is not doing an end-run around deletion policy somewhere along the line because we have consistently seen attempts to produce articles and categories for singers capable of super-high notes exhibited by (it is asserted) almost no living singer other than Mariah Carey. Guy (Help!) 14:04, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral Sounds like a content dispute. Johnbod 15:57, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Haddiscoe 19:55, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment at least it's an improvement over the original name. -- Prove It ^(talk) 01:30, 1 May 2007 (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:The Beatles' wives[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. >Radiant< 09:45, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - small category with little or no potential for growth. The spouses are linked to their husbands through their articles. Otto4711 13:20, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Agreed, one can access the wives through each individual Beatle page. Neonblak 15:20, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Doczilla 16:57, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Over categorisation. Rgds, --Trident13 22:01, 30 April 2007 (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:Parodies of Conan the Barbarian[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. >Radiant< 09:45, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - first, while each of the articles asserts that the subject was created as a parody of Conan, reliable sourcing on the point sems rather sparse. A lot of the potential sourcing appears based in the assumption that these characters must be parodies as opposed to any declaration of intention by the characters' creators. Even were there reliable sources for each of them, I question the utility of creating categories to capture parodies of specific characters. Otto4711 13:11, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Doczilla 16:57, 30 April 2007 (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:National slang[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. >Radiant< 09:45, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:National slang to Category:Slang by language

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, I think it would make more sense to categorize "slang" by language rather than nationality or country. Current sub-categorization follows this. -- Cat ^chi? 12:32, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment it should be slang by region, since slang is regional and sometimes cross-language. 70.55.201.213 12:56, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support regional should go under language as the primary classification. Johnbod 16:00, 30 April 2007 (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:People by nationality and occupation[edit]

Category:People by occupation and nationality[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. >Radiant< 09:45, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One or the other is redundant. I suggest a merge. Not certain which one to throw away since its a mere order of words. The two categories do not seem to be doing the same thing. Perhaps an alternative solution is renaming the categories to something more clear in their intention. -- Cat ^chi? 12:12, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep both as the essential top-level categs of the people-by-occupation-and nationality category tree. A quick check would have revealed that:
1. Category:People by occupation and nationality is for Category:Academics by nationality, Category:Accordionists by nationality, etc
2. Category:People by nationality and occupation is for the Category:Afghan people by occupation, Category:Albanian people by occupation etc.
I can't see any clearer form of naming. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:35, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) *Strong Keep - in no way is this a "mere order of words". You are right that the categories don't do the same thing, but that's because they are not meant to do the same thing! Category:People by occupation and nationality gives you all the sub-categories of occupations, e.g. Category:Engineers, with its subcategories of Engineers by nationality, e.g. Category:Italian engineers. This way, you can easily jump from Italian engineers to French engineers, and so on. And then Category:People by nationality and occupation does things the other way round - you get sub-categories of nationalities, each with their sub-categories of occupation. So you'd use this to jump from Category:Italian engineers to Category:Italian architects. They are not redundant categories; rather, they are two different ways of organising the category tree above them (note that there are no articles in either category, so they are only used for structuring the tree). Merging would create one horrible mess and make it very difficult to navigate. Or are you suggesting a complete change to the structure of Category:Fooers by nationality and Fooian people by occupation? If so, what?! Bencherlite 14:39, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep per both above, or Rename per MS below, which seems an improvement. Nomination shows little sign of thought. Johnbod 16:02, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This is a rare circumstance where a comma in a category name makes sense. I'd suggest Category:People by occupation, sorted by nationality and Category:People by nationality, sorted by occupation. Since nothing but subcategories will go in here, it's not much of a burden.--Mike Selinker 16:03, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or rename per Mike above I like Mike's suggestion of renaming the categories to "People by occupation, sorted by nationality" and "People by nationality, sorted by occupation". That removes the otherwise ambiguously defined "and" and makes clear the difference in the two categories. Dugwiki 16:45, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep and rename per Mike:~~ current naming scheme invites the confusion that started this whole thread. The two categories should not have names that are logically synonymous. -Pete 16:56, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mike's suggestion seems a little wordy, though I agree with underlying idea. How about simply Category:People by occupation by nationality and Category:People by nationality by occupation? Xtifr _tälk 14:07, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- - Addendum (much later): Bencherlite raises an excellent point below, and, while I still think my suggestion is preferable to Mike's, I think the current names are probably good enough that a rename really isn't worth the effort. So let's go with Keep after all. Xtifr _tälk 08:41, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not rabidly anti-renaming, but have these names really confused anyone (nominator apart), particularly those creating categories? They can just cut-'n-paste-'n-tweak from corresponding categories, as usual. Renaming is a solution in search of a real problem. Of the two, if the decision is 'rename', I prefer Mike's suggestion (with the explicatory past participle) as clearer, whereas Xtifr's has the "same problem" as the status quo of using the same words for each category in a different order without further explanation. Bencherlite 14:20, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment None of proposed the renamings seem to me to be significantly better than the status quo. Looking at the suggestion of Category:People by occupation, sorted by nationality and Category:People by nationality, sorted by occupation, I honestly can't tell which of the existing categories relates to which of the new names. I suppose if I thought about it for ;onger I'd figure it out, but I can't see any reader hanging around for long enough to figure out which is which. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:05, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Change my vote to Keep: BrownHairedGirl makes a good point. Seems to me that accuracy, conciseness, and easy comprehension are the three factors at stake, and that no proposed option meets all three. All are reasonably concise and accurate, and anyone clicking into either category can easily comprehend what it's about; so I'm changing my vote to "keep the status quo." -Pete 20:30, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. I don't think a rename is really needed, but the best option is People by nationality by occupation and People by occupation by nationality. -- Prove It ^(talk) 16:18, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Bencherlite makes a good point. I'm not clear on the intended use of the categories, so I don't know "how important" this is, or whether it warrants a change. But I believe the current names, and the "People by nationality by occupation" variants, fail almost entirely to communicate what they're for. "People by occupation, sorted by nationality" is somewhat better in that regard. How important any of that is, I'm not so sure. But I would oppose Xtifr's formulation in favor of keeping the current names - I don't think it's enough of an improvement to justify a change. -Pete 22:10, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My vote is for delete. There is a general problem with categories that involve AND. We end up with fragmented categories (e.g. women AND computer scientists AND formal methods specialists AND Russian) and major anomalies (see my comments on Category:Logicians). I believe the long-term solution is to improve the Wikipedia software to handle Boolean logic across categories. --RichardVeryard 11:22, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply Richard, I think that you may have misunderstood the situation here. The intersection between nationality and occupation already exists, with thousands of categories; deleting these two categories would just make these categories harder to find. Hopefully, the software will eventually allow us to use boolean logic across categories, but until it does we have to work with the limitations of the software as it is (rather than how we might like it to be). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:47, 6 May 2007 (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:Immigrants by nationality[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was no consensus --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:59, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Immigrants by nationality to Category:Immigrants by country

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, All of the subcats are by country. I also ponder the usefullness of these categories. People immigrate every day but no one is notable for immigrating. -- Cat ^chi? 11:57, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose we consistently use nationality to refer to citizenship of people, country for everything else. -- Prove It ^(talk) 14:50, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Coats of arms by nation[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. >Radiant< 09:45, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Coats of arms by nation to Category:Coats of arms by country

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, All of the subcats are by country. A similar rename was conducted in commons -- Cat ^chi? 11:54, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. Honbicot 10:51, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Pavel Vozenilek 23:04, 3 May 2007 (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:Breast cancer activists[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. >Radiant< 09:45, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Most of these people are just celebrities who have been to a charity gala and delivered a few lines about how terrible breast cancer is to the celebrity media pack, and the like. This category is not defining at all. Brandon97 09:51, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as subcategory of Category:Health activists This seems to be a reasonable attempt to partially subdivide Health activists by specific issue. Breast cancer is clearly a popular specific health problem that attracts activism, so this subcategory is a good way to collect those people whose articles make notable mention of breast cancer activism. Celebrity articles which don't actually mention breast cancer activism should be removed from the category, but the category itself should be kept. Dugwiki 16:49, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no chance at all that Dugwiki's suggestion will be implemented effectively in a wiki environment. The "activist" categories are overused, and there is no effective way to eliminate such bad categorisation other than complete removal. Haddiscoe 19:57, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you mean by that. I'm not suggesting anything out of the ordinary - all categories should only include articles that notably mention the categorization criteria. You should not include any article in any category if the category isn't talked about in the article (eg if it's not in the article then it's not verified to be true, and thus it should not be a member of the category involved). This is standard procedure for all categories. Dugwiki 22:24, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not a defining characteristic, no objectively defineable inclusion criteria, implicates WP:OCAT#Opinion_about_a_question_or_issue. Otto4711 19:25, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can answer the inclusion criteria question. This would be the subcategory of Category:Health activists articles which are people whose articles specifically talk about their work against breast cancer. So assuming that "health activists" is an acceptable category with an objective inclusion criteria, this subcategory likewise can be objectively defined. As far as being a "defining characteristic", it is probably a defining characteristic in the context of health activism. That is, as a subcategory of "Health activists", it is telling you what specific type of health activism the person pursues.

So really I only see two reasonable reasons to consider deleting the category. One would be that Category:Health activists isn't large enough to warrant subcategorization in the first place. The other would be that health activists as a rule are not normally focussed on a particular specific health issue but engage in activism on multiple health causes, such as simultaneously working to help fights against various types of cancer and heart disease and AIDS and other things. However I'm not sure there's much evidence in support of either of those arguments, which is why I went with the Keep recommendation above. Dugwiki 21:34, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Dug, you are trying to tell the tide not to come in. Honbicot 10:52, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Pavel Vozenilek 23:04, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Manga and anime sidekicks[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. >Radiant< 09:45, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Manga and anime sidekicks to Category:Anime and manga sidekicks

Move and then category redirect - I apologize if I'm using the wrong words (this is my first time creating a cfd) — I request for the category page to be moved to its appropiate title which is coherent with Category:Anime and manga characters. If I understood correctly, a "bot" needs to fix this problem by moving the category from Category:Manga and anime sidekicks to Category:Anime and manga sidekicks for all the articles in that category. Also, should there be a need for a category redirect? Does that work out right? ~I'm anonymous
Rename per nom (which is, I think, what you're saying). Not sure whether a redirect is needed. Bencherlite 07:16, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy rename: Next time just take it to the speedy rename section on the top of WP:CFD :) . Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 10:12, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment thanks, I'll keep that in mind. ~I'm anonymous

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:Fundamental theism[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. >Radiant< 09:45, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fundamental theism to Category:Fundamentalism

Merge for the following reasons:

The category is redundant to its parent category, Category:Fundamentalism.
- All entries in the category could be recategorized with minimal loss of information to Category:Fundamentalism.
Fundamental theism is not defined.
- "Fundamental theism" has only 12 hits on MSN and 87 hits on Google.

--Kevinkor2 04:24, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Category:Fundamentalism "Fundamental theism" appears to probably be a neologism that means basically the same thing as "Fundamentalism". Dugwiki 16:51, 30 April 2007 (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:Monsters, Inc. characters[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. >Radiant< 09:45, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This category isn't needed anymore, as all the characters are in one list page now: List of Monsters, Inc. characters. RobJ1981 04:21, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. ~I'm anonymous
Delete - The category is empty and no longer needed. Dr. Submillimeter 11:14, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Doczilla 16:41, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Rgds, --Trident13 22:02, 30 April 2007 (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:Gamers[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. >Radiant< 09:45, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - see also the related nomination of the fictional gamers subcat. In most instances, playing video games is not a defining characteristic. In many instances it's not even an important characteristic. For those who play games professionally, Category:Electronic sports players already exists. Otto4711 02:50, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per reasons stated. ~I'm anonymous
Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 10:16, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - People should not be categorized by hobby. The resulting category clutter would render the categories difficult to use. Dr. Submillimeter 11:11, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

However, articles should be categorized by what the people are notable for, and some people are notable specifically for their involvement in a hobby. Many of the articles in Category:People associated with sports and hobbies are specifically about people who engage in basically full time pursuits of their sports or hobby, or are even professional hobbyists. So while I agree that articles which don't really mention the hobby should not be included in such categories, you do need to have categories for articles about people whose primary notable feature is that they are a serious hobbyist. Dugwiki 16:59, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Category:Electronic sports players I noticed that this is a subcategory of Category:People by occupation, and sure enough the category does include a few articles like Billy Mitchell (gamer) about people who are professional video gamers (ie they don't just play the game as a hobby). Thus some of the articles are indeed about people who are notable for having a competitive career, full or part time, as a video gamer. I recommend the appropriate articles to Category:Electronic sports players and removing articles about gaming journalists and other people who simply like to play video games in their spare time. Dugwiki 16:56, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: For people who identify as a member of the video game sub-culture. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 00:08, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This is essentially the same as redefining categories like Category:Painters to include hobbyists. Merge and delete. -Sean Curtin 05:30, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sleep On It 21:11, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not a defining characteristic. Dave Chappelle is a gamer and so are a lot of other people who have articles but that doesn't mean anything if their work is completely unrelated to it. Axem Titanium 03:26, 5 May 2007 (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:Keentoons[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. >Radiant< 09:45, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Appears to be redundant to Category:Keenspot and even if not the paltry material in it does not require the category. Otto4711 02:35, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This has been listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Webcomics/Deletion. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 10:11, 30 April 2007 (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:Newshounds[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:26, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - seven of the ten items in the category are anthologies, which are already in the anthologies subcat (which is in the Category:Comics anthologies). The remaining articles are for the creator (which is improper person by project categorization) a character list and a template, all of which is interlinked. No need of the category. Otto4711 02:30, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Perfectly sound category. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 10:07, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This has been listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Webcomics/Deletion. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 10:07, 30 April 2007 (UTC) [reply]
Delete per nom When you remove the redundantly categorized anthology articles, all you have left is the creator, character list and template. You don't need an eponymous category to handle those items, though. All of that is sufficiently linked from the main article. Thus delete as an unnecessary eponymous category. Dugwiki 17:04, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above. >Radiant< 09:45, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Seventh Generation video games[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. >Radiant< 09:45, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: the term is not in popular usage (see history of video game consoles (seventh generation)) and the category is improperly capitalized. If kept, the category should only exist as a parent for the categories for the relevant consoles' games: Category:PlayStation 3 games, Category:Wii games, and Category:Xbox 360 games. -Sean Curtin 02:23, 30 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 10:16, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This is yet another in an endless line of pointless categories from the same category creator. Doczilla 16:40, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Categorizing video games by year of release or by system would be more meaningful to most people. Dr. Submillimeter 21:22, 1 May 2007 (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:8-Bit Theater[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. >Radiant< 09:45, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - category contains four easily interlocked articles and about a dozen images. The material in the category is insufficient to warrant it. Otto4711 02:22, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This has been listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Webcomics/Deletion. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 10:11, 30 April 2007 (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:Blind Ferret Entertainment[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. >Radiant< 09:45, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the category is named for Blind Ferret Entertainment but that is a redirect to Least I Could Do. The category is capturing webcomics "associated" with Blind Ferret Entertainment, but the "associations" noted in the various articles are so weak as to not warrant categorization. For instance, VG Cats is categorized because the wriiter of VG Cats is an "acquiantance" of the writer of 8-Bit Theater, whose own association with Blind Ferret is not terribly clear from the various articles. The small amount of easily interlinkable material, the lack of strong association between the categorized items and the lack of an article that matches the category name indicates that the category should be deleted. Otto4711 02:20, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This has been listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Webcomics/Deletion. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 10:15, 30 April 2007 (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:The Wotch[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. >Radiant< 09:45, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the quantity of material (article, template, a few images) does not necessitate an eponymous category. Otto4711 02:09, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. An unnecessary eponymous category. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:13, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -Pete 02:47, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This has been listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Webcomics/Deletion. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 10:11, 30 April 2007 (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:Order of the Stick[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. Lovely comic, though, and can we please undelete Roy? >Radiant< 09:45, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - after creating and populating the characters subcat there is the main article, a locations article and a template plus the characters subcat. All of the articles are extensively interlinked through the texts and the template making the category unnecessary for navigation. Otto4711 02:03, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This has been listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Webcomics/Deletion. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 10:11, 30 April 2007 (UTC) [reply]
Delete Much as I love this webcomic, I agree with Otto. The character subcategory is fine simply being categorized in Category:Webcomic characters, and the articles likewise don't need this eponymous category. Everything here can be easily navigated from the comic's main article. Dugwiki 17:08, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Doczilla 07:26, 1 May 2007 (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:Referenda in the United States[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:Initiatives and referendums in the United States. >Radiant< 09:45, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to ~~Ballot measures in the United States or Ballot propositions in the United States~~ Category:Initiatives and referendums in the United States. Based on the current contents of this category, it would be better named "Ballot measures in the United States" or "Ballot propositions in the United States."

There are 3 types of ballot measures/propositions:

initiatives, which are put on the ballot by popular petition;
referenda, which repeal an act of the legislature; and
legislative referrals, which the legislature votes to place on the ballot.

(None of this is currently explained very adequately on the Wikipedia pages; I intend to fix them when I get the chance.)

Since US state pages break down measures by year, not by type, it would make more sense for the parent category to include all 3 types.

-Pete 01:28, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support. —Markles 01:43, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from reading www.iandrinstitute.org/statewide_i&r.htm, it appears that the best title might be Category:Initiatives and referendums in the United States. Do you have any references to support your preferred wording? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:48, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Nope, but I appreciate and agree with the suggestion! -Pete 02:04, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: BHG, on second thought, your proposed title leaves out Legislative Referendums/Referrals. The pages that would be in the category (for instance, List of Oregon ballot measures) contain lots of Legislative Referrals. From the page you cited:

“

Legislative referendum is when a state legislature places an amendment or statute on the ballot for voter approval or rejection. The legislative referendum process is available in every state.

”

I believe "referral" and "referendum" are synonymous in this context, and I have no preference between the terms. Note, I just created a page Ballot measures based on this line of thinking, as well. "Ballot measure" is the common phrase here in Oregon, and I believe "Proposition" is used (with the same meaning) in Nevada, California, Arizona, and perhaps other states. -Pete 02:30, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Sorry, I was typing faster than I was thinking - never a good thing! Since "referral" and "referendum" appear to be synonyms, I suppose your phrasing really is the best option. -Pete 02:44, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Pete, since you (correctly) say the category is for both initiatives and referenda, is there any reason to use the plural referendums? Or is this another US vs UK English thing? If it isn't, I'd favour Category:Initiatives and referenda in the United States Grutness...wha? 05:37, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- See Referendum#Terminology: "Referendums and referenda are both commonly used as plurals of referendum. However, the use of referenda is deprecated by the Oxford English Dictionary which advises that: Referendums is logically preferable as a plural form meaning ballots on one issue (as a Latin gerund, referendum has no plural). The Latin plural gerundive referenda, meaning things to be referred, necessarily connotes a plurality of issues." --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:26, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Mmmm. Interesting. I was unaware of the subtle difference between the two plurals. In that case, I've no objection to "referendums". Mind you, it's unlikely that the votes would all be on the same topic, so in some ways referenda is more correct :) Grutness...wha? 23:14, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Grutness, that makes some sense...I don't really know if "...a" or "...ums" is better, but here are a couple points to consider: (1) the "international" category is called Category:Referendums, and consistency is nice; and (2) the iandrinstitute.org gets around the problem by using the singular. Think [the issue of] Initiative and Referendum in the United States. -Pete 17:25, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, given that the main category is at "Referendums" it makes sense to keep things consistent. It's not a biggie, and I must admit I tend to favour slightly more archaic forms, so I'd be biased in favour of referenda anyway. Grutness...wha? 00:11, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support per constructive discussion above Johnbod 15:47, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment see related discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 May 3#Category:Referendums. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:41, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment To explain the usage, I have added some explanatory text to the category, mostly copied from the intro to the article referendum. Pete's explanation might be better, but I thought that something would be better than nothing. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:27, 4 May 2007 (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:Kickboxers by nationality[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. >Radiant< 09:45, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete, Unused category - empty for over 1 week. No other martial arts have a "by nationality" category. It is unnecessary in the category scheme. Category:Kickboxers is a category for kickboxers by nationality. Please read Category_talk:Kickboxers by nationality before voting and add your rational. --Scott Alter 01:17, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep and populate as a subcat of Category:Martial arts practitioners by nationality, to which I have just added it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:52, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and populate per BHG. Part of the martial artists subcat system. Otto4711 02:05, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Category not needed. Tkjazzer 02:47, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Copied: "Within Wikipedia, "Martial Arts" is treated as one sport with lots of sub-sports. Category:Martial arts practitioners by nationality is already integrated within all of the sports-related articles. To do this for every martial art will add about 30 new sports to be integrated (see Category:Martial arts practitioners for this breakdown). If you insist on the "by nationality" tag, then just rename all of the categories within Category:Martial arts practitioners to "martial art practitioner by nationality". --Scott Alter 02:38, 30 April 2007 (UTC)" Tkjazzer 02:51, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It looks like the nominator emptied this category himself a week ago prior to nominating it for deletion as "empty". I have repopulated the category as it was intended. So unless there are other objections besides "the category I just emptied isn't needed because it's empty", keep and do not depopulate. Dugwiki 17:14, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per BHG and also per Dugwiki, having checked Scott Alter's contribution history. It's not on to empty a category (without prior discussion, as far as I can see) and then rely on it being empty as a ground for deletion! Bencherlite 19:55, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is no reason not to subcategorise kickboxers in the same way as members of most other groups. Haddiscoe 19:58, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Since everyone is in favor of using the additional level of classification, all of the martial artist practitioner categories need to be reclassified. See Category_talk:Kickboxers by nationality for a proposed category structure. By adding the "by nationality" to all the martial arts, about 150 categories will need to be moved from "martial art practitioners" to "martial art practitioners by nationality". Any volunteers? --Scott Alter 22:17, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You probably don't need to do this for every martial art form. Seems to me this is only worth considering for martial artist categories that have enough articles to warrant subdividing the artists by nationality. For example, it doesn't look like you'd need to do this for Category:Capoeira practitioners since there are only eight non-fictional practitioners. There's no reason to subdivide that category further. (By the way, it doesn't matter too much to me if we use this subcategorization or not. I mainly objected to the fact that the category was intentionally emptied prior to the cfd.) Dugwiki 22:35, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - The reason I initially moved all of the subcategories into the parent category was to maintain consistency with every other martial art. The reverted Category:Kickboxers by nationality leaves Category:Kickboxers as an unnecessary level of complexity. However, since people seem to like having this, it should be done for all martial arts. I'm working on a new schema now that should please everyone. --Scott Alter 22:54, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Sleep On It 21:14, 3 May 2007 (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.