Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 August 29

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

August 29[edit]

Category:Global Warming Criticism[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 fix caps problem, no consensus on keep/delete. Kbdank71 14:20, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Global Warming Criticism to Category:Global warming criticism
Nominator's rationale: Rename. lower caps per mos. emerson7 20:36, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy rename per speedy criteria 2, capitalization fixes. LA (T) @ 22:47, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Climate change criticism. Global warming causes climate change. Climate change is the overview of all of the effects of global warming. Therefore climate change should be used as the parent cat since there would be no point in separating climate change and global warming criticism as categories (although article on the two do exist). -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 06:03, 30 August 2008 (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:Copycat authors[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. Kbdank71 14:00, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Copycat authors (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Category is pejorative and subjective. It only had one article, which I removed per BLP as unsourced opinion. agr (talk) 20:29, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Tameamseo (talk) 11:21, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Besides violating POV it seems to be a rather uncommon expression. What would be its research use? Dimadick (talk) 09:10, 2 September 2008 (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.

Climate change in X[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 Nevada, upmerge the rest (recreation permissible if other articles are found/written). Kbdank71 14:35, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete:
Nominator's rationale: Lots of categories created over time by Nukeless (talk · contribs), all of which only have a single entry (typically the article with the same name). Oli Filth(talk|contribs) 20:25, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • What are you proposing? Upmerge? Rename? Deletion? What are the reasons? The category may be performing a useful intersection. This isn't to say it is, just that I'm trying to get at your purpose here. Hiding T 20:23, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good point; deletion. I'm not sure categories with a single entry can provide a particularly useful intersection (especially given that the single entry in each of most of those nominated above are of the same title). Oli Filth(talk|contribs) 20:27, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Incidentally, this user has created plenty more in this vein, but I got bored of adding them. Oli Filth(talk|contribs) 20:36, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – Category:Climate change in the United States by state contains several surprises, Wyoming in particular being over-represented. These need to be split into several noms as some are part of established schemes (eg the Spanish ones) and others are not. Occuli (talk) 23:38, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I concur with Occuli on the need to split these into multiple CFDs -- these are very disparate categories that have no business being considered as one group. Failing that, this CFD should be speedy closed. Cgingold (talk) 06:57, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I originally added these as individual entries, but I was informed that be could converted into a single umbrella entry, as they all followed a similar trait (in this case, they were all created by the same author, and all shared the common trait of having only a single entry. If I've merged them too far, then fair enough, so I've now re-split the CFD into this one and the five below. Oli Filth(talk|contribs) 09:59, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge all to their 2 parent cats - Category:Climate change in the United States and also to Category:Environment of Wyoming etc. (Delete is not an option as it would leave the articles uncategorised.) Occuli (talk) 13:13, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep Nevada which now has multiple articles. Weak keep the others since it is very likely that there are many more articles that are simply not included here. Since the category name is ambiguous, this category can include all activities to reduce the impact of humans on the climate. I would challenge anyone to tell me that California has nothing to include in this category. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:18, 3 September 2008 (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.

X in Spain[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. The parent categories don't exactly form a wider scheme, not when there is Renewable energy in Colombia but not Category:Renewable energy in Colombia, Renewable energy in Finland but not Category:Renewable energy in Finland, Solar power in Canada but not Category:Solar power in Canada, etc. And besides, a "wider scheme" that consists of nothing more than single-article categories is not a wider scheme. Recreation permissible if other articles are found/written. Kbdank71 14:30, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete:
Nominator's rationale: Categories with only a single entry (which are the articles with the same name). Oli Filth(talk|contribs) 20:25, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • What are you proposing? Upmerge? Rename? Deletion? What are the reasons? The category may be performing a useful intersection. This isn't to say it is, just that I'm trying to get at your purpose here. Hiding T 20:23, 29 August 2008 (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:Energy management companies[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, recreation ok if more articles are found/written. Kbdank71 14:09, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Category:Energy management companies
Nominator's rationale: Only a single entry. Oli Filth(talk|contribs) 20:25, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • What are you proposing? Upmerge? Rename? Deletion? What are the reasons? The category may be performing a useful intersection. This isn't to say it is, just that I'm trying to get at your purpose here. Hiding T 20:23, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good point; deletion. I'm not sure categories with a single entry can provide a particularly useful intersection. Oli Filth(talk|contribs) 09:59, 30 August 2008 (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:Enzyme companies[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, recreation permissible if the other articles are found/written (as of this close, there is still only one article). Kbdank71 14:11, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Category:Enzyme companies
Nominator's rationale:Only a single entry. Oli Filth(talk|contribs) 20:25, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • What are you proposing? Upmerge? Rename? Deletion? What are the reasons? The category may be performing a useful intersection. This isn't to say it is, just that I'm trying to get at your purpose here. Hiding T 20:23, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good point; deletion. I'm not sure categories with a single entry can provide a particularly useful intersection. Oli Filth(talk|contribs) 09:59, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and populate - Google suggests there are quite a few such companies that could be added. Occuli (talk) 13:21, 30 August 2008 (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:Active cruise control[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. Kbdank71 14:11, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Category:Active cruise control
Nominator's rationale: Only a single entry. Oli Filth(talk|contribs) 20:25, 29 August 2008 (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: Mobile modems[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, recreation permissible if other articles are found/written. Kbdank71 14:12, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Category:Mobile modems
Nominator's rationale: Only a single entry. Oli Filth(talk|contribs) 20:25, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • What are you proposing? Upmerge? Rename? Deletion? What are the reasons? The category may be performing a useful intersection. This isn't to say it is, just that I'm trying to get at your purpose here. Hiding T 20:23, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good point; deletion. I'm not sure categories with a single entry can provide a particularly useful intersection. Oli Filth(talk|contribs) 09:59, 30 August 2008 (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:Comic book characters originally created in other media[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 to List of comics characters which originated in other media. Kbdank71 13:55, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Comic book characters originally created in other media

Length aside, this should be a list. (See the discussion at its talk page. From that and other discussions, the best names so far seem to be:

  1. List of comics characters originating in other media
  2. List of comics characters which originated in other media
  3. List of comics characters originally adapted from other media
That said, I have concerns that "adapted" might not be accurate enough. The goal here would seem to be to group comics characters by where they originated from (which is presumably other than comics). - jc37 19:33, 29 August 2008 (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:Media based on television programs[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:Media adapted from a television series. Kbdank71 15:27, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Category:Media based on television programs

Per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (television) this should be renamed from "television programs" to "TV series". The category name should probably also be singular rather than plural. A few options:

  1. Category:Media based on a television series
  2. Category:Media adapted from a television series
In this case, I think "adapted" may be the more accurate term. - jc37 19:47, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Nomination modified from "TV" to "television", per discussion in the nom below this one. - jc37 21:37, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Media adapted from a TV series, as nominator. - jc37 19:47, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The naming convention only applies to articles about television series, not to anything else. LA (T) @ 19:50, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Note 1: Television is never to be abbreviated in anything other than disambiguations. LA (T) @ 19:57, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Note 2:UK series = US season, another reason to oppose. The word program is preferred more than series in these cases. LA (T) @ 20:02, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    (As I noted below) - As is common in Naming conventions, the word "articles" is often used instead of "pages". That doesn't restrict the NC to just articles. Indeed, the reverse is almost always true. Also, it's been upheld rather recently (over the last few days with (band) categories), that the disambiguation phrase should be used, even if there is not necessarily a need for the disambiguation between categories. As for the issue of series vs. season, I believe that's also discussed on the NC page... - jc37 20:06, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Naming conventions (categories), avoid abbreviations. This very specifically applies to categories. Hiding T 20:23, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Responded below. - jc37 20:35, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Where are we on this one? Rename to Category:Media adapted from a television series? Hiding T 11:26, 3 September 2008 (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.

Media based on television programs[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 to "foo adapted from a television series" Oh, how I wanted to close this as WP:TL;DR. but no, I suffered through it all. Kbdank71 15:47, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The previous renaming discussion of these categories was closed as no consensus.

The parent category is Media based on television programs. There are three siblings comics, novels, and video games. There are also all of the cousins Television programs based on media, books (opposite first), novels, comics, comic strips, films (opposite second), games, role-playing games (opposite third), video games, and plays. With all of that in mind, I think that these four categories should be renamed. LA (T) @ 19:18, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment (Looks like I won't be closing this one : ) - Anyway, After looking over Wikipedia:Naming conventions (television), and then looking at the category membership, it seems that the targets all need to be "series" rather than "program". (And technically, "TV" rather than "television".) I'll nominate the parent for renaming. - jc37 19:40, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, parent nominated. From your examples, it looks like there are several other cats which will require nomination. I'll get to those later (Unless someone else gets to it before me : ) - jc37 19:49, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You are mistaken, the convention only applies to television series articles, everything else is television programs. Reread the convention. LA (T) @ 19:51, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    As is common in Naming conventions, the word "articles" is often used instead of "pages". That doesn't restrict the NC to just articles. Indeed, the reverse is almost always true. Though I'm wondering now why you would prefer to go contrary to the convention, which is clearly intended to reduce confusion between television (the object) and television (the content). - jc37 20:00, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Notes: Television is never to be abbreviated in anything other than disambiguations. Also, UK series = US season. The word program is preferred more than series in these cases. And a convention was made by there being more with the word program than there were with series or shows. Since this isn't a disambiguation, the word program is the one that was chosen. Not only are categories using the word program, there are several lists that use it as well. LA (T) @ 20:07, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Just curious, did you even read the NC? There are reasons for the previous consensus. And if we can find some examples of variations in naming, then either boldly move them, or start a discussion for consensus to have them moved. And incidentally, lists are infamous for having names which are nowhere near convention. Usually an enthusiastic editor creates the list, then someone else helps by moving the list to a more accurate name, while typically following convention. And look: That's would appear to be what you're trying to do right now, with this nom. The difference seems to be that you'd like the convention changed. - jc37 20:18, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • No abbreviation per Naming conventions (categories). As to the rest, what's being categorised here? Is there an example of something based on a one-off drama, or are they all works based on series? Hiding T 20:23, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    In reading over NCCAT, it says avoid abbreviations, but then shows an example of when it might be appropriate to use them. I don't think that that was intended to be used as a reason to oppose a specific NC. Indeed, two points down from that: "Choose category names that are able to stand alone, independent of the way a category is connected to other categories." And a "television series" could refer to a series of produced televisions.
    The television/TV concern aside, do you have any issues with the rest of the rename? - jc37 20:35, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The example is very specific and refers to cases like radar and sonar. I remember the discussions and writing it up. WP:NCCAT was also intended to be the defining article for cats as it were. As for a "television series" referring to a series of produced televisions, how far are we likely to take that? A comic can refer to a comedian, does Category:Upcoming automobiles refer to cars that may be about to knock me over, does Category:Reading refer to the town or the hobby? If we want to get technical in our category names I would suggest the door has bolted.
    I am awaiting an answer to my questions before I make a decision. Hiding T 20:57, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You know, one thing that is at the same time both dauting and enjoyable about discussing with you is your rather vast experience in previous discussions. It can definitely help put things into perspective : )
    My perspective is to try to follow previous convention where possible and appropriate, while allowing of exceptions as appropriate. While also attempting to note "common practice" as well. (Sometimes it's necessary for "common practice" to defer to convention, and sometimes its necessary for convention to defer to common practice.)
    That said, in looking over the various extant categories, it would seem that "general common practice" is to follow the NC, but, with only a few exceptions, that "television" is preferred over "TV" in category names. (Perhaps this should be noted at the NC, for future reference?) And "television series" of the type I suggested above, seem to be categorised under "brand". So I have no problem withdrawing that part of my nom, presuming that "brand" is the preferred convention. - jc37 21:34, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    there's nothing daunting about me, I promise you. Now, to quote yourself above: "There are reasons for the previous consensus. And if we can find some examples of variations in naming, then either boldly move them, or start a discussion for consensus to have them moved." Now fair enough, I'm sort of joking, but... As to brand, I have no idea what that refers to, what is a television brand? Is the BBC a brand? Is Sky a brand. That seems equally odd. From where I sit television series works, but television programs can work too, if I can get some clarity as I've asked above. Hiding T 22:23, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    (Looking around) This is a discussion as far as I can tell : ) - As I mentioned above, I have no problem with the idea of nominating (as appropriate) all "television program" cats for renaming.
    As for "brands", I did a search for "Zenith", which led me to Category:Consumer electronics brands. I dunno if this is the best way to categorise such (not opposing, just dunno atm).
    Not sure what you're asking for being clarified. As for whether proram or series should be used, it seems to be a question between a single presentation, or a serial/episodic one. (Here's the link again: WP:NC-TV.) - jc37 22:46, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That#s teh point I want clarified. What are we looking to categorise here, episodic programs only or all? Hiding T 03:50, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    In going through the cats, I don't see any that are not episodic "series". So I would presume just those. - jc37 05:13, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    In that case standardise to "foo by television series". Hiding T 17:47, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Hiding, the ultimate parent category of all episodic television programming is Category:Television programs. There are a vast amount of categories which use television programs in their names, too many to list here. In this area alone there are 14 other categories which use television programs in their names, some created by editors other than me. If I read the general naming convention guideline correctly, if there is a majority of items named in a certain fashion, then others should follow suit. That is the purpose of this rename request. If you were to mouse over the links in my initial statement, you will see that I provided links to similar categories which are already named with television programs in their titles. Also, above I mentioned that in the United Kingdom the word series refers to what in the United States would be considered season. I can provide examples if you wish. For United States specific categories, television series would be acceptable. For United Kingdom specific categories, television programmes would be acceptable. However, these categories are not specific to one locale, so television programs is acceptable by the above mentioned television naming convention. As to what is being categorized in these categories, this all part of media based on media schema. Three categories on the list above have complimentary opposite categories which use television programs. Not only do categories use television programs, but the accompanying lists as well, some of which were originally titled by others, but some were moved by me a while ago without any complaints so far. Others are in the midst of discussing the moves. So, if a convention is not explicitly written, one can be assumed by the preponderance of the usage elsewhere, if I am reading the general naming convention guideline correctly. LA (T) @ 22:34, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Just an aside, but I would guess that Hiding is rather aware of UK general usage. - jc37 22:46, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    How am I supposed to know that from Hiding's comments here. :) Also, I made some cosmetic changes to this discussion by removing the bullets and making them indents instead to keep this threading properly, I hope you don't mind. LA (T) @ 23:02, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    UK usage is rather more fluid than you may be aware. Television series applies to both a season and a series. We don't have a term to distinguish between a season and a series, we just use the word series and allow contextual markes to clarify; "in series one of Life on Mars"; "Only Fools and Horses is the greatest comedy television series". Hiding T 03:50, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Another thing, television programs compliments its sister radio programs. LA (T) @ 23:25, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Apples and oranges. On the other hand, we could also compare to the sister book series. Hiding T 17:49, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Options[edit]

So far the alternatives seem to be (<media> + x + z):

  • x.)
    • xa.) "...adapted from..."
    • xb.) "...based on..."
  • z.)
    • za.) "...a television program"
    • zb.) "...a television series"

So for clarity, please pick one of the above (or, of course, feel free to suggest a different proposal.) - jc37 20:58, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rename all to "<media> adapted from a television series" (<media> + xa + zb) Weak support "based on a" (xb). Strong Oppose "television program" (za) - jc37 20:58, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Wouldn't it be <media> adapted from television series since we pluralise categories? I can accept that as much as "based upon television series", so for the sake of argument, as long as we correctly pluralise... aye. Hiding T 21:42, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm looking at WP:NCCAT#General naming conventions. The sixth note. To clarify, <media> may be plural, but <z> should be singular. - jc37 21:49, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That bit looks new. ;) Hiding T 21:09, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Did you say that just to get me to look in the page history to find out that you were part of the discussion which helped formulate the page back in August of 2005? : )
    Though I note that Rick Block added that line on 31 August, 2005. So I guess it isn't exactly "new : ) - jc37 22:33, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Nope, I was covering for my bad memory. Was that really three years ago. Time flies. Look at it now, part of established wisdom. Who'd've thunk it. We just made it up. Golly, if I remember rightly...<edited to avoid stroll down memory lane.> Hiding T 22:47, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One more time, this is part of the Media based on media schema. The schema has 14, fourteen, categories in it already that tell us that the 4, four, above are wrongly named. Jc37, seems to be pointy with his objections to these renames. I object to any other alternative. 14 categories out of 18 categories use television program, only these 4 use something different. If that does not scream naming convention per SILENCE, I don't know what will, since the use of television program in the schema began back in December 2004. I am just following the example of other editors who created the other 14 categories. I should have just listed these all under Speedy rename 8 days ago, and this conversation would not be taking place since in effect, this is G6, housekeeping within the Media based on media schema. I did not want to have to list the other 14 categories in a list. They are linked in the beginning of this discussion to show that per SILENCE these 4 categories go against the implied naming convention.

Also, film series is not a good comparison to television program/series. A film series is a succession of films. A television series is not a succession of televisions, it is actually a succession of television episodes. What sounds better, Star Trek series series or Star Trek program series?

I did not think that this would cause such a headache due to the fact that there are 14 categories named with television program while these 4 are the only ones different. Why would one want to disrupt the entire schema of over 70 categories for these 4? LA (T) @ 00:32, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Contradictory conventions? Why that never happens on Wikipedia. Pages created without concern for disambiguation? Thatnever happens either. Just about any topic has a plethora of variantly named categories. And it's not the least bit rare for a large number of categories to be renamed.
Two more things. One is that you may wish to re-read WP:SILENCE. I don't think that essay indicates what you think it indicates (with apologies to The Princess Bride...)
The second is that you may wish to do some self-examination before throwing around accusations like WP:POINT. In looking over the discussions over the last few days, Hiding, I, and others have been discussing, and have changed views on things several times, presumably attempting to determine what's best for Wikipedia. I'm having a hard time seeing that in any of your comments, nominations, or entries in "discussions". Note that normally I would prefer to stick to content in XfD discussions, but your accusation suggested to me that I should probably respond.
As I said elsewhere. This isn't about "easier". This is about (hopefully) doing the Right Thing. If that means that existing pages also need renaming, then let's do that. If you feel that that's too difficult, or too much work for you to handle, that's fine, I can empathise. I'm sure that others who are also looking to better Wikipedia who would be happy to help. - jc37 07:56, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Media based on media schema grids=[edit]

Please study these grids. They show that television program is preferred over anything else, and that based on is also preferred to anything else. As I am finding categories and lists with names which go against the implied naming convention for this schema, I am getting them renamed. LA (T) @ 18:33, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Media based on Media? Um, that needs killing with a dead duck as a really bad name. Media by source is a far better name, and if we already have that, this category is just a mis-formed step in the chain and not needed. Hiding T 11:28, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "As I am finding categories and lists with names which go against the implied naming convention for this schema, I am getting them renamed." - So much for the "but there are so many others already named this" concern. And Arbcomm has made it very clear several times that fait accompli is anti-wiki. So at this point "per current convention" wouldn't seem to be holding any water. (And might help explain page names which are contrary to WP:NC-TV.) Something is starting to "feel" familiar here. If this discussion continues much longer (which it fairly may), I think I'm going diff hunting... - jc37 13:00, 3 September 2008 (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:Austrian Tarock players[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. Kbdank71 14:16, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Austrian Tarock players (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Just no reason for this to exist. Eusebeus (talk) 18:37, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: No valid parent Category:Tarock players or even Category:Tarock. (The game doesn't even have an article much less a category! The game does exist - have heard of it before - but apparently not considered notable enough for an article here, most likely suitable for a short section a the article on such games as a whole.) Non-notable trivia, with no sources (since no article in which to put them). — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 00:34, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Football venues in Northern Ireland[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 using lowercase a in association (per hiding, I checked Association football in Northern Ireland but couldn't tell if it was capitalized because it's supposed to be or because it's the title of the article. No big deal to fix these if it turns out they should be caps). Kbdank71 15:59, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Football venues in Northern Ireland (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Rename Association Football venues in Northern As per parent article Association Football in Northern Ireland Gnevin (talk) 17:15, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also rename

with 'association football' not capitalised. Here convention of Category:Football managers by country etc is overridden for the need for greater clarity because 'football' is Ireland can mean 'gaelic football' (just as in the States such cat pages take 'soccer', as 'football' is mostly taken to mean gridiron) Mayumashu (talk) 01:00, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It d be fine too - whichever 'football (soccer)' or 'association football' would work Mayumashu (talk) 05:39, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the parent article is at Association football in Northern Ireland so you;d best watch your capitalisations. Hiding T 22:50, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question What other kind of football is played to any significant extent in Northern Ireland? Is Gaelic Football a significnat sport there? If not, it is the main article that needs renaming, not the associated categories (pun unintentional). Peterkingiron (talk) 21:37, 31 August 2008 (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:Albums with Bill Payne as session musician[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. Kbdank71 13:54, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Albums with Bill Payne as session musician (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Trivial intersection here; the fact that a certain musician played on these albums is the only common criterion. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 15:07, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listy on his article, then delete per nom. Lugnuts (talk) 18:47, 29 August 2008 (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:Albums produced by Richard Landis[edit]

Relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 September 2#Category:Albums produced by Richard Landis.

Category:Eclipse plugin[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 in preference to the template. Kbdank71 13:52, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Eclipse plugin to Category:Eclipse plugins
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Plural is customary for category titles. – Leo Laursen – ✍ ⌘ 09:32, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Why should this not be left in the list or as a template? A category for plugins does not help navigate. A template can group them by type and display them more concisely without extra clicks. A list can group them by type and provide for a more detailed description. This seems to be the worst choice or an unneeded one at best since a list already exists. Vegaswikian (talk) 15:16, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I see your point. A first draft for a template is at User:Leolaursen/Eclipse_plugins. – Leo Laursen – ✍ ⌘ 16:09, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The template looks fine. Do these add ons fall into groups? If so, then they should be grouped in the template to improve navigation.
    I don't know enough about Eclipse, to suggest groupings, so I just listed the articles in the category. List of Eclipse-based software is also just an alphabetized list. Grouping per company in Eclipse Foundation is a possibility. – Leo Laursen – ✍ ⌘ 07:41, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and use template. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:21, 3 September 2008 (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:Hiking and tramping tracks in New Zealand[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. Kbdank71 13:50, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Hiking and tramping tracks in New Zealand to Category:Tramping tracks in New Zealand
Nominator's rationale: Hiking and tramping are synonyms. Tramping is the term used in NZ so it should be the one that is used. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 08:37, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per the main article, New Zealand tramping tracks. Hiking is for day trips and an overnight makes it tramping so the current category is correct. To say that these can only be used with an overnight stay seems odd. That would say that a day walker can go walking for a few hours and then return to their stating point. Vegaswikian (talk) 15:19, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It does not say in the article that hiking is for day trips. Day trips in NZ are called "day walks", or less commonly, tramping. Having hiking in the title is redundant. Also, the tracks in the category are almost without exception used as tramping tracks. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 05:23, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - I'm a little surprised by this one, since Alan and I - both kiwis - seem to use these terms differently. To me, tramping implies bush walks; hiking includes open country. I was under the impression that these were the standard usages of these terms here. Grutness...wha? 06:45, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hiking is creeping in as a term that is being used so it is muddying the waters a little I guess. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 07:14, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Non-Kiwi, living in NZ here. I think the current name is preferable, not only for the reasons already set out, but also because a non-Kiwi reader may not have any idea what a "tramping track" is, so using "hiking and tramping" is not a bad solution to the problem of location-specific language that may not be self-explanatory. Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:48, 30 August 2008 (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:Hong Kong Professors[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. Kbdank71 13:46, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:Hong Kong Professors to Category:Hong Kong academics
Nominator's rationale: Merge. I recommend that Category:Hong Kong Professors be merged into Category:Hong Kong academics by analogy to such categories as Category:American academics and Category:British academics. Note that we do not have categories labeled Category:American professors and Category:British professors. In addition, the capitalization of "Professors" in the title of this category is incorrect. Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:04, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom - "academics" is the agreed-upon generic term that encompasses all of the different terms that are used in different countries. Cgingold (talk) 07:45, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. Tameamseo (talk) 11:21, 30 August 2008 (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:Tainan[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 per nom and article. Kbdank71 13:48, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:Tainan to Category:Tainan City
Nominator's rationale: Merge, Significant overlap of categories - simplify Ian Cairns (talk) 15:06, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, jc37 04:32, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: In doing some searches, it seems that the city may go by both names. See also: the city's home page, and a departmental sub-page. And in some places it's rather confusing whether it's (Tainan city) government or Tainan (city government). The pages aren't even standard in capitalisation. I also note that Tainan started as Tainan City, but has been moved since then. So at this point, references would seem to be required. - jc37 04:36, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Since the article is at Tainan and there is also Tainan County, shouldn't the category be Category:Tainan (city)? Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:53, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That's definitely an interesting idea for a compromise. - jc37 05:12, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, if you look at the article introduction, it uses Tainan City as the name of the place. So on the surface, it would seem that the proposed merge is correct and the article should be renamed to Tainan City. Which ever way we go, we need to align the article with the category name. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:53, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    At this point, I'm hesitant on relying on the article itself for the info, considering that the primary sources themselves seem to vary. (And yes, when this is resolved, the article and category should match.) One thing that occurred to me was that this could be a translation issue. - jc37 20:58, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I moved the article to Tainan City and started cleaning up the redirects. Seems that many articles were already linked to that name. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:43, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:45, 1 September 2008 (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:Victorian legislation[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 per nom with the note that Good Olfactory has offered to mass rename all of the Victoria cats to add (Australia) to the titles. Kbdank71 13:45, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Victorian legislation to Category:Victoria legislation
Category:Victorian politicians to Category:Victoria politicians
Category:Victorian local government politicians to Category:Victoria local government politicians
Category:Victorian state politicians to Category:Victoria state politicians
Category:Victorian tourist railway stations to Category:Victoria tourist railway stations
Nominator's rationale: Rename, with an optional bonus change. Using "Victorian" as the adjective for Victoria (Australia) has the unfortunate result of being ambiguous in many cases—usually with respect to the Victorian era, see Category:Victorian era. "Victorian legislation" could easily be interpreted as UK legislation created during the reign of Queen Victoria. Similarly, "Victorian politicians" could mean UK politicians during Victoria's reign. (I don't think Category:Victorian state politicians is as big a problem since it's clearer in the context that we're referring to the state, but I'm nominating it for the sake of consistency.) Basic proposal: Some categories for the Australian state use "Victoria" as the adjective to get around the problem: e.g., Category:Victoria musical groups, so that's what I'm proposing here. Bonus proposal: Alternatively, we could go all the way and make it mandatory to add "(Australia)" with the use of "Victoria" in the same way that's required for subcategories of Category:Georgia (U.S. state) and Category:Georgia (country). If consensus trends that way, I'm willing to have these changed to "Victoria" for the time being and then I will do an across-the board nomination for all the subcategories of Category:Victoria (Australia). Note that theoretically, all the of the Victoria categories could be speedily disambiguated to "Victoria (Australia)" based on CFD speedy rename criterion #6, but I don't want to step on any toes by doing it right away. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:26, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Victoria (Australia) foo. Victoria is ambiguous as the city article name shows. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:44, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all per nom. Wow - it boggles the mind. If I had come across any of these my first thought would have been Victorian era. Cgingold (talk) 13:09, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per Vegaswikian, I was thinking Victorian era too. Hiding T 20:23, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. Tameamseo (talk) 11:21, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • And how does this address that the proposed name is ambiguous? Vegaswikian (talk) 18:54, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Maybe they don't care whether the change to "Victoria (Australia)" happens on this nomination or a future one. If we change it to "Victoria", I will certainly follow it up with a nom of these and all others to "Victoria (Australia)", but I didn't want to nominate it to that right off the bat in case the DAB issue received stiff resistance. It might be just as well to consider changing all to "Victoria (Australia)" all in one nomination, anyway. But whatever—I hope it will happen one way or another, either now or then. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:14, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Wouldn't the possible confusion be resolved by simply adding some explanatory texts within the categories? For example "This category includes politicians who were active in the state of Victoria, Australia". I don't really see much need for renaming. The Category:Victorian era does not at this moment have many subcategories concerning people of the era and none covering their occupations. Dimadick (talk) 09:24, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Category names should not be ambiguous. So without the dab they fail the ambiguity test. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:24, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral "Victoria politicians" sounds like someone whose first language is not English, although I recognise the source of confusion. Orderinchaos 11:41, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all to foo "of Victoria". I agree that most people outside Australia (and probably even some people inside it) would interpret "Victorian" as meaning "in the reign of Queen Victoria", but I don't like the adjectival use of a noun in this way. It sounds wrong. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:24, 4 September 2008 (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:WikiProject Aids articles[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. The project is in fact named Aids, and there is a section on terminology which explains why. A rename of this (and related) categories should begin with the project itself. Kbdank71 13:40, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:WikiProject Aids articles to Category:WikiProject AIDS articles
Nominator's rationale: Rename. May be speediable. AIDS is an acronym and all of its letters should be capitalized. Otto4711 (talk) 04:12, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, since the project is at Wikipedia:WikiProject Aids and these are their articles. Given the project is currently inactive, I think it is best to let sleeping dogs lie rather than have to change a vast number of references. This shouldn't be a front facing category though, so I have recategorised it to keep it back-room. It may be worth asking WikiProject Medicine if they want to re-activate this as a task force, but I think this is change for no good reason. Our article indicates AIDS can be referred to as Aids, so the acronym itself may now attained common currency as a defining word. Other examples include radar. I say let it be. Hiding T 10:08, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. Current title implies that articles are aided by a wiki-project, which isn't always true, especially if said project is defunct. — CharlotteWebb 14:49, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy close - I understand what you're getting at Otto. However, I think you'd probably be better off MfDing the whole project for a rename to "WikiProject AIDS <x>". - jc37 20:58, 30 August 2008 (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:Feminism and sexuality[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. I'm persuaded by the "dumping ground-catchall" argument. Many of these articles would do well in either Category:Feminism or Category:Sexuality, but as the nominator suggests, not both. Kbdank71 13:35, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Feminism and sexuality (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete: First, as per Wikipedia:CAT#Searching for articles in categories, there is no need for categories that are simply intersections of other categories. Second, the criteria for this category are impossibly vague. Who is to decide whether a particular feminist topic has any special relevance to sexuality (some would argue that anything to do with feminism is also related to sexuality)? Who is to decide whether a particular sexuality-related topic has special relevance to feminism (again, some would argue that any sexuality topic is related to feminism)? I stumbled upon this category because Marilyn Hacker was added to it, presumably because she is a writer who is a feminist and who is also queer; but it's a bit objectionable to place someone in a "sexuality" category solely because they have a non-heterosexual sexual orientation. (Certainly she has written about sex, but so have most authors of fiction and poetry who write for adults.) I can't see how there can be any objective criterion for inclusion in this category. SparsityProblem (talk) 17:31, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- a major component of feminist theory and feminist thought deals with issues related to sexuality because it is so strongly bound up with gender issues. This category acts as a kind of catch-all and is very well populated; therefore, there is no need to delete it. --Wassermann (talk) 04:00, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree, but it's hard to find any strand of feminist theory that doesn't relate to sexuality in some way. Like I said, it's a matter of opinion where to draw the line between "Feminism and sexuality" and plain "feminism". As for the category being well-populated, it may well be populated, but not necessary with entries that are relevant. To pick five random ones: Going Dutch (whose connection to feminism or sexuality is tenuous); Female ejaculation (certainly sexuality-related, but is this a feminist issue? if so, then so is everything to do with the female body); Slut Night (a social gathering that doesn't seem directly relevant to feminism, unless you think any gathering of women is feminist); Adrienne Rich (a feminist writer who has certainly written about sexuality, but if all such writers were included, it would be rather large and not too helpful for navigation), and Joissance (possibly the only relevant article in my random sample.) I'm not just arguing that the category as it is now contains many inappropriate articles, as that would not be a rationale for deletion. Rather, I'm arguing that by its nature, the category will inevitably contain many articles whose inclusion cannot be evaluated objectively. SparsityProblem (talk) 00:10, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - While I do see a rationale for this category, it's sorely in need of clear inclusion criteria to turn it into a more useful category instead of serving as a sort of dumping ground for all manner of articles that are perceived to relate to those topics in some way or other. It's also possible that it might help to tweak the name in some way. I think this needs more input from other editors, so please relist for further discussion. Cgingold (talk) 09:59, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Cgingold (talk) 09:59, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:36, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, no clear criteria for inclusion. Clearly many of the articles included (date rape, sexual harassment, sex symbol), are not articles about elements of feminist thought, but instead topics in which feminists have written and may be interested. A "catch-all" category is not really a category at all, but a dumping ground for brainstorming elements that might one day be related to an article on feminism and sexuality. Postdlf (talk) 02:54, 3 September 2008 (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.

Categories:Surinamese people of Fooian descent[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename. I'm not sure that the encyclopedia is not bettered by genealogical categorization. But Mayumashu is correct; there has been an awful lot of precedence to get these named correctly, and the discussions really haven't dealt with keep/delete. A mass nomination is probably the way to go if deletion is desired. Consider this copied/pasted for all the discussions below. Kbdank71 13:19, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Afro-Surinamese to Category:Surinamese people of Black African descent
Nominator's rationale: as per naming convention Mayumashu (talk) 03:17, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I think I've developed a bee in my bonnet about this category branch, and would like to see it deleted since it appears to be over-categorisation. I'm not convinced there is any need to be lining people up based on their genealogy. This could also lend itself to a morass of categories at the bottom of an article page given the propensity for migration in human culture. I can't see any value in such categories. Sorry. (To the closing admin; if in your impartial judgement you feel the outcome of the debate is no consensus, and as such are keeping the category, I have no opposition to the rename. It would seem churlish not to allow it to go through based on my argument, which isn't really bothered by the name itself but rather the purpose. If the category is to exist, it seems sensible it have the best name possible.) I apologise for the cut and pasting of my argument ad-nauseum below, but couldn't think of the best way to iterate my purpose repeatedly. What if separate admins close the debate and miss the caveat? Oh, the propensity of the human mind to worry over the smallest things. Hiding T 20:38, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I agree with Hiding. This whole tree should be felled. - jc37 20:46, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • REname as nom, according to much recent precedent. There have been dozens of similar nominations for other expatriate categories, which provide a major precedent for the nominator's proposal. I have contested a few ex-USSR and Middle Eastern nominations, which raised difficult issues, but this one is straightforward. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:44, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To those who have joined in towards the end of what s been a four month process to have these cat pages renamed, if you want to go after the tree, cut its trunk and not a few of its smaller branches. Please nominate Category:American people by ethnic or national origin for deletion or nominate a number of countries with extensive lists en masse - two blows that could be fatal. It isn t right at all that there be certain sorts of cat pages for pages pertaining to certain countries and not for others when what is being described is a universal phenomenom, here tracing ethnicity, ancestral origins over recent generations. Mayumashu (talk) 23:37, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
At the moment, I'm commenting when the discussion appears, in whichever form. And, atm, we seem to be in stasis here as to whether WP:ALLORNOTHING is appropriate or not... - jc37 01:06, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. -- Necrothesp (talk) 00:27, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom, and related debates on Aug. 29. PSs: Mayumashu: please do group nominations; it is very tedious to add a !vote to every one of these. Hiding: You don't need to paste the same big response into everyone one; just do it once and refer to it briefly in the later ones. Admins: Someone want to refactor this mess into one nom? — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 00:38, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I know that, but life is short and cutting and pasting is quicker. Did you see my apology? I don't see your argument why we should keep. ;) Hiding T 08:08, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
SMcCandlish, I did just that on a nomination like this one earlier in the summer and was told to break them up - I agree, the nature of each of these are identical and should be grouped as one nomination Mayumashu (talk) 02:17, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. - Darwinek (talk) 09:28, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. Clearer meaning, useful categories. Dimadick (talk) 09:26, 2 September 2008 (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.

Categories:Slovenians of Fooian descent[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename/merge (see above). Kbdank71 13:19, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming
Nominator's rationale: as per naming convention Mayumashu (talk) 03:07, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I think I've developed a bee in my bonnet about this category branch, and would like to see it deleted since it appears to be over-categorisation. I'm not convinced there is any need to be lining people up based on their genealogy. This could also lend itself to a morass of categories at the bottom of an article page given the propensity for migration in human culture. I can't see any value in such categories. Sorry. (To the closing admin; if in your impartial judgement you feel the outcome of the debate is no consensus, and as such are keeping the category, I have no opposition to the rename. It would seem churlish not to allow it to go through based on my argument, which isn't really bothered by the name itself but rather the purpose. If the category is to exist, it seems sensible it have the best name possible.) Hiding T 20:38, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I agree with Hiding. This whole tree should be felled. - jc37 20:46, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename as nom, according to much recent precedent. There have been dozens of similar nominations for other expatriate categories, which provide a major precedent for the nominator's proposal. I have contested a few ex-USSR and Middle Eastern nominations, which raised difficult issues, but this one is straightforward. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:45, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. -- Necrothesp (talk) 00:27, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom, and related debates on Aug. 29. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 00:38, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom except the Italian one. Italian and Hungarian minorities are the only two officially recognized national minorities in Slovenia (because they are autochtonic). Rename Italian cat to Category:Italians in Slovenia - Darwinek (talk) 09:28, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per the proposal by Darwinek. Dimadick (talk) 09:28, 2 September 2008 (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.

Categories:Samoans of Chinese descent[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename (see above). Kbdank71 13:20, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Chinese Samoans to Category:Samoans of Chinese descent
Nominator's rationale: as per naming convention Mayumashu (talk) 02:59, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I think I've developed a bee in my bonnet about this category branch, and would like to see it deleted since it appears to be over-categorisation. I'm not convinced there is any need to be lining people up based on their genealogy. This could also lend itself to a morass of categories at the bottom of an article page given the propensity for migration in human culture. I can't see any value in such categories. Sorry. (To the closing admin; if in your impartial judgement you feel the outcome of the debate is no consensus, and as such are keeping the category, I have no opposition to the rename. It would seem churlish not to allow it to go through based on my argument, which isn't really bothered by the name itself but rather the purpose. If the category is to exist, it seems sensible it have the best name possible.) Hiding T 20:38, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I agree with Hiding. This whole tree should be felled. - jc37 20:46, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename as nom, according to much recent precedent. There have been dozens of similar nominations for other expatriate categories, which provide a major precedent for the nominator's proposal. I have contested a few ex-USSR and Middle Eastern nominations, which raised difficult issues, but this one is straightforward. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:46, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. -- Necrothesp (talk) 00:27, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom, and related debates on Aug. 29. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 00:38, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. Clearer meaning. Dimadick (talk) 09:29, 2 September 2008 (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.

Categories:Costa Ricans of Fooian descent[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename (see above). Kbdank71 13:20, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming
Nominator's rationale: as per naming convention Mayumashu (talk) 03:22, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I think I've developed a bee in my bonnet about this category branch, and would like to see it deleted since it appears to be over-categorisation. I'm not convinced there is any need to be lining people up based on their genealogy. This could also lend itself to a morass of categories at the bottom of an article page given the propensity for migration in human culture. I can't see any value in such categories. Sorry. (To the closing admin; if in your impartial judgement you feel the outcome of the debate is no consensus, and as such are keeping the category, I have no opposition to the rename. It would seem churlish not to allow it to go through based on my argument, which isn't really bothered by the name itself but rather the purpose. If the category is to exist, it seems sensible it have the best name possible.) Hiding T 20:38, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I agree with Hiding. This whole tree should be felled. - jc37 20:46, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. -- Necrothesp (talk) 00:28, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom, and related debates on Aug. 29. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 00:38, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. - Darwinek (talk) 09:28, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. Clearer meaning. Dimadick (talk) 09:30, 2 September 2008 (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.

Categories:Salvadorans of Fooian descent[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename/delete (see above). Kbdank71 13:21, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming

Propose deletion

Nominator's rationale: as per naming convention Mayumashu (talk) 02:51, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I think I've developed a bee in my bonnet about this category branch, and would like to see it deleted since it appears to be over-categorisation. I'm not convinced there is any need to be lining people up based on their genealogy. This could also lend itself to a morass of categories at the bottom of an article page given the propensity for migration in human culture. I can't see any value in such categories. Sorry. (To the closing admin; if in your impartial judgement you feel the outcome of the debate is no consensus, and as such are keeping the category, I have no opposition to the rename. It would seem churlish not to allow it to go through based on my argument, which isn't really bothered by the name itself but rather the purpose. If the category is to exist, it seems sensible it have the best name possible.) Hiding T 20:38, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I agree with Hiding. This whole tree should be felled. - jc37 20:46, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename as nom, according to much recent precedent. There have been dozens of similar nominations for other expatriate categories, which provide a major precedent for the nominator's proposal. I have contested a few ex-USSR and Middle Eastern nominations, which raised difficult issues, but this one is straightforward. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:47, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. -- Necrothesp (talk) 00:28, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom, and related debates on Aug. 29. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 00:38, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. - Darwinek (talk) 09:28, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename the categories in current use and Delete the empty one. Dimadick (talk) 09:31, 2 September 2008 (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.

Categories:Paraguayans of Fooian descent[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename/merge (see above). Kbdank71 13:22, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming/merging
Nominator's rationale: as per naming convention Mayumashu (talk) 01:41, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I think I've developed a bee in my bonnet about this category branch, and would like to see it deleted since it appears to be over-categorisation. I'm not convinced there is any need to be lining people up based on their genealogy. This could also lend itself to a morass of categories at the bottom of an article page given the propensity for migration in human culture. I can't see any value in such categories. Sorry. (To the closing admin; if in your impartial judgement you feel the outcome of the debate is no consensus, and as such are keeping the category, I have no opposition to the rename. It would seem churlish not to allow it to go through based on my argument, which isn't really bothered by the name itself but rather the purpose. If the category is to exist, it seems sensible it have the best name possible.) Hiding T 20:38, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I agree with Hiding. This whole tree should be felled. - jc37 20:46, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. -- Necrothesp (talk) 00:28, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom, and related debates on Aug. 29. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 00:38, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. - Darwinek (talk) 09:28, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. Clearer meaning. Dimadick (talk) 09:32, 2 September 2008 (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.

Categories:Panamanians of Fooian descent[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename (see above). Kbdank71 13:22, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming
Nominator's rationale: as per standard naming Mayumashu (talk) 00:39, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I think I've developed a bee in my bonnet about this category branch, and would like to see it deleted since it appears to be over-categorisation. I'm not convinced there is any need to be lining people up based on their genealogy. This could also lend itself to a morass of categories at the bottom of an article page given the propensity for migration in human culture. I can't see any value in such categories. Sorry. (To the closing admin; if in your impartial judgement you feel the outcome of the debate is no consensus, and as such are keeping the category, I have no opposition to the rename. It would seem churlish not to allow it to go through based on my argument, which isn't really bothered by the name itself but rather the purpose. If the category is to exist, it seems sensible it have the best name possible.) Hiding T 20:38, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I agree with Hiding. This whole tree should be felled. - jc37 20:46, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename as nom, according to much recent precedent. There have been dozens of similar nominations for other expatriate categories, which provide a major precedent for the nominator's proposal. I have contested a few ex-USSR and Middle Eastern nominations, which raised difficult issues, but this one is straightforward. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:47, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom, and related debates on Aug. 29. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 00:38, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. -- Necrothesp (talk) 07:59, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. - Darwinek (talk) 09:28, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. Clearer meaning. Dimadick (talk) 09:32, 2 September 2008 (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.

Categories:Norwegians of Fooian descent[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge (see above) (btw, I'm not sure myself if this should be black with a capital b or not, but considering the target already exists, and it won't be hard to fix if it should be lowercase, we'll go with as nominated). Kbdank71 13:25, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming

(all the other sub-categories already follow conventional naming)

Nominator's rationale: as per naming convention Mayumashu (talk) 00:19, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Why is black spelled with an upper case B? __meco (talk) 07:25, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So long as 'Black African' isn t a neologism, and it may be as I don t get any hits for the expression with free on-line dictionaries, a google search indicates that 'Black African' is used commonly two to three times more often than 'black African'. Unfortunately I don t have a reputable dictionary with me here that isn t newer than 50 years old. Mayumashu (talk) 00:46, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment a user other than the nominator has (gone ahead and) started the page with the proposed renaming, so the nomination has become then a proposed merging Mayumashu (talk) 00:48, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I think I've developed a bee in my bonnet about this category branch, and would like to see it deleted since it appears to be over-categorisation. I'm not convinced there is any need to be lining people up based on their genealogy. This could also lend itself to a morass of categories at the bottom of an article page given the propensity for migration in human culture. I can't see any value in such categories. Sorry. (To the closing admin; if in your impartial judgement you feel the outcome of the debate is no consensus, and as such are keeping the category, I have no opposition to the rename. It would seem churlish not to allow it to go through based on my argument, which isn't really bothered by the name itself but rather the purpose. If the category is to exist, it seems sensible it have the best name possible.) Hiding T 20:38, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I agree with Hiding. This whole tree should be felled. - jc37 20:46, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename as nom, according to much recent precedent. There have been dozens of similar nominations for other expatriate categories, which provide a major precedent for the nominator's proposal. I have contested a few ex-USSR and Middle Eastern nominations, which raised difficult issues, but this one is straightforward. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:48, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. -- Necrothesp (talk) 00:29, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom, and related debates on Aug. 29. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 00:38, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. - Darwinek (talk) 09:28, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. Dimadick (talk) 09:33, 2 September 2008 (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/2008_August_29&oldid=1074800031"