Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 December 28

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< December 27 December 29 >

December 28[edit]

Category:Companies listed on the SWX Swiss Exchange[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:  Relisted at 2009 JAN 5. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:27, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Companies listed on the SWX Swiss Exchange to Category:Companies listed on the SIX Swiss Exchange
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Exchange changed its name from SWX to SIX in September (media release here). Gr1st (talk) 18:04, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I'm wondering if this might be better served as a list, which can capture such additional encyclopedic information as the date the stock was listed, ticker symbol, previous names of the exchange, previous companies of the exchange and so on. If I were researching stock exchanges I would find that much more valuable than a bare alphabetical list. If kept the rename to match the current exchange name. Otto4711 (talk) 05:03, 30 December 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.

Subcategories of Category:Civil parishes in Cheshire[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of the discussion was: wait until April 2009 to redistribute articles and then propose deletion of these ones as empty/superceded. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:46, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The disambiguation is not needed, as it is not used in the articles about the places, also the capitalisation should be changed to match most other "civil parishes" categories. —Snigbrook 17:08, 28 December 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:Folk Heroes[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 15:29, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Folk Heroes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. "Folk heroism" is an inherently POV status. There is no way to objectively define who should and should not belong in this category. The same person will be considered a folk hero by some and yet be reviled by others. "Hero" is one of those words that usually does not work in category names for real people. The only article in the category right now is Muntadhar al-Zaidi, a.k.a. the guy who threw his shoes as G. W. Bush. Notified creator with {{subst:cfd-notify}} Good Ol’factory (talk) 13:34, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kepp - Well, to be honest with you, I created this category because the U.S. press was reporting the al-Zaidi (whom I consider to be a lowly thug) is considered a "folk hero" among some people in the Middle East. My objective is to only reflect this reported reality. I actually do not feel too strongly about this issue, so I am not going to a put a staunch defense for it. Jonniefast (talk) 12:40, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- In/exclusion depends totally on the editor's POV. I suppose Robin Hood might belong, but I expect he is in a rather more satisfactory category than this one. I have no view on Muntadhar al-Zaidi, but think that he currently comes into the category of those who are "famous for 15 minutes" (or perhaps 15 days, in this case). Such people are generally NN. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:04, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom - Clearly not a viable category. However, I've just added al-Zaidi to the list of folk heroes. Cgingold (talk) 03:24, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename "Folk heroes" to match article, which is a standard term used to describe a character in Folklore.--Editor2020 (talk) 22:16, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per above, this is a bit of a subjective call. I'm not sure it reflects anything that isn't listed in the article Folk heroes. At some point, anyone about whom there is a legend is a folk hero in some respect. Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:40, 1 January 2009 (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:Quilt museum[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 plural. Kbdank71 15:28, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:Quilt museum to Category:Textile museums
Nominator's rationale: Merge, Only one article in this category; merge to the more general category of Category:Museums by type. Notified creator with {{subst:cfd-notify}} Good Ol’factory (talk) 13:29, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Rename Now 5 articles, and this English one doesn't have an article yet, so ok to keep I think. Rename to Category:Quilt museums (or "Quilting"?) Johnbod (talk) 12:42, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and pluralize - I just added another article, as well as making it a sub-cat of Category:Quilting. And there are more articles to be written. Cgingold (talk) 02:28, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (nominator). I can agree to keeping after pluralizing now that the category has been somewhat populated. (And now that I have my idea for what to do with myself over the holidays, I'm off to the local quilt museum ...) Good Ol’factory (talk) 16:15, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Quilt museums to use plural form. "Quilt" appears in the title of all the articles currently in teh category. Alansohn (talk) 15:55, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename - agree to rename as Quilt museums, keep as a subcategory of Textile museums, which also include costumes, art and other fabric-related items. This will keep it easier to group for quilter's use and for museum classifications. Jllm06 (talk) 15:39, 4 January 2009 (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 alphabet[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 15:27, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:People by alphabet (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Judging by the included articles, I've no idea what this could possibly mean. Creator has not responded to an inquiry about the category purpose. Notified creator with {{subst:cfd-notify}} Good Ol’factory (talk) 13:17, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Johnbod (talk) 12:31, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - if the purpose is to create a list of people, it's already there, in various forms. Wildhartlivie (talk) 18:16, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- I think that some months ago we discussed lists of biographies and deleted them. The purpose is presumably to make biographic articles available alphbetically, but there are so many that this is a hopeless enterprise. If I want an article on a particular person, I search for the name, not look in a category. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:57, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Because in other WP project the users is used such categories (e.g. Wikimedia Commons). Best Regards and Happy 2009! Fposel (talk) 10:45, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, there are better ways to sort people than such categories. Besides, too many people and that makes cat useless. --Tone 12:04, 31 December 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:Lymphoid skin diseases[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 (also in-line with other recent consensus changes to category disease names). Good Ol’factory (talk) 12:02, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Lymphoid skin diseases to Category:Lymphoid-related skin conditions
Nominator's rationale: Rename. I started the WP:DERM taskforce, and have been working to categorize dermatology articles in an organized fashion. The proposed categorization scheme is specifically at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicine/Dermatology_task_force/Categorization, which was developed from discussions at the main wikipedia medicine page (see that link for more details). As per that scheme, the "Lymphoid skin diseases" category should probably be renamed to "Lymphoid-related skin conditions" as the scope of the category is a bit larger than simply lymphoid diseases, also containing conditions caused by lymphoid disease, such as acquired ichthyosis (see List_of_skin-related_conditions#Lymphoid-related for a listing of all the diseases considered part of this category, some of which are not specifically "lymphoid diseases"). kilbad (talk) 12:58, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per input from source that seems to know more about the subject than the usual CfD lurkers. Alansohn (talk) 04:02, 29 December 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:Family films[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 15:27, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Family films (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - no possible objective definition of what constitutes a "family" film. Otto4711 (talk) 12:41, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The main article is now sourced with two references. There was a TV show in the UK listing the "100 Greatest Family Films". Lugnuts (talk) 15:14, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. No reason why this should be harder to define than any other genre of film. PC78 (talk) 14:56, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Granted, but isn't there a certain degree of subjectivity with any genre? PC78 (talk) 11:57, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sure, but the degree of subjectivity in determining whether something is, say, a Western film or a Mystery film is much less than that involved in deciding that something is a "family film." Otto4711 (talk) 21:21, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not necessarily. That's a subjective opinion in itself. :) PC78 (talk) 13:05, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Inherently PoV. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 15:34, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unverifiable without prejudice to a category listing the "100 top family films" as presented by the BBC source. Agathoclea (talk) 15:40, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete due to subjectivity concerns. I think Otto's right that this "genre" is considerably more subjective than most, even though all to some degree are a matter of POV. By saying something is a "family film" commentators are basically saying it's "appropriate for children". Unfortunately, in most cultures that watch films, different people have vastly different opinions about what is and is not appropriate for children to watch. A "family film" to a devout Mormon in Utah is going to be something quite different from what Roger Ebert might say is one. Some people use MPAA ratings to decide what is "family"; others use websites like the ChildCare Action Project that count up the cuss words and assess how tight the women's shirts are and how many times the "camera angle forces the viewer on private parts". (For most movies, reading the CAP review is really more entertainment that seeing the movie.) Otto's anecdotal examples are also on point here. Good Ol’factory (talk) 11:59, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Using the "devout Mormon" example can be applied to any film genre. Should films like Dumbo and Bambi be classed as childrens' films (both have dubious content)? When is an action film actually action? Ditto a comedy film. By definition there is some POV in all film genres. Family film to me, means suitable for your average 2.4 family, and not one that lived in a cellar in Austria. I think deleting this would be the thin end of the wedge! Lugnuts (talk) 17:39, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is an "average 2.4 family" (are such families even the "average" any more?) and how do editors determine that a film is "suitable" for such a family without resorting to personal opinion and original research? Otto4711 (talk) 15:07, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The fact that this may be the thin edge of the wedge is not enough to convince me that this isn't irredeemably POV. Sure, other genres also have definitional and subjectivity problems. That doesn't mean we need to keep (what I view as) the most problematic one around. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:34, 4 January 2009 (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 convicted of alcohol-related driving offenses[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 Category:Politicians charged with alcohol-related driving offenses, no consensus on the two convicted categories. Yes, I know what the vote counts are, but as always, CFD isn't a vote count. There, that said, while three people here did want to keep the convicted categories, that is not in my mind enough to overcome the vast consensus of the other linked CFD's, and the fact that these are recreations of deleted content. Plus, the nominator is correct in that a drink driving conviction is not defining for Michael Phelps (or Ditka or Cheney or Ross, etc). Kbdank71 15:37, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:People convicted of alcohol-related driving offenses (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Politicians convicted of alcohol-related driving offenses (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Politicians charged with alcohol-related driving offenses (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete all. These categories are essentially the re-creation of previously deleted categories under slightly different names and criteria. While they may be valid list material, they are certainly not defining for the vast majority of those included in them, and typically they represent a minor point in the person's biography. (To wit: included in the categories are George Best. Dick Cheney, Mike Ditka, Tony La Russa, Sam Nunn, Haley Joel Osment, Michael Phelps, Diana Ross, and Busta Rhymes. It's defining for none of these people, and this is just a sample of those included.) As such these should be deleted as categories and listified if wanted. Adding to the case for listification is the need for solid and clear references if these events are going to be applied to the people involved. Similar categories have previously been deleted numerous times:
Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2005_November_9#Category:People_convicted_of_drunk_driving
Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2005_December_19#Category:Drunk_drivers
Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_February_18#Category:People_arrested_for_drunk_driving
Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_February_18#Category:Irish_politicans_convicted_of_drink-driving
Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_March_15#Category:DWI/DUI_arrests Notified creators with {{subst:cfd-notify}} — Good Ol’factory (talk) 12:26, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Category:Politicians convicted of alcohol-related driving offenses but Delete Category:Politicians charged with alcohol-related driving offenses. I have real doubts about the parent cat, Category:People convicted of alcohol-related driving offenses, because drunk driving is an all too commonplace occurrence for the sportspeople and entertainers who make up the vast majority of entries in the category. Politicians, on the other hand, are subjected to a higher level of scrutiny and are rightly held to a higher standard than ordinary citizens, so I feel that it is quite appropriate to have this category -- which btw is a sub-cat of Category:Politicians convicted of crimes. At the same time, I think in fairness we should stay clear of the "accused of" label -- since those people were presumably found not guilty of the charge, highlighting it with a category constitutes overkill, imo. Cgingold (talk) 13:33, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I still don't see how it's defining for politicians such as Dick Cheney and Sam Nunn, even if they are being held to certain standards of behavior. It could be years in their past and relatively irrelevant to their political life. Good Ol’factory (talk) 13:36, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think what's important is not merely the offense, but also how they responded to it -- i.e. how it may have helped shape their character (or not). I'm not exactly a fan of Dick Cheney (to put it mildly), but his response to having been a repeat offender speaks well for him. It's certainly the sort of thing that citizens look for when evaluating the character of a politician -- but hardly relevant for football players or comedians. Cgingold (talk) 14:11, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the two "convicted of" and Delete the "charged with". Alansohn (talk) 15:57, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the two convicted of cats and Delete the "charged with". I fail to see how being convicted of a serious criminal offense is not defining for anyone. Kernel Saunters (talk) 17:16, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • You seriously think Sam Nunn is defined by his drunk-driving accident in 1964? Throughout 2008, Nunn was constantly mentioned by the media as a an advisor and potential running mate or cabinet member of Obama's, yet I myself didn't hear a breath about this incident. If it's so defining, you'd think it would be mentioned sometimes and have some sort of effect on his career prospects. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:41, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sam Nunn is in the "Charged with" category and I would agree that this category should be deleted. Kernel Saunters (talk) 10:16, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. And so someone like Michael Phelps, who is in the convicted category, is defined by his conviction? Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:43, 6 January 2009 (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:Kilinochi District[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 as duplicate. Good Ol’factory (talk) 12:05, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Kilinochi District (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete misspelled double of Category:Kilinochchi District (with two chch). Jasy jatere (talk) 11:58, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom (contents are already double-listed).-choster (talk) 09:54, 2 January 2009 (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:Indian adult models[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: no consensus to delete (few comments). Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:21, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Indian adult models (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete only one entry in category. NoVomit (talk) 11:51, 28 December 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:Indian porn stars[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 to delete (few comments). Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:21, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Indian porn stars (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete only one entry in this catalog. NoVomit (talk) 11:20, 28 December 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:Pius popes[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 15:24, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Pius popes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Defined as "Popes who went by the name Pius". This is the only category of its kind; it is also incomplete. This concept of shared papal names has been addressed by individual articles in Category:Papal names. For this name, the concept is adequately covered at Pope Pius, which contains a list of the "Pius popes" with links to each of their articles. Essentially, this is categorization by shared name, which is inappropriate. See an old similar CfD. Notified creator with {{subst:cfd-notify}} Good Ol’factory (talk) 10:03, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. The list already exists, and they have little to nothing in common save the name. A category implicitly suggests that there's more to it. A navbox template would be okay, too. Cgingold (talk) 15:00, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. This can be achieved by sorting the articles anyway. Johnbod (talk) 12:26, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is little value as a navigation tool (which is what categories are supposed to be). The obvious way to find the article on Pius III would be to go to Category:Popes and look under "P". Peterkingiron (talk) 20:07, 29 December 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:Washington[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:Washington (U.S. state). Kbdank71 15:23, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose either: (1) Renaming Category:Washington to Category:Washington (state); or (2) keeping current name Category:Washington
Nominator's rationale: Test nomination. This is a test nomination to see if there is either (1) consensus for using "Washington (state)" instead of "Washington" in category names; or (2) consensus to keep using "Washington" in category names when the state is referred to. I bring this up because there have been somewhat contradictory results reached in two cases in the past year: here it was agreed to convert categories with "Washington state" or "Washington (state)" to "Washington", but here there was no consensus for a nearly identical change. If the consensus is to rename, I agree to nominate all of the "Washington" categories for renaming. If there is consensus to use "Washington", I suggest we use it consistently. If there is no consensus for either, I give up. Note that the article is at Washington, but there have been some rumblings on the talk page (nothing formally proposed yet) about making that page a DAB page since most people in the world in fact probably think of "Washington, D.C." when the word "Washington" is used. Solicited WikiProject Washington and WikiProject District of Columbia for input.Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:24, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, the categories should match the corresponding article. It doesn't take any time to figure out that you've got the wrong category or article once you see it. Murderbike (talk) 19:22, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – categories should be named unambiguously even if editors (usually following some local agenda) have settled on article names which are not optimal. I'd probably go for (State) or (US State) per Georgia (US State). Occuli (talk) 21:38, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Category names often don t match article names. Cat names are more spelled out and use 'disambiguates' Category:New York is another Mayumashu (talk) 00:15, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment for now. I think I will support a rename. My concern is about using (state) as the disambiguation. I wonder if it should be Category:Washington (U.S. state) to match Category:Georgia (U.S. state)? While the U. S. could be considered as unneeded, it would match Georgia. Vegaswikian1 (talk) 03:24, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support the rename, per WP:NCCAT, specifically Choose category names that are able to stand alone, independent of the way a category is connected to other categories.. - Neier (talk) 06:24, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom & other arguments; I have found this confusing myself. "State" is enough here. Johnbod (talk) 12:28, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- to match Georgia as Vegaswikian1. However the existing name should be kept as a disambiguation category. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:12, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • support renaming to Category:Washington (U.S. state) to match Category:Georgia (U.S. state) and not Category:Washington (state). Also rename the article. Also rename all the other subcats that pertain to the US State of Washington. Hmains (talk) 03:11, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question (nominator). Just a question on form to those supporting the use of "Washington (U.S. state)". Wouldn't the general principles of disambiguating suggest having "U.S." is not necessary, since there is no non-U.S. state called "Washington"? This is unlike Georgia, where there is a non-U.S. state (i.e. a country) named "Georgia". Since we are mainly disambiguating against "Washington, D.C.", which is a U.S. district, should "(state)" be the only required disambiguation term? Is the concern that just using "(state)" implies that it is a country unless we specify "U.S. state"? (I can support either disambiguation term—I just think we should get it right on the first try, especially if I'm going to nominate however many of Washington categories there are.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:21, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • support renaming to Category:Washington (U.S. state) per Hmains. As for why US state and not just state, for consistency with Georgia. 76.66.198.171 (talk) 04:17, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not sure that we use disambiguation forms for the sake of consistency when the one being matched to is a somewhat different case (there being a country of the same name). Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:32, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Washington (U.S. state). I'm tired of needing to figure out which type of disambiguation form is used in specific cases. Just use the same form when it is needed. I think that does not violate the MOS, makes it look like we actually know what a style sheet is and is not confusing or ambiguous (what is a state). Vegaswikian (talk) 06:24, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment (nom). Either is fine with me as nominator. I just don't want to screw up by nominating them all using the wrong term, so whatever the admin closer of this discussion renames it to (assuming it will be) will be what I use on the future ones. (On the future nomination, I can just see someone who opposes the renames sarcastically asking, "so where is the non-U.S. state of Washington that we're disambiguating against?") Right now I think I can see perhaps a slight preference for "(U.S. state)" in the comments above, and the consistency with Georgia would be a virtue, in my opinion. Good Ol’factory (talk) 11:46, 3 January 2009 (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:Civil Air Patrol Equipment[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. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 10:47, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Civil Air Patrol Equipment (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Civil Air Patrol Emergency Services (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete Nominating Category:Civil Air Patrol Equipment and Category:Civil Air Patrol Emergency Services. Both are very underpopulated, with the first having only one article and one subcat, and the second having three articles, two of which already exist in other CAP categories (the third can easily be moved to the main CAP category). I also see very little potential for growth, at least in the immediate future...it's not like the main CAP category is overly populated. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 05:19, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Category:Civil Air Patrol Equipment as we do not categorize aircraft by operator; otherwise, articles like Airbus 320 family or F-16 Fighting Falcon would be overwhelmed by categories, and because lists are better for discussing years or service or how and where the equipment is/was used. I'm ambivalent about CAPES, as Civil Air Patrol#Emergency Services might merit its own article in the future and the category could include facilities and additional programs. If not kept, the contents should be upmerged to Category:Civil Air Patrol.-choster (talk) 06:56, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, I should have made that clear as well. The Aircraft subcategory would go too, for the reason you suggest. Regarding Emergency Services, while it may one day merit its own article, I don't think a possible future use is valid grounds for its existance now. Everything would indeed be upmerged. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 08:16, 31 December 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:Parishes of the United Kingdom[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 to rename. (There was no support expressed for the proposed renaming and those who did comment expressed only the sense that they saw no need for change.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:15, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Parishes of Ireland to Category:Civil parishes in Ireland
Propose renaming Category:Parishes of Northern Ireland to Category:Civil parishes in Northern Ireland
Propose renaming Category:Parishes of the Republic of Ireland to Category:Civil parishes in the Republic of Ireland
Propose renaming Category:Parishes of the Republic of Ireland by county to Category:Civil parishes in the Republic of Ireland by county
Propose renaming Category:Parishes of the United Kingdom to Category:Civil parishes in the United Kingdom
Propose renaming Category:Parishes of Scotland to Category:Civil parishes in Scotland
Propose renaming Category:Parishes of the Channel Islands to Category:Civil parishes in the Channel Islands
Propose renaming Category:Parishes in Guernsey to Category:Civil parishes in Guernsey
Propose renaming Category:Parishes of Jersey to Category:Civil parishes in Jersey
Nominator's rationale: Rename. More accurate name, and consistent with other "civil parishes in" categories. "Parish" has different meanings in different localities. All categories should be clear if they contain civil (or geographical) parishes or church parishes. Note that this discussion of the same question (closed to divide the question) resulted in 5 Support rename votes, 1 Oppose vote, and 2 that abstained on these categories. All the English parishes were changed without opposition. (The word "in" is also preferred in Wikipedia category names.)
I have looked at much more than these pages listed and the categories do all reflect civil parishes.--Carlaude (talk) 03:00, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Why is this nomination unsigned?  DDStretch  (talk) 18:21, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The use of "in" may be standard for categories, but that does not mean it always has to be used instead of "of", and I would like clarification of where any stipulation of "in" being used in preference to "of" here can be found. In the case of some districts in the United Kingdom, the use of "in" would lead to clumsy wording: Category:Civil parishes of The Isle of Wight reads better than Category:Civil parishes in The Isle of Wight. If it is accepted that there needs to be some flexibility in the use of "in" versus "of", then there remains the question of whether the preposition chosen should be uniform across all such similar categories.  DDStretch  (talk) 17:41, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support for England, except the "winchester" category, which may be ecclesiastical parishes, as Winchester is a diocese not a county. No strong view on rest, but I see no need to change, since (except in the Channel Isles), parishes do not have local authority status. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:56, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- expanding on last item: See Parish. IN England, parishes have a parish countcil or parish meeting, which is the lowest tier of local government. IN the Channel Isles, parishes also have local governmetn powers (e.g. refuse collection). Changes since the 1890s have meant that civil and ecclesiastical parishes are always no longer co-terminous. In Wales the equivalnet is "communities". IN the rest of UK and Ireland, I think that parishes are mere territorial divisions, and that it is unlikely that reorganisations have meant that civil and ecclesiastical parishes have diverged. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:21, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Further clarification -- As a parish councillor I am very familiar with the nature of an English civil parish. As I historian, I often deal with 19th century and earlier parishes, when civil and ecclesiatical parishes were identical. In my own parish a change in the ecclesiastical parish boundaries in the 1880s led to an area being lost to the parish for civil purposes as well as ecclesiastical. However when a further change to the boundary of an adjacent ecclesiatical parish in the next parish in the 1930s, it made no difference to the boundary of the civil parish. IN this way civil and ecclesiastical parishes have diverged in England. Parishes have Parish Councils; ecclesiatical parishes have parochial church councils. Both have ultimately replaced vestries. Even this is a slight simplification. However this means that for England, it is useful to distingish civil from ecclesiatical. However, I am not convinced that this is necessary elsewhere. I am not suggesting that an English Parish Council is not a local authority; absolutely the reverse. They are the lowest tier of lcoal authority. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:53, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you all think it is better we can call them any of these instead.
Category:Geographical parishes in the United Kingdom
Category:Administrative parishes in the United Kingdom
Category:Parishes in the United Kingdom (Nonecclesiastical) --Carlaude (talk) 20:06, 30 December 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:Parishes of 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: withdrawn by nominator. Close is without prejudice to a future nom for renaming along the lines of the ideas in the discussion. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:09, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Parishes of Wales to Category:Civil parishes in Wales
Propose renaming Category:Parishes of Ceredigion to Category:Civil parishes in Ceredigion
Nominator's rationale: Rename. More accurate name, and consistent with other "civil parishes in" categories. "Parish" has different meanings in different localities. All categories should be clear if they contain civil (or geographical) parishes or church parishes. Note that this discussion of the same question (closed to divide the question) resulted in 5 Support rename votes, 1 Oppose vote, wanting "Communities of Wales", and 2 that abstained on these categories. (The word "in" is also preferred in Wikipedia category names.)
  • Sample parrish articles:
  • Note: the categories currently contain some pages about localities that are "both a village and a parrish", and "villages" that are either incorrectly placed here or also a parrish. I have looked at much more than these pages listed and the categories do reflect civil and not just church parishes.--Carlaude (talk) 03:00, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The proposed renaming is withdrawn. In the future I will propose something along these lines to differenate from the current categories:
Category:Parishes of Wales to Category:Communities in Wales (former parishes)
Category:Parishes of Ceredigion to Category:Communities in Ceredigion (former parishes)
Feel free to discuss now if you wish. --Carlaude (talk) 20:17, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The "church parishes" that are mentioned by the (unsigned) nominator are more correctly known as ecclesiastical parishes.  DDStretch  (talk) 17:31, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The use of "in" may be standard for categories, but that does not mean it always has to be used instead of "of", and I would like clarification of where any stipulation of "in" being used in preference to "of" here can be found. In the case of some districts in the United Kingdom, the use of "in" would lead to clumsy wording: Category:Civil parishes of The Isle of Wight reads better than Category:Civil parishes in The Isle of Wight. If it is accepted that there needs to be some flexibility in the use of "in" versus "of", then there remains the question of whether the preposition chosen should be uniform across all such similar categories.  DDStretch  (talk) 17:40, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The local government system is different from England to Wales. In Wales the equivalent to the English Parish is the Community. The name of the category should reflect this. Agathoclea (talk) 19:35, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree with the above comment, but wonder whether the content of the categories deal with historical areas, which were known as parishes? In which case, the name should stay as it is (though I would doubt their usefulness), and new categories which use "communities" should be used. If not, then use "communities" instead of "civil parishes".  DDStretch  (talk) 19:44, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As I tried to show above Category:Communities of Wales will not work because that Category name is already taken for another purpose. "Category:Communities of Such-and-such" is a standard parent category name for "Category:Cities of Such-and-such", "Category:Towns of Such-and-such", etc. --Carlaude (talk) 16:05, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Then that is a matter that needs to be sorted out by standard means for disambiguation, rather than using an incorrect term that is only of historical and defunct use in Wales. In that respect, it almost becomes a wikipedia neologism to apply it to the communities that are meant here in Wales.  DDStretch  (talk) 16:28, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am open to some sort of disambiguation but
  1. The categories would still need different names, which you have yet to propose.
  2. Citing a sourse for you claim that "communities" is prefered over "parish" is advised since a number of articles do use the word parish and not community. --Carlaude (talk) 17:00, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think you have the burden of proof requirements mixed up here: it is up to you to prove, convince and demonstrate why the proposed changes should be used; it is not up to us to prove why some other scheme should be used. (The Burden of Proof article, though uncited at this point, does adequately describe the situation as outlined in various academic books dealing with the logic of argument and discussion: "Under the Latin maxim necessitas probandi incumbit ei qui agit, the general rule is that "the necessity of proof lies with he who complains." The burden of proof, therefore, usually lies with the party making the new claim.", which, as nominator, is you, and I can provide reliable sources for this if you so desire.) As it stands, the term "parish" was used in Wales, but is now defunct, and "Communities" is used. That may partly explain some of the confusion in some articles, and a confusion between using "parish" in an ecclesiastical sense may explain some others. Now, once again, it is not up to us to prove that this is the case, it is up to you to show that it is not the case: that is how the burden of proof operates, since you, as nominator, are the one proposing the specific change. However, as a courtesy, the current use of "Community" can be seen in any number of reliable sources. For example, in any of Ordnance Survey 1:25000 maps which cover parts of Wales on which the boundaries are marked for these areas, and labelled with the name and initial "C" which, we can see from reading the keys, is meant to mean "Community" (The ref for this is any OS Survey map 1:25000 scale or "Explorer Map". The one I used is Sheet 266: "Wirral and Chester/Caer" which includes areas in Wales, isbn: 0319236544). For another reference, one can also see the use of "community" if one looks at, say this official UK government site which gives details of Bangor Is-y-coed's returns in the UK 2001 census, and that place is in Wales. It is clearly shown to be "Bangor Is-y-coed Community", and any other similar area will also have the word "community" used. But this is what the reliable sources state rather than going by what wikipedia states and which you have used, above, which is always to be avoided, as wikipedia cannot be used as a source. Now, do you want me to provide yet more reliable sources, or is this sufficient to convince that "Community" is the official term in use for these areas in Wales now?  DDStretch  (talk) 17:45, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename but to Category:Communities of Wales, which I believe is the correct term for them. I am not sure why the term "parish" was replaced by "community" in Wales for the lowest tier of local government, but understand this to have happened. It may have eben a consequence of opposition to church rates in the 19th century and to the disestablishment of the Church in Wales, leading to legislation placing a distance between civil and ecclesiastical parishes. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:05, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think this needs a close and possibly longer look. Community council gives enough info to go by for the naming - I'd go so far as to say that there are some English Communities rather than parishes going by that article. The content of Category:Communities of Wales at the fist level seems ok, at the second level I looked at Category:Communities of Pembrokeshire brings the above mentioned Steynton - as far as I am aware and a search at www.pembrokeshire.gov.uk has given no contrary evidence is part of the North Ward of Milford Haven Town Council (where "Town" is just a special elected style of "Community") so the existing content must be looked at and possibly re-targeted. A google search for Steynton Parish brings www.steynton.org.uk/ and some historic information. Agathoclea (talk) 20:42, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Certainly in some urban areas within the UK which have been unparished (in the "civil parish" sense) for a while, new local area committees have sometimes been set up which operate at the same level as civil parishes and which are called "communities" (with either council or committee after them) because I was considered for the chairman of such a committee for such an area in Stoke on Trent, but declined it for reasons not relevant here. I agree that the entire area needs more attention, and I and some fellow members of the Uk Geography project have been intending to set up a task force with the specific job of looking at and suggesting how the coverage of civil parish-level areas and authorities can be improved in relevant articles on wikipedia for a number of months now (certainly way before this current round of nominations for changes in category names).  DDStretch  (talk) 01:06, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further Comment I now removed Steynton from the above mentioned CAT. Community (Wales) and List of communities in Wales provide further reading - the latter of course needs checking for spurious additions. Agathoclea (talk) 21:33, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose re Category:Parishes of Ceredigion 4 items in the category when I just checked. One not in Articlespace, one does not mention Parish in the article, so I removed the category, and two clearly church parishes. This then should be taken out of a local government parent category. Agathoclea (talk) 11:06, 30 December 2008 (UTC) see also User talk:Geaugagrrl/Archive_1#Parishes of Ceredigion. Agathoclea (talk) 11:11, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Post-mortem The nom has been withdrawn but with the comment to discuss the nominators possible future proposal. A category Category:Communities in Ceredigion will need no disambiguation as in "former parishes". In fact some of those communities might not have been parishes pre-1974. Also while some content of Category:Parishes of Wales are clearly communities the expressed headline to the category points towards the church not current local government. So rather than renaming I suggest to take a good look at the needed category tree and establish a functioning system and move articles which wrongly are in Category:Parishes of Wales to where they should be. Agathoclea (talk) 11:16, 31 December 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:Parishes of Europe[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:04, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Parishes of Europe to Category:Civil parishes in Europe
Propose renaming Category:Parishes of Andorra to Category:Civil parishes in Andorra
Propose renaming Category:Parishes in Asturias to Category:Civil parishes in Asturias
Propose renaming Category:Parishes in Oviedo to Category:Civil parishes in Oviedo
Propose renaming Category:Parishes in Gijón to Category:Civil parishes in Gijón
Propose renaming Category:Parishes of Denmark to Category:Civil parishes in Denmark
Propose renaming Category:Parishes in Latvia to Category:Civil parishes in Latvia
Propose renaming Category:Parishes of Portugal to Category:Civil parishes in Portugal
Nominator's rationale: Rename. More accurate name, and consistent with other "civil parishes in" categories. "Parish" has different meanings in different localities. All categories should be clear if they contain civil (or geographical) parishes or church parishes. Note that this discussion of the same question (closed to divide the question) resulted in 5 Support rename votes, 1 Oppose vote, and 2 that abstained on these categories. (The word "in" is also preferred in Wikipedia category names.)
I have looked at much more than these pages listed and the categories do all reflect civil parishes.--Carlaude (talk) 03:00, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Who is making these nominations? Shouldn't they sign them?  DDStretch  (talk) 18:18, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The use of "civil parishes" is in use in the United Kingdom to distinguish the civil parishes from ecclesiastical parishes, but I am not convinced that this confusion or convention is in use outside the UK. Unless it is, I see no reason to make the changes. Additionally, although "in" may be used for categories, I do not see where its use is stipulated over the use of "of" which my readong of the naming conventions suggests is also acceptable. The same point can be made about all the other nominations concerning (civil) parishes which suggest a change of the use of "of" to "in".  DDStretch  (talk) 18:18, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Clarification of my oppose Because Carlaude has disputed the matter with me on my talk page User talk:Ddstretch#Category:Parishes of Europe, it may be an idea to clarify what I meant here, since there does seem to be some confusion: The issue is not whether any of examples given above are of ecclesiastical parishes or not, rather it it whether the term "civil parish" has any formal use in Europe. It does in the United Kingdom, but the United Kingdom is not Europe, and vice versa. If it does not, then the term as applied to the whole of Europe is just a wikipedian neologism which may not be useful or accurate to use at all here. Different states use different terms for entities that may be more or less the same kind of entity as used in different countries. However, I think we should resist falling into the trap of too easily using one official term that is used in one country in another, when such a term may not be used and may have no official basis at all. Furthermore, it is up to the nominator to supply convincing reasons why such terms are in use in the countries.  DDStretch  (talk) 16:33, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply I am not inticating with the name change that these parishes all have an active government structure. In some cases it is a only carry-over that is relfected only in local deeds and such. The purpose to identify these categories as not church parish categories-- and thus not a place for people to categorize their own favorite local church, even if that church has the word "parish" in the name, like these:
If you all think it is better we can call them any of these instead.--Carlaude (talk) 16:48, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Geographical parishes in Europe (or Category:Geographical parishes of Europe)
Category:Administrative parishes in Europe
Category:Nonchurch parishes in Europe
Category:Non-ecclesiastical parishes in Europe
  • Oppose -- Unless there are other countries than parts of UK where the parish is a unit of civil administration, there is no need for a change. The suggestion just above this is far to complicated to be practicable. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:08, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose -- (apart from the of/in - I don't care either way) the categories must reflect local usage. If that can't be unified a more neutral name has to be found. "Tier 1 of Local government"? Then all similar categories can be included - I am thinking of Category:Municipalities of Germany Agathoclea (talk) 06:37, 30 December 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:Parishes of North America[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:00, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Parishes of North America to Category:Civil parishes in North America
Propose renaming Category:Townships and parishes of Canada to Category:Townships and civil parishes in Canada
Propose renaming Category:Parishes of New Brunswick to Category:Civil parishes in New Brunswick
Propose renaming Category:Parishes of Prince Edward Island to Category:Civil parishes in Prince Edward Island
Propose renaming Category:Louisiana parishes to Category:Civil parishes in Louisiana
Propose renaming Category:Parishes of Mexico to Category:Civil parishes in Mexico
Nominator's rationale: Rename. More accurate name, and consistent with other "civil parishes in" categories. "Parish" has different meanings in different localities. All categories should be clear if they contain civil (or geographical) parishes or church parishes. Note that this discussion of the same question (closed to divide the question) resulted in 5 Support rename votes, 2 Oppose vote, and 1 that abstained on these categories. (The word "in" is also preferred in Wikipedia category names.)
  • Sample parrish articles:
I have looked at much more than these pages listed and the categories do all reflect civil parishes.--Carlaude (talk) 03:00, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Why is this nomination unsigned?  DDStretch  (talk) 18:19, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Louisiana, unless it can be show that there is a legal position to call these a civil parish. As far as I know they are simply called parishes. Renamings like this is ignoring the local usage. If they need to roll up into a Category:Parishes (political) that may be fine. But in the US it is clear what they are. Vegaswikian1 (talk) 17:59, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am sure in Louisiana simply called parishes but Wikipedia is world wide. There was confusion or the meaning of it in just this last discussion! How can you say there is no confusion?
      • What part of civil parish implies that these might be included? First off, they are the highest level of organization in the state rather then the lowest. Civil parishes appear to be a UK style of government so tagging with such a category name would be completely wrongVegaswikian (talk) 00:22, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The use of "civil parishes" is in use in the United Kingdom to distinguish the civil parishes from ecclesiastical parishes, but I am not convinced that this confusion or convention is in use outside the UK. Unless it is, I see no reason to make the changes. Additionally, although "in" may be used for categories, I do not see where its use is stipulated over the use of "of" which my readong of the naming conventions suggests is also acceptable. The same point can be made about all the other nominations concerning (civil) parishes which suggest a change of the use of "of" to "in"  DDStretch  (talk) 18:15, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Did you even look ar the sample articles? What makes you think they are ecclesiastical parishes? or even mitch be ecclesiastical parishes? --Carlaude (talk) 16:33, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As stated above. I have looked and the categories do all reflect civil parishes!--Carlaude (talk) 03:00, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do these entities all get the official name "civil parishes" or not in these countries? If not, should we be making it appear that the name "civil parish" is somehow an official name in use there? Why not use the term which is used in that country for them? If this leads to some confusion, then deal with by means of the disambiguation strategies, a helpful advice section at the header of the category, or by careful watch of the categories and advice to people if they allocate an article incorrectly, as would be the normal way of dealing with additions.  DDStretch  (talk) 16:59, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is silly. Lots of categories, maybe most categories, use adjectives that are correct but not official. (e.g Canada is in Category:Liberal democracies, Category:Canada is in Category:Countries bordering the Atlantic Ocean-- Canada never passed a statement officially delaring it to be a "country bordering the Atlantic Ocean" it just is such a country)
The reason that disambiguation pages and notes are of limited use with categories is because editors can and do add an article to a category without ever looking at the category page. --Carlaude (talk) 17:12, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Which is more silly: Using a term "civil parish" that has no apparent official basis in these countries, some of which don't even use English (and so the translation of the term actually used needs to be considered), when the official name for these entities is merely "parish" or whatever term is used in the language the country uses, and which could and should be handled by means of standard disambiguation terms; or biting the bullet and sticking with the official verified translated terms that are used within each country, whereupon the standard careful monitoring of editors' behaviour in adding article to the categories is all that is needed to sort this out? Should we be sacrificing accuracy and verifiability to handle the inconvenience of editors who do not take enough care in favour of dealing with editing errors by introducing a term that may contravene WP:OR, WP:SYNTHESIS or both by being not used in these countries, but, in the way it is being proposed to be used, appears to give it some official status?  DDStretch  (talk) 18:10, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Or better yet what place is/are the civil Parish(es) that brought on this nomination? The Caribbean islands (most of them) are mainly just simple parishes now nothing more nothing less. "Civil Parish" is a really a place that has a whole level of government to it. (in its modern day form) Or Civil harishes had a main Parish Church (a.k.a a Vestry) with Civil Councils etc. (in the more archaic form). It would be better to look at the place that the proposal for "Civil Parish" came from to look at its system of Government.
    • Well, maybe the nominator needs to show that civil parishes exist outside of the UK. The article implies that the use of this type of government structure is limited to the UK. Vegaswikian1 (talk) 08:23, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This nomination sort of seems like splitting hairs to me. Considering that everything now fits under current "Parishes of x" system. Once you start trying to break up what is an: "A Parish (type)", "B Parish (type)", and "C parish (type)" it seems to me like things will get way more complicated then the existing naming convention. Fundamentally it is one of those things that you have to know the whole Westminster system of Government. There's also all kinds of technicalities. e.g. South Carolina's Parishes were based off the ones in Barbados too. See here Note #3. near the bottom (quote) "In 1706 Parishes were set up within the bounds of the existing Counties. Neither the Counties nor the Parishes were divisions of the other, they just coexisted, with the Parish actually having the record keeping authority. The original Parishes of 1706 were Saint John's, Saint James Goose Creek, Saint Thomas, Saint Denis, Christ Church, Saint Philip's, Saint Andrew's, Saint James Santee, Saint Bartholomew's and Saint Paul's." That's more or less the story of many Parishes today, they are just there. CaribDigita (talk) 20:26, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The problem is that we are not writing for the convenience of wikipedia's naming conventions here, but for the purpose of reflecting the verifiable state of affairs that the encyclopaedia tries to describe for its readers. In this respect, your comment of "This nomination sort of seems like splitting hairs to me. Considering that everything now fits under current "Parishes of x" system. Once you start trying to break up what is an: "A Parish (type)", "B Parish (type)", and "C parish (type)" it seems to me like things will get way more complicated then the existing naming convention." doesn't really help. On a point of information, in the United Kingdom, the parish system of local government emerged gradually out of the ancient parishes from the time of the dissolution of the monasteries, when some civil duties were assigned to the ancient parishes and their administration. Over the years, more and more civil duties were assigned to the ancient parish administrations (which were called "vestries") until the complete reform led to the formal dissociation of civil duties from ecclesiastical duties, and so civil parishes and ecclesiastical parishes (in their current form) were born, with the civil parishes being administered by either parish councils, parish meetings, or by the local government district in which they were placed if the local arrangements for parish-level administration was not put in place. Vestries came from the time before civil parishes formally existed (i.e., from the time of the ancient parishes). I can cite a formal book reference for this if desired. So, in the case of the United Kingdom, I think it may be tedious to some editors, but still quite important to accurately and verifiably describe the entities and their names for the readers. If the matter doesn't interest one, then don't get involved in it, but I don't think it is useful to argue against the clarifications, renames, and page moves just because they don't fit in so cleanly and nicely with some administrative conventions adopted by wikipedia. They are reasonable proposals to have been made, even though I happen to think they should not go through in their present form.  DDStretch  (talk) 23:29, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply I am not inticating with the name change that these parishes all have an active government structure. In some cases it is a only carry-over that is relfected only in local deeds and such. The purpose to identify these categories as not church parish categories-- and thus not a place for people to categorize their own favorite local church, even if that church has the word "parish" in the name, like these:
  • Strongly oppose for Louisiana -- there parishes are the equivalent of counties in other US states, and they are called "parishes", not civil parishes. Weakly oppose for the rest (but I do not have the requisite knowledge). The whole problem with this series of nominations is that it is trying to find a one size fits all solution, and life is not that simple: different counties have differenet arrangements, and WP has to reflect that. Conceivably "Civil Parish" might be appropriate as a parent category, but not otherwise. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:14, 29 December 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:Cape Verdean American sportspeople[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 15:23, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Cape Verdean American sportspeople (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete All of these categories are non-notable intersections. What does being of Cape Verdean descent have to do with your ability to play sports, music or be in politics? Also, a similar cfd for Nigerian American sportspeople came up over the summer and it was upmerged. Thomas.macmillan (talk) 01:49, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I created this and the politicians one below after seeing the -musicians category, which was created by someone else. I found the musicians one useful and decided to implement the same model to help sort the people in the Cape Verdean Americans category. Note that I am referring to usefulness, not notability. That these are intersections should not be a problem in my opinion; many (I'd dare say most) of the current categories are such -- consider "American sportspeople" or "African American sportspeople", both parents of this category. If your argument were to be upheld, at the bare minimum all the subcategories of Category:American musicians by ethnic or national origin would have to be deleted as well -- not to mention any other similarly named categories. I don't think that would be useful for the project. On a final note, I don't see why you'd call this overcategorization when these subcategories are well over a few entries. I believe it's much better for the end user to have these entries separated logically (which afterall is the very aim of the categorization system), when most people simply don't have knowledge of the tools (FreeBase, CatScan, etc.) to perform complex intersections, nor the ability (or willingness) do do such manually. Not to mention that those tools are still very primitive, while the semantic web is still forming. For all this I think these categories should be kept. --Waldir talk 09:59, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clear Keep - The Cape Verdean American community is quite distinctive, and as such should not be dispensed with in such a cavalier way. I'm sure nobody would suggest that their ethnicity has anything to do with their "ability" to do any of these things -- so that question amounts to a strawman argument par excellence. In fact, these are all notable intersections -- just as they are for other ethnic groups. Yet this singles out one of the 17 sibling categories of Category:American sportspeople by ethnic or national origin. Cgingold (talk) 11:11, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further comment - I was heavily focussed on some other CFDs at the time of the one for Nigerian American sportspeople, but I think that it was probably a mistake to completely erase the distinction between Nigerian American immigrants and African Americans. In any event, with only two people favoring an upmerge, and one person expressing doubts, it's a pretty slender reed to cite as a precedent. If I had weighed in, it probably would have been closed "no concensus". Cgingold (talk) 11:21, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just because other categories exist does not make it correct. Anyway, if you would like more precedent, just read wp:OC which gives "German-American sportspeople", which was deleted in 2006, as an example of a non-notable intersection of ethnicity, religion or sexual preference. I see no difference between Cape Verdean Americans and German-Americans in terms of notability.--Thomas.macmillan (talk) 19:47, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The issue that you're overlooking is that the term African American (and categories using it) is an umbrella term that was formulated with reference to the polyglot population of Black Africans descended from enslaved ancestors whose ethnicity and culture had been systematically demolished. The Cape Verdeans, in contrast, lived largely in their own communities and maintained continuity of ethnicity and culture. That's why I said that they're "quite distinctive", and shouldn't just be rolled into an umbrella category just to make things simpler. Cgingold (talk) 22:47, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am sure Obama (no link whatever to slavery) and Tiger Woods are referred to as African American; and the article makes no such claim - "African Americans or Black Americans are citizens or residents of the United States who have origins in any of the black populations of Africa". (I am not sure whether Cape Verdean Americans are necessarily African Americans in this sense; Cape Verde suggests they are.) Occuli (talk) 01:55, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not saying that they can't be referred to as "African Americans" in some sense of that term. But just because that makes things simpler linguistically doesn't mean that we therefore must proceed to merge their Wiki categories into those for African Americans. As I said, they have a distinct culture, and are no less deserving of categories than other ethnic groups. Cgingold (talk) 02:31, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The question everyone is forgetting is this: what makes Cape Verdean American sportspeople less arbitrary than nearly every other ethnicity in the US? Why is Cape Verdean American sportspeople less arbitrary than say, previously deleted categories on Nigerian American sportspeople or German American sportspeople? Furthermore, as it was argued back in 2006, do we really want thousands of categories based on arbitrary ethnic divisions? What about Category:Botswanan Australian sportspeople or Category:Icelandic Latvian musicians? --Thomas.macmillan (talk) 16:53, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As soon as there are actual articles to fill those categories, they wouldn't be doing any harm. As I said before, for me it's a matter of usability, not notability. The categorization system is an organization and classification system for the existing content; It shouldn't be treated as content itself. As a matter of fact, what would the project gain from deleting these categories, anyway? I surely can tell, on the other hand, that there would be a loss in usefulness if that happened. --Waldir talk 20:28, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think overcategorization does actually do harm. It is difficult to watch the possible tens of thousands of possible categories created if such categories are allowed. That is why guidelines suggest that non-notable intersections like this one and the others I mentioned be deleted.--Thomas.macmillan (talk) 05:37, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I see. But then, why didn't you propose Category:American sportspeople by ethnic or national origin and all its subcategories for deletion too? And, by the way, also its parents Category:Sportspeople by ethnicity and Category:American people by occupation and ethnic or national origin, and so on... --Waldir talk 10:25, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, many of them probably should be deleted as well. Some of them are notable because of their special place in sports history, like Category:African American baseball players who played in their own leagues for decades because of racial discrimination.--Thomas.macmillan (talk) 15:34, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I want to change my mind to neutral, or at least a very weak delete. I can't understand why "Cape Verdean American" is an ethnicity unto itself, as I thought the ethnicity would be "of Cape Verdean descent". But I'll defer to American users on this as they likely know what is and what is not considered an ethnicity in the exclusive American context. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:44, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cape Verdean Americans are not ethnically different than any other Cape Verdean diaspora; yes, they have a unique history in New England (where I am from), but that does not make the category any less of a triple intersection. You are correct in your lack of understanding, Goold Ol'factory.--Thomas.macmillan (talk) 04:32, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (per my comments above) I understand the arguments against, but first of all I find the category useful and unharmful, and second, I oppose the deletion of this category unless all other "by ethnic or national origin" categories (especially the ones under Category:American sportspeople by ethnic or national origin) are deleted as well. Please note, I don't support the deletion of all these, I'm just saying there should be some consistency in the proposal. --Waldir talk 08:12, 6 January 2009 (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:Cape Verdean American musicians[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 15:22, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Cape Verdean American musicians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete All of these categories are non-notable intersections. What does being of Cape Verdean descent have to do with your ability to play sports, music or be in politics? Also, a similar cfd for Nigerian American sportspeople came up over the summer and it was upmerged.Thomas.macmillan (talk) 01:49, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clear Keep - The Cape Verdean American community is quite distinctive, and as such should not be dispensed with in such a cavalier way. I'm sure nobody would suggest that their ethnicity has anything to do with their "ability" to do any of these things -- so that question amounts to a strawman argument par excellence. In fact, these are all notable intersections -- just as they are for other ethnic groups. Yet this singles out one of the 20 sibling categories of Category:American musicians by ethnic or national origin. Notified creator with {{subst:cfd-notify}} Cgingold (talk) 11:01, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a strong defining characteristic of the individuals involved. The category system does not mean that being from a place, or one's race, ethnicity, religion or sexual preference make someone a better athlete, musician or politician. Categories are meant to group similar articles together and allow readers to navigate to these articles. This category accomplishes that. Alansohn (talk) 21:08, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. These people are defined by being Cape Verdean Americans and by being American musicians but not by being Cape Verdean American musicians, which is a triple intersection of ethnicity, nationality and occupation. These should be upmerged to Category:Cape Verdean Americans and Category:American musicians. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:32, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I want to change my mind to neutral, or at least a very weak delete. I can't understand why "Cape Verdean American" is an ethnicity unto itself, as I thought the ethnicity would be "of Cape Verdean descent". But I'll defer to American users on this as they likely know what is and what is not considered an ethnicity in the exclusive American context. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:43, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - There are some distinct musical traditions among Cape Verdean Americans especially in New England. Scanlan (talk)
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:Cape Verdean American politicians[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 15:21, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Cape Verdean American politicians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete All of these categories are non-notable intersections. What does being of Cape Verdean descent have to do with your ability to play sports, music or be in politics? Also, a similar cfd for Nigerian American sportspeople came up over the summer and it was upmerged. Thomas.macmillan (talk) 01:49, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clear Keep - The Cape Verdean American community is quite distinctive, and as such should not be dispensed with in such a cavalier way. I'm sure nobody would suggest that their ethnicity has anything to do with their "ability" to do any of these things -- so that question amounts to a strawman argument par excellence. In fact, these are all notable intersections -- just as they are for other ethnic groups. Yet this singles out one of the 23 sibling categories of Category:American politicians by ethnic or national origin. Cgingold (talk) 11:04, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a strong defining characteristic of the individuals involved. The category system does not mean that being from a place, or one's race, ethnicity, religion or sexual preference make someone a better athlete, musician or politician. Categories are meant to group similar articles together and allow readers to navigate to these articles. This category accomplishes that. Alansohn (talk) 21:08, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. These people are defined by being Cape Verdean Americans and by being American politicians but not by being Cape Verdean American politicians, which is a triple intersection of ethnicity, nationality and occupation. These should be upmerged to Category:Cape Verdean Americans and Category:American politicians. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:32, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I want to change my mind to neutral, or at least very weak delete. I can't understand why "Cape Verdean American" is an ethnicity unto itself, as I thought the ethnicity would be "of Cape Verdean descent". But I'll defer to American users on this as they likely know what is and what is not considered an ethnicity in the exclusive American context. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:42, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - Numerous categories already exist for Irish American politicians, Mexican American politicians, Italian American politicians, etc. so there is a clear precedence here. The only real reason why this category is up for deletion while the others are not is because Cape Verdeans are a much smaller community, at least by American standards. However, they are still distinctive. Strong, clear keep. Scanlan (talk) 23:41, 5 January 2009 (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_December_28&oldid=1085526764"