Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 June 12

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< June 11 June 13 >

June 12[edit]

Parks in India[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: Split. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:32, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest splitting Category:National parks and sanctuaries of Rajasthan to Category:National parks in Rajasthan and Category:Wildlife sanctuaries in Rajasthan
Suggest splitting Category:National parks and sanctuaries in Gujarat to Category:National parks in Gujarat and Category:Wildlife sanctuaries in Gujarat
Suggest splitting Category:National parks and sanctuaries of Madhya Pradesh to Category:National parks in Madhya Pradesh and Category:Wildlife sanctuaries in Madhya Pradesh
Suggest splitting Category:National parks and sanctuaries in Kerala to Category:National parks in Kerala and Category:Wildlife sanctuaries in Kerala
Nominator's rationale: Split. We have two well established category structures, Category:Wildlife sanctuaries of India and Category:National parks of India, and there is no need to combine them at this level and those are proper subcategories for Category:Protected areas of India. The proposed rename targets also remove an ambiguous part of the name and changes the 'of' to 'in' which is the more common form. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:58, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agree Splitting and moving the articles to appropriate categories -- TinuCherian (Wanna Talk?) - 04:48, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I added and tagged the forth one of these so that they can all be cleaned up at the same time. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:14, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support persuasive nom. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 09:33, 16 June 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:Global warming in transport[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. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:58, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:Global warming in transport to Category:Sustainable transport
Nominator's rationale: This category actually just contains specifics related to sustainable transport, and not causal relations or policy related to transport and global. Maybe if other articles are created this category could be recreated one day, but not in the current state. Arsenikk (talk) 21:40, 12 June 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:Years in Yugoslavia[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. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:33, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Option 1: Rename Category:Years in Yugoslavia → Category:Years in Yugoslavia (1918-1992)

Option 1 is simple, put 1918-1992 in Yugoslavia into new parent cat, 1993-2003 to Category:Years in Serbia and Montenegro.

As Category:Years in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Zaire and Democratic Republic of the Congo use the same cat, FRY = SCG.

Or, plus Option 2 rename Category:199X in Yugoslavia to Category:199X in Serbia and Montenegro, quoted from main article

The state was not recognized as the official successor to the SFRY and remained unrecognized until 2000. From 1992 to 2000, countries like the United States referred to the FRY as "Serbia and Montenegro"

There is a not well developed CFD in 2008 May 26.

It can be support both 1+2, support either one, or oppose both. Matthew_hk tc 20:53, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose both options needlessly complicated, we do not divide for example Category:Years in Ireland into different phases of its history ie. -1801, 1801-1922, 1922-1937, 1937-present, so I can't see why Yugoslavia should be different. Tim! (talk) 21:12, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose both options per the reasons cited by Tim! Overly complicated categorization usually only adds to confusion. Dimadick (talk) 13:16, 13 June 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:Egyptian people of October War[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 all. I've heard it called both. Does that mean we should have a redirect? If you think it does, you can create one. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:18, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Egyptian people of October War (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Israeli people of October War (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:October War (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:People of October War (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Properly listing at CfD; This category and its subcats had been listed at AfD by User:Raul654 with the rationale: "The October War is another name for the Yom Kippur War (the latter being by far the most common english name). All of them are redundant with already existing categories (Category:Yom Kippur War, Category:People of the Yom Kippur War, category:Egyptian people of the Yom Kippur War, Category:Israeli people of the Yom Kippur War". Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 17:45, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge All as needed to the respective categories. Cgingold (talk) 18:16, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know why that this categories has been added to the discussion in this page . " October war " is the only name known in the middle east and many other parts of Africa and Asia ,in fact the people in these areas when they speak English they don't even know the name " the Yom Kippur War " but they do know " October war " and its the only name known there ,and I didn't delete the category of " the Yom Kippur War " ,I just added another category which is well-known name in the areas I mentioned above , so please if you want people get to know what they are looking for in an easy ,simple way so we should add these two categories together, so I don't know why that MR. Pellegrini wants the category to be deleted and I hope that he will understand the reasons I mentioned above.Elmondo21st (talk) 18:34, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just because something is known by more than one name does not mean we create multiple categories for it. Our policy is to use the common *english* name. Raul654 (talk) 18:53, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Yom Kippur War" is far more widely used than "October War" (approx. 5-to-1 ratio in Google hits), as well as being intrinsically more specific, since there could well be other "October Wars". Cgingold (talk) 18:59, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment For the record, my !vote is neutral here; I was just completing the nom for another user. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 18:51, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge All as the related article is also Yom Kippur War. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 19:48, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep both categories: Unfortunately you are dealing with a controversial issue here, any side you take is biased against the other, which contradicts Wikipidia's policies. I think both categories should be kept. keeping the categories under Yom Kippur War alone is by all means biased, because it only recognizes the Israeli name of this conflict, while many Arabs do not recognize the meaning of Yom Kippur, nor are they required to. Yet The October War as known by all Arabs and certainly many of the "Developing Countries" identify it as Arab Israeli War that occured in 1973. I do not see the harm in keeping both categories.--Nasib Bitar (talk) 22:19, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let me address your last point first, since it relates to a bedrock rule that applies across the board to all categories: Duplicate or redundant categories are never permitted because they create all sorts of problems, both for readers and for editors. One example of many: last year a new editor created Category:Peace activists, but we had to merge it into Category:Anti-war activists because they both dealt with the same basic subject.
Out of personal curiosity, I'm fascinated to learn that Arabs use the term "October War", given that there's no month of October in the Islamic calendar. Do you have any idea how that term came to be used?
Getting to the heart of the issue: given the concerns that you've raised, which is the proper term for Wikipedia? Note that I didn't say "for this category". The point being that this very issue has been debated at great length at least four times on the talk pages for Yom Kippur War. And that is where the real decision on this has been made, because the basic rule is that Categories are named in accordance with the name of the main article. So in the end, if you want to pursue this, you are always free to open another discussion in that forum. (I have not had any part in the article, but given the history of those discussions, I suspect that the odds are against you.)
Lastly, it might be possible to retain the parent cat, Category:October War, as a redirect, as a service to those users who look for it under that heading, much as there is a redirect for the article under that title. Cgingold (talk) 23:35, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • First I would like to thank you for your convincing and well articulated argument, and I respect the decision of the Wikipedian Society since I have accepted to be part of it. I was expressing my opinion regarding this matter stressing the point of bias.
  • As for the calender we use, we use both; the Islamic calender to help us keep pace with our religious rituals, and that is based on a "Lunar Year". As for our business and in almost every other activity of our lives we use the Gregorian calender. Truly in Egypt, they have almost identical names for the twelve months of the year as you have in English, as well as e.g. Italian and French with some variations. I was reading about "Al Jabarti", a Muslim Arab traveler from Cordoba who travelled to the Middle East and back visiting some European Mediterranean Cities . In his writings he used the Gregorian Names for dates. He lived in the 12th Century A.D.
  • I much appreciate the redirect suggestion for the Category.
  • ...and No my friend, I do not want to re-discuss what was discussed before, I will respect the group's decision.--Nasib Bitar (talk) 00:42, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all per nom, redirect main cat per Cgingold, and add standard note to all sub-cats with link to the main article, and the alternate names. I see Yom Kippur War gives "Ramadan War" as the second name, & October War as the third. Johnbod (talk) 13:52, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • My basic reaction is Merge all to "Yom Kippur". If the war is known in Egypt as the "October War", it might be logical to retain it for the Egyptian category, but as a subcategory of the "Yom Kippur" war, which is its usual name in England and (I suspect in several other English-speaking countries). If "October" is to be retained at all, the year should be added: I would not be surprised if some of the Ghits did not relate to the events of other wars fought partly in October. However, I thought Ramadan was supposed to be a time of peace for Muslims! Peterkingiron (talk) 21:53, 15 June 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:Neath Port Talbot electoral wards[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. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:00, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Neath Port Talbot electoral wards to Category:Electoral wards of Neath Port Talbot
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Propose a move to keep naming in line with convention used in the rest of Wales. Anton.Garibaldi (talk) 12:16, 12 June 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:Neath Port Talbot communities[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Rename. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:02, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Neath Port Talbot communities to Category:Communities in Neath Port Talbot
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Propose a move to keep naming in line with convention used in the rest of Wales. Anton.Garibaldi (talk) 12:15, 12 June 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:Neath Port Talbot towns[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. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:02, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Neath Port Talbot towns to Category:Towns in Neath Port Talbot
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Propose a move to keep naming in line with convention used in the rest of Wales. Anton.Garibaldi (talk) 12:09, 12 June 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:Neath Port Talbot villages[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename Category:Neath Port Talbot villages to Category:Villages in Neath Port Talbot. The larger issue of whether to merge towns and villages might be something to raise at Wikipedia:WikiProject UK geography to stitch up firsttest the consensus. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:21, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nominators Rationale: Propose moving the category to Category:Villages in Neath Port Talbot in line with the convention used in the rest of Wales. Anton.Garibaldi (talk) 12:05, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The following comments apply to this and the three preceding nominations

  • Merge "towns", "villages", and "communities" to Category:Towns and Villages in Neath Port Talbot. In Wales, Communities are the equivalent of Civil Parishes in England. There is frequently argumetn over what place is a town and what a village, which this avoids. Articles on Communities will frequently relate to its main village(s), so that that category tends to duplicate the others. On the other hand, as far as I know WP has not traditionally had articles on the electoral politics of single wards. These articles should be merged into the relevant town or village, if they should be retained at all. Is an election in which 1500 votes are cast really notable? I assume that each elector has three votes in three-member wards. In practice, many electoral wards are changed every time the boundary commission consideres the area, so that the electoral wards have little permanence. The "elctoral wards" category should be deleted, as should many of its constituent articles. NOTE, I belive the consensus is that local councillors are generally NN (unless notable for other reasons); it thus follows that their election results are also NN. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:36, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments - I am neutral on the issue of merging or not. I just think if we are to keep the existing categories, they should be of the existing convention used elsewhere in Wikipedia. Back to the issue of merging: towns and villages are in separate categories all over wikipedia in England, Scotland and Northern Ireland as well as other countries. However there are also many categories outside the UK of the form of "Villages, Towns and Cities in ..." and "Settlements in ...". There doesn't seem to be a consensus on what form this categorisation should take. Until a consensus is reached on this I think it is better to keep things consistent in the local UK context here. Anton.Garibaldi (talk) 22:02, 18 June 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:Bands with christian members[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Delete. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:00, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Bands with christian members (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Propose Deletion
Unnecessary and pointless category, similar to "bands with female singers" or the like, which have been previously deleted. Nouse4aname (talk) 11:29, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as WP:OCAT. The religious beliefs of musicians are not a defining characteristic of the band if the band isn't specifically associated with religious music. Bearcat (talk) 15:21, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Bearcat : overly broad and trivial when music is not religious. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:09, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unneccassary category -- TinuCherian (Wanna Talk?) - 04:49, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Category creator has been notified. 12:33, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, for reasons given above; also, in many cases the use of this category would be unsourced, as the religious views of individual band members may not be sufficiently relevant to document in the article on each band. - Fayenatic (talk) 12:33, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:OCAT poster child. Chubbles (talk) 23:11, 16 June 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:Judea and Samaria Area[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. Matched the main article name. If some of these need to be in a subcategory, which may not be the case now, they can be split out at a later name. The associated navigation seems to be a better way to navigate around in these articles. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:07, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Judea and Samaria Area to Category:Judea and Samaria
Nominator's rationale: Per corresponding article Judea and Samaria. Sardanaphalus (talk) 11:18, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. This should be uncontroversial. Dimadick (talk) 13:17, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • REname per nom to conform to main article. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:37, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - the category refers to the administrative aspect of Judea and Samaria, called Judea and Samaria Area. The main article includes this, and probably should not be split, but there's no reason to move the category. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 21:33, 20 June 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:Organisations designated as terrorist by the European Union, United States, United Kingdom and Canada[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Delete. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:01, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose deletion
Nominator's rationale: Pointless and illogical orphan category. There are already four seperate categories for each state/body (Category:UK Home Office designated terrorist groups, Category:Canada Public Safety designated terrorist entities, Category:European Union designated terrorist organizations, Category:Organizations designated as terrorist by the U.S. government) and their parent category is Category:Organizations designated as terrorist. Valenciano (talk) 09:51, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as empty (at present) and unnecessary intersection of 4 existing categories. BencherliteTalk 14:48, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - even if populated, this would be a highly undesirable category, as four separate category would be needed for those designed by two of them, and another four for those designated by two of them. It is sufficient to categorise them by each individual country separately. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:41, 15 June 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:Firefox addons[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. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:07, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Firefox addons to Category:Mozilla Firefox add-ons
Nominator's rationale: Per main category: Category:Mozilla Firefox. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:18, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to reflect comment above. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:33, 14 June 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:People from Scarborough (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: Rename. There was a late comment about a different target that did not receive a full discussion. That alternative can be brought up as a new discussion since it is clear that there is consensus for the proposal as is. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:11, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:People from Scarborough (district) to Category:People from Scarborough, North Yorkshire (district)
Nominator's rationale: Scarborough, Toronto can be described as a 'district' (of Toronto), so greater clarification should be provided with the naming of this cat page, meant for the district of Scarborough in North Yorkshire Mayumashu (talk) 06:30, 12 June 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:United States club cricket teams[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: speedy delete per author request, empty. BencherliteTalk 09:17, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:United States club cricket teams to Category:American club cricket teams
Nominator's rationale: Merge, Created duplicate category by mistake. BlackJack | talk page 06:16, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • As the category creator, all you have to do is tag it with {{db-author}} for Speedy deletion. Cgingold (talk) 09:17, 12 June 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:Scarborough[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. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:11, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Scarborough to Category:Scarborough, North Yorkshire
Nominator's rationale: to disambiguate and match article page Scarborough, North Yorkshire, as Scarborough, Ontario is in fact a considerably more populated place Mayumashu (talk) 06:11, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom for clarity and to match main article. Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:58, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom so people do not drop incorrect articles in category from other similar named locations. Keith D (talk) 09:14, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Rename per nom.--Lenticel (talk) 09:35, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename category names should not be ambiguous. 74.15.104.182 (talk) 05:32, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom for clarity and to match the main article.--Harkey (talk) 08:37, 16 June 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:First Ladies and First Gentlemen[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. There is consensus to merge as nominated. The discussion about a 'better' name can continue as a new nomination. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:14, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:First Ladies and First Gentlemen to Category:Spouses of national leaders
Nominator's rationale: Merge, Essentially a duplicate category. The definition in the newer category (FL & FG) seems to be drawing a distinction between spouses of heads of state and spouses of heads of government, and I'm not sure if this was the reason for the duplication, but in any case both of these groups are spouses of "national leaders". Notified creator with {{subst:cfd-notify}} Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:35, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The reason for the category is not the HOS vs HOG distinction, rather, as explained on the page itself, the fact that some who bore the title of "First Lady" were not the spouses of their nations's leaders: both Keiko Fujimori and Zulemita Menem became Peru's and Argentina's First Ladies, respectively, after their President fathers divorced while in office. Some of the other names I added were purely in order to populate it further, and they were not already in the Spouses of national leaders cat. SamEV (talk) 08:27, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You say that's explained on the page, but it's far from clear because the term "head of state" is used, when it's very common for First Ladies/Gentlemen to be the spouse of a head of government. Thus singling out the head of state implied some sort of connection to the heads of government. I understand the distinction now, but I'm not sure that this is the best name for the category, unless it serves as a parent for Category:Spouses of national leaders. Good Ol’factory (talk) 10:54, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're right: I could have done better in my explanation. I think your suggestion of a parent category, under whatever name, is a good idea. SamEV (talk) 23:14, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Canada has also had one person who acted in the de facto role of viceregal consort, although the person doesn't have an article yet Lilias Massey, but the title isn't "First Lady" in Canada. (Although Canada also has had a few unmarried prime ministers, there's never been a person who took on the public role of a prime ministerial spouse.) And there were also historically a few cases in the United States as well of "First Ladies" who were the president's sister, daughter or niece rather than his spouse. While a category for people who served as de facto consorts to the head of state or head of government because the government official was divorced or widowed might be a valid one, this title is effectively a duplicate of Category:Spouses of national leaders — and as such, it's not the right title for this. I don't know what an appropriate alternate title would be, but any such category should be only for people who took on the official duties of a national leader's spouse in a de facto capacity because the national leader was not married during their time in office. Anybody who held the role by virtue of being married to the national leader should be filed in the appropriate subcategory of Category:Spouses of national leaders and not duplicated here. And as a rule, a category like this shouldn't be gendered unnecessarily, so merging the spouses category into this one instead isn't an appropriate alternative. Rename if consensus determines that repurposing the category in this way would be appropriately encyclopedic, but delete as duplication otherwise. Bearcat (talk) 21:57, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
From what I recall, Ms. Fujimori and/or Ms. Menem were de facto and de jure First Ladies, as well, having been confirmed in that capacity by their nations' legislatures. SamEV (talk) 23:14, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think your comments/suggestions are sensible, Bearcat. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:02, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And incidentally, SamEV, Nestor Kirchner was already in Category:Spouses of the Presidents of Argentina, and three of the other five people you added could have gone into Category:Spouses of national leaders anyway. And also, "First Lady" and/or "First Gentleman", as specific titles, are only used in a few specific countries — they can't be used as universal catch-all terms for all leaders' spouses and de facto consorts. Which is why the "spouses of national leaders" alternative was used in the first place. Bearcat (talk) 22:18, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly: Kirchner neither is nor has ever been in this category. Secondly, I already stated in my first comment that I added more names purely to populate the category further. I didn't want mere underpopulation to become the motive for a CfD. I expected a CfD, but I wanted it to be argued on something other than "too few names". And thirdly, "First Ladies and First Gentlemen" was the best title I could think of then, which included [non-spouses and] both sexes; "Spouses of national leaders" was already taken.[Oops. I struck this out b/c the whole reason for this cat was expanding inclusion to non-spouses] I even addressed, on the cat page, the fact that some countries may not even use the titles "First Lady" or "First Gentleman", by asking readers to "Please note that these titles may only be informal". SamEV (talk) 23:14, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Kirchner was in the category. I personally removed him from it less than two hours ago. Bearcat (talk) 23:53, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wow... I stand corrected. I had no memory of adding him, and I even checked the history to make sure before my last reply. But turns out someone else recently added the category, an anon a couple of weeks ago. I didn't know, as I took Kirchner off my watchlist in December. SamEV (talk) 00:20, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. Just so we're clear, I don't disagree with what you did here, I just think that a discussion might be able to identify a better name for it and/or a better way to organize the whole shebang. Bearcat (talk) 00:39, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I agree completely. SamEV (talk) 00:49, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Or rather: Category:Official social partners of national leaders? SamEV (talk) 22:31, 13 June 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:People from Scarborough[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. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:15, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:People from Scarborough to Category:People from Scarborough, North Yorkshire
Nominator's rationale: to disambiguate from Category:People from Scarborough, Toronto. In fact, Scarborough, Toronto has some 10 times the population of Scarborough, North Yorkshire. Mayumashu (talk) 03:09, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I ll put it up too Mayumashu (talk) 06:07, 12 June 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.

Useless plant cats created by bot, episode VIII[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. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:17, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Five more categories created by User:Polbot that should be deleted for the following reasons.

Thanx - IceCreamAntisocial (talk) 05:29, 12 June 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:Deep Purple tours[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. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:18, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Deep Purple tours to Category:Deep Purple concert tours
Nominator's rationale: Rename. per the result at this CfD. This particular subcat wasn't in the main category at the time of the nomination. Kanabekobaton (talk) 01:25, 12 June 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_June_12&oldid=1138390695"