Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 May 1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< April 30 May 2 >

May 1[edit]

NZ mass murderers[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 12:47, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Spree shootings in New Zealand (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:New Zealand spree killers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:New Zealand mass murderers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  • Delete All
Nominator's rationale: We have a series of heavily interlinked categories with only one or two articles. Since there have only been two spree shootings in New Zealand there is little immediate prospect for growth. Also it has been proposed that David Gray (murderer) be mmerged to Aramoana massacre, further reducing the number of pages to be categorised. (Stanley Graham should probably be renamed to be about the incident not the person as per policy, also). Category:Massacres in New Zealand adequately covers these articles toghether with Category:Murder in New Zealand dramatic (talk) 22:05, 1 May 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:Muhajir[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. Kbdank71 14:45, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Muhajir (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Muhajir (Pakistan) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Caucasian muhajirs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

  • Delete all (renaming is possible but of doubtful utility).
Nominator's rationale: I initially thought these categories could simply be renamed, replacing the unfamiliar Arabic term with an English term such as "Islamic refugees". However, after reading up on the subject and looking at how these categories are being used, I concluded that we are better off just deleting them. The problem is that "muhajir" is a highly ambiguous term, encompassing both "refugee" and "emigrant". This makes it fundamentally unsuitable for use in the Wikipedia category system. Even though these are part of the Category:Refugees tree, much of the contents has nothing whatsoever to do with refugees. To the extent that a navigational hub is considered desirable, that issue is already thoroughly addressed in the main article, Muhajir. In short, I don't think these categories can be salvaged, and I don't believe there's any real need for them in any case. Notified category creators with {{subst:cfd-notify}} Cgingold (talk) 21:25, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete categories for descendents of people displaced by all sorts of international convulsions is unwise; (a) they are hard to identify reliably; (b) must they be full-blood descent or may products of mixed parentage fit in; (c) how far back do we go - Category:Descendents of refugees from the Roman invasion of Britain - (d) the articles can contain a list of any notables associated with the events causing them to be refugees, and (e) for some peoples, nearly the entirety are refugees from something/somewhere: Israel, Palestine, and many immigrants to the US, we don't need thousands of categories of displaced people. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:19, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't know much about the Caucasus, but in Pakistan this is a huge thing, very easily defined, and not at all ethnic as Carlos suggests. We have loads of categories for Jews and others displaced by the Nazis some years earlier than these, so I'm not convinced by that argument. Johnbod (talk) 00:00, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • On consideration, Merge contents of Category:Muhajir to Category:Muhajir (Pakistan), as all 197 seem to be Pakistani - I have removed the anomalous A. R. Cornelius, an Anglo-Indian Pakistani, in Lahore before Partition. The category would then just have the two subcats, which seems ok to me, although as I say I don't know much about the Caucasian people. Note Category:Muhajir (Pakistan) is not categorised as an ethnic group, rightly so. No doubt they are slightly different as a genetic group from the pre-partition populations, but that is not what it is about. They still have riots between Muhajirs and non-Muhajirs evey so often, and much of Pakistani politics is about the different populations. It is defining for a Pakistani, even from a younger generation. Johnbod (talk) 02:57, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strange that all of those Pakistanis were placed (or left, as the case may be) in the main category, when the Pakistan sub-cat was available. There does appear to be a valid rationale for this particular category -- although, I think it needs renaming, either to Category:Muhajirs (Pakistan) or to Category:Pakistani Muhajirs. Also, we need to decide on appropriate parent categories. This group consists of people who were originally refugees, along with their descendants. Does this category belong in any of the following category trees, none of which have sub-cats for Pakistan?: Category:Immigrants by destination country, Category:Naturalized citizens by nation, Category:Indian diaspora by country. And lastly, based on a small random sample, there seems to be a bit of a problem in terms of lack of confirmatory material in at least some of the articles (eg. Dr. Malik Murtaza, which also needs to be renamed). Somebody really needs to go through all of them to check on that, and remove any that can't be verified. Cgingold (talk) 03:43, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll be interested to see what the project has to say, but given the unusual circumstances of the Partition of India, I personally don't think any of those cateories would be appropriate, and the first two would not be right for the 2nd generation. If that is the case, it is all the more appropriate to have this category for them. I imagine the main category used to be the only one, & when the Pakistani subcat was set up the transfers were not done. I went through a good few & did find a couple of ones born in what is now Bangla-Deshi territory (formerly East Pakistan) who went with BD on the split; I removed these. I agree not all the articles mention the matter - some are very stubby. Johnbod (talk) 10:34, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Replace Cat:Muhajir with the contents of Cat:Muhajir (Pakistan). I just added the cat to an article, which is how I found myself here. There are 13 million Muhajirs in Pakistan, and they constitute a distinct ethnic group; there are tensions with the majority ethnicities and a category is highly encyclopaedic. --Relata refero (disp.) 19:11, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • No firm opinion on the two others, but Rename Category:Muhajir (Pakistan) to Category:Muhajir people, to clarify that its an ethnic group and in line with other ethnic group cats, and to be categorized in ethnic cats not to Category:Muhajir. --Soman (talk) 22:31, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Replace Cat:Muhajir with the contents of Cat:Muhajir (Pakistan). It really useful cat. It's important so be replaced.
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:Anarchists by nationality[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: amusing keep. Kbdank71 13:31, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Anarchists by nationality to Category:Anarchists by location
Propose renaming Category:Christian anarchists by nationality to Category:Christian anarchists by location
Nominator's rationale: Rename. No anarchist has a "nationality". Anarchists inherently do not believe in government, and tend to consider themselves citizens of the world. 199.125.109.99 (talk) 17:59, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: I have taken the liberty of merging these into one CFD in order to consolidate the discussion. Cgingold (talk) 22:29, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent. The instructions were not very clear on how to accomplish that. 199.125.109.99 (talk) 04:52, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been listed as an Anarchism task force deletion discussion. Respondents are also recommended to read our article on anarchism and nationalism. Skomorokh 18:13, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
By location is very specific. It does not specify how the location is chosen, and that really doesn't matter. Right now there are 183 American anarchists and about an equal number from all other locations specified combined, so if someone wants to split up the American category into a subcategory they certainly could, and if they wanted to combine some of the many locations with less than 3 anarchists they certainly could do that as well. Following America the top 5 locations are all in Europe, followed by Russia and then Canada. 199.125.109.99 (talk) 16:38, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "By location" is not in the slightest specific. "Location" could mean planet, continent, nation, state, city, neighborhood, apratment complex or address. Otto4711 (talk) 00:40, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: Although I fully agree with you on the sentiment of the matter, this is a larger question of how would a researcher look for categorized anarchists, and how would we be able to best specify categories. "Location" is very vague. Are we referring to anarchists by city? Bio-region? Will we get an "anarchists of the South-East Caribbean Islands" (as opposed to the north-west ones.) We've already got a category for anarchist movements by region, of which anarchist movements by country is a sub-category. This made sense, because anarchist movements have been known to be at times specific to a general location within, or transcending the boarders of, a nation-state. However, individuals are not bound to a location. They freely move around. The best way to categorize them becomes one of national background, as nations generally don't go away often (as much as anarchists would like, anyway). Further, these categorizations do not necessarily mean that they support nationalism. It's more a question of origin, and could easily refer instead to cultural background. Some hypothetical anarchist could go into exile and spend years moving around; however, because they are of origin – lets say, French – this particular anarchist is an anti-nationalist living in Mexico, or Germany, or Australia, and yet this person remains a culturally French anarchist of French origin.--Cast (talk) 19:58, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support alternate version: I support an alternate name change to "country of origin" or such, per alternate proposals below. I still don't like "location" though.--Cast (talk) 23:59, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Of course you have to decide how to categorize someone - is Craig Ferguson an American or is he Scottish? Or both? If anyone wants to create a meaningful category for anarchists from a city or part of a city they certainly can do so, but since anarchists do not believe in nationality, they certainly would not want to be told that they were in a category called "anarchists by nationality". The suggestion of calling them all "Anarchists from planet Earth" is not helpful, since I'm not sure there are any from any other planets at the present time. I have no problem with saying that someone is an Italian anarchist as long as everyone understands that Italy refers to a location and not to a nation state, which is what would be clarified if the encompassing category was called "anarchists by location" instead of "anarchists by nationality". 199.125.109.99 (talk) 21:39, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alternate proposal: Taking account of both the wishes of anarchists and the requirements of our Category system, renaming to Category:Anarchists by country of birth and Category:Christian anarchists by country of birth should address all relevant concerns. I don't see any reason that even the most devout anarchist would take issue with the notion of "country of birth"; at the same time, that term translates very easily to "nationality", so the category will fit very nicely in the super-cat structure of "people by nationality". Cgingold (talk) 22:39, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support alternate version as it does not detract from Wikipedia's taxonomy nor does it deceive the reader as to the "nationality of anarchists". Suggest changing wording to Category:Anarchists by country of origin or even "nation of origin" though, as place of birth is somewhat trivial. Skomorokh 22:51, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Country is a less offensive word than nation. Location is far better though. These are people who recognize that there are lines on the map but like the lines on ones hand it is the whole hand and the entire land that is important, not the lines. Origin or birth are not important to include in the definition. For example, someone who moves to Italy at age 20 and spends all their life there would probably be identified with Italy regardless of where they were born or raised. 199.125.109.99 (talk) 00:49, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. This would be a bad precedent to set. Next we'd have a complaint about Category:Jehovah's Witnesses by nationality; then we'd get complaints about individuals articles being included in a nationality category because that particular individual feels they are a citizen of the earth. The alternate proposals could work, but for the sake of consistency I don't think it's worth it. (Full disclosure: I created Category:Christian anarchists by nationality and subdivided them as such.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:04, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment It's not about an individual's self-identity, it's about what it is accurate to identify them as (per V, WEIGHT etc.). A category is useless (in fact, barred from being used) unless it is a defining characteristic of the topic. So if it were the case that few or no anarchists were defined by their nationality, Wikipedia would be actively misleading readers. To correct that is a precedent we should gladly set. So the issue here is to what extent nationality is an accurate and defining characteristics of anarchists. I would say to very little if any extent, apart from those brave few National Anarchism pioneers. Skomorokh 23:11, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, but I believe anarchists, like any other activists or people involved in political matters, are defined by their nationality, whether they like it or not. It's also part of an overall classification scheme of people by nationality and political orientation. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:42, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose We shouldn't care what these people believe they do or don't have vis-a-vis nationality. We have lots of categories describing people in NPOV terms rather than their own, otherwise we'd have categories Category:Freedom fighters, Category:Saviors, Category:People who cannot be taxed and such others... Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:22, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for weighing in, Carlos. Please read my comment above: the issue is not self-identification. Skomorokh 23:26, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I don't have strong personal feelings about the name of these categories -- I could live with the current name, or with one of the alternate names. I offered an alternate proposal in the spirit of making a slight accomodation to the feelings/wishes of anarchists. Though it's not entirely analagous, what I had in mind was the sort of accomodation that has been made in the categories for "Pro-life" activists -- which I feel is a self-serving term, while "anti-abortion" is simple, straight-forward and factually accurate. Nonetheless, this accomodation was made (I haven't looked, but I'm sure there was a lengthy and contentious discussion involved). So that's where I'm coming from. Again, I will go along with whatever concensus emerges here. Cgingold (talk) 03:01, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per others above. Nom seems unwise in attempting to tell anarchists what they all believe. Johnbod (talk) 11:13, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You might want to read the comments on the discussion page, which is what prompted this move proposal. 199.125.109.99 (talk) 16:23, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What, one comment from an IP in 2006, and a reply giving the Keepers argument here? The splendidly entitled Category:Anarchist organizations seems choc-a-block with organizations following conventional national lines. Johnbod (talk) 16:35, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And what makes you think those are nationalities instead of locations? 199.125.109.99 (talk) 16:40, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"The splendidly entitled Category:Anarchist organizations" ... too much! Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:08, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Someone who finds anything remotely amusing about the title of that category is exactly the kind of person who should recuse themselves from this discussion and acquaint themselves with the subject before embarrassing themselves. Skomorokh 09:22, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It was a joke; lighten up. (It's probably more embarrassing for others to see someone taking themselves too seriously and making assumptions about others' knowledge levels than to see someone enjoying themselves. I'd rather be in the latter.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 10:16, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's fairly amusing. And I rather imagine that Emma Goldman would, too -- why, she'd probably be dancing with mirth at this little exchange. Cgingold (talk) 05:51, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sure, if you want to be the first against the wall come the revolution. Otto4711 (talk) 14:10, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support alternate version: Rename to Category:Anarchists by country of origin. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 07:08, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, should be a speedy. This is the system by which we categorize people (socialists, communists, liberals, conservatives, etc.), and anarchists are not different in any way. Interestingly, anarchists tend to organize themselves along national lines. --Soman (talk) 22:34, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:Along national lines? Since when? Are you sure they aren't just aligning along cultural and common language networks? I know of dozens of international anarchist organizations. There is currently a list of anarchist movements by region, not nation, because a number of anarchist movements have impacted each other and crossed national lines, or stayed within regional lines, simply ignoring national identity altogether. The majority of these articles under that list are along national lines simply for ease of use. A smaller number focus on a location within a larger movement, where notable. In larger scope, "national" movements are in fact the same movement in a different location. Global anarchist project > national anarchist movement > regional anarchist organizations and projects. They are, ultimately, in connection where language and cultural barriers permit, and are not in anyway competing, like the antagonistic international party-politics of liberals, communists, socialists, and conservatives. Conflict only arises in regards to critiques of praxis and philosophical position – never due to national alligence (i.e. "My Franch Anarchist Workers Front is better than your Anarchist Workers Front of Germany! Splitters!").--Cast (talk) 23:17, 6 May 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:The Judds[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 12:50, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:The Judds (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Overcategorization per WP:OCAT. Each of these pages is interlinked, and does not need a category of its own. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 17:35, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - eponymous overcategorization. The Judds certainly serves as an appropriate navigational hub here. Otto4711 (talk) 18:57, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom & ample precedent. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:23, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as creator. I thought I was being useful, but I was overzealous. I'm glad that you're keeping an eye out for Wikipedia. —ScouterSig 04:28, 2 May 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:Assault on Precinct 13[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 12:51, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Assault on Precinct 13 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Overcategorization per WP:OVERCAT Lugnuts (talk) 17:34, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - serving as a de facto Category:Assault on Precinct 13 actors category which is overcategorization of performer by performance. The two film articles should be linked by either a see also section or a dab note (or both) and the category is not warranted. Otto4711 (talk) 18:58, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:23, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Can't have a cat - with a listing of all of the actors - for every semi-notable movie. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 05:38, 4 May 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:Russian and Soviet film directors[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. Kbdank71 12:51, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Russian and Soviet film directors to Category:Soviet film directors
Nominator's rationale: most if not all listed here now are Soviet era directors and not all are Russian. rename then check to see that none are post-Soviet era Russian (I m willing to do this), which belong to Category:Russian film directors (this one lists/should list both Soviet era Russian ethnic and post-Soviet Russian national film directors) Mayumashu (talk) 16:53, 1 May 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:BBC Young Musician of the Year[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. Kbdank71 12:52, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:BBC Young Musician of the Year (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - The featured article BBC Young Musician of the Year does a perfect job as a navigational hub for this award. The category is unnecessary overcategorization by award. Otto4711 (talk) 15:49, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nom. While this is a significant award, the precedent is to listify. Since the list exists, the category is not needed. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:48, 6 May 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:Caucasian languages[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. Kbdank71 12:52, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Caucasian languages to Category:Languages of the Caucasus
Nominator's rationale: "Caucasian languages" sounds like a name of a language family, which it isn't. There are proposals and theories that unify Northeastern, Northwesterm and Southern (Kartvelian) families into one super-family, but there's no agreement among linguists that such a unification is scientifically correct. There is, however, rationale for categorizing the languages of the Caucasus, as this is an area with a unique linguistic situation, and it justifies inclusion in Category:Languages by geographical region, but i propose to rename this category, so it will show that it is more geographical than linguistic. Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 15:32, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename: per nom. Already thought of doing this myself. — N-true (talk) 15:47, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename: If you're going to include Armenian and Azerbaijani, for example, renaming is appropriate as "Caucasian languages" implies only those languages within the traditional classifications "Caucasian", viz., Kartvelian, Northwest, Northeast, North-Central Caucasian genetic groups. (Taivo (talk) 18:14, 1 May 2008 (UTC))[reply]
  • Rename per all. Johnbod (talk) 19:57, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom to eliminate ambiguity. Cgingold (talk) 20:40, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Indigenous languages of the Caucasus, otherwise expect Azeri, Armenian, Farsi, Russian, Turkish, and others to be (properly) included as spoken in the Caucasus by significant numbers. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:25, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    This is the whole point. They already are there. See Category talk:Caucasian languages. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 05:13, 2 May 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:Disambig-Class XXX pages[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. The current consensus here is to use "pages", not "articles", so this CFD can be closed. I don't want to do a 357-category rename with no other input, however (you'd be very surprised as to what people think is "controversial" around here (or maybe you wouldn't be surprised, how long have you been around?)). Either way, please nominate the "articles" categories for renaming. Check the CFD bot-list for help with the tagging (my bot isn't designed for that, but I know at least one other is) . Kbdank71 14:55, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming all of the following Disambig-Class pages categories to articles:
Nominator's rationale: Most other disambig-class categories end in articles, not pages, and works easier with certain templates. MrKIA11 (talk) 14:09, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename so that all of these match (see my follow up comment below). A look at Category:Disambig-Class articles shows that 299ish of 311 are already in this format. --Gwguffey (talk) 14:17, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Follow up I actually have no preference for either the use of pages or articles, but I do think that they should all match. All effort being equal, I would lead towards pages given the high profile projects that are using that per GregManninLB's comment. --Gwguffey (talk) 13:36, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - While not "articles", disambigious pages are in article namespace. Also, see Category:Disamb-Class aviation articles. However, Wikipedia:Disambiguation specifically refers to them as "pages" (not articles) and identifies them as non-articles. Further Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages) calls them disambiguation pages, not disambiguation articles. GregManninLB (talk) 16:09, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I also think that pages is better, but unless we get a bot to change all of the current categories, I think it would be better for all of them to be the same. MrKIA11 (talk) 16:44, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Category renames have bots to do the work. So the amount of work needed is never an issue in making the right consensus choice. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:24, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Here's the latest count. 357 use "articles", 41 use "pages", and 1 uses neither. However, some of the larger WikiProjects Biography, Military history, and Aviation use "pages". GregManninLB (talk) 06:35, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • A bot to place 357 tags would be useful; or a means of tagging the top category + all subs in 1 click; or a means of saying - 'look, these are really pages, not articles, changing all the names is hardly controversial so let's do it'. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 14:30, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom so they all match. Agree that 'page' is better but have no wish to tag 357 pages. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 14:30, 2 May 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:Qazis[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:Sharia judges. Kbdank71 12:55, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Qazis to Category:Qadis
Nominator's rationale: Rename for consistency with main article Qadi. (As a transliteration, the word may also be spelled "Qazi", thus not a spelling "error" fix that can be speedied.) Notified creator with {{subst:cfd-notify}} Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:51, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom.--Lenticel (talk) 06:30, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename I'm not so sure about this. Qadi is Arabic for judge, and used for secular judges in most of the Arab world, plus Turkey & other places, it seems. I'd prefer Rename to Category:Sharia judges, or "Islamic judges" as less ambiguous, clearer for many users, plus sidestepping the spelling issue. The great majority of the articles seem to cover Qadis from countries like Iran and Pakistan where the sharia judges share or dominate the state judicial system, and most seem undercategorised in this respect. I think Johnbod (talk) 11:20, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename - I'm fundamentally in agreement with Johnbod on this. Few readers will have any idea what either Qazi or Qadi means -- Category:Sharia judges looks pretty good to me. (And if I'm not mistaken, the plural isn't formed by adding an "s" in any event! :) It's much better to use clear English terms when ever possible, rather than obscure terms of whatever derivation. This reminds me, there's another similar category that also needs renaming -- Category:Muhajir (I'll take care of that shortly). Cgingold (talk) 20:36, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (nominator). I like the Category:Sharia judges idea and think it fits well with the articles currently in the category. I agree that when possible, English-equivalent terms should be used for these Arabic terms. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:06, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support last proposal. English terms are usually more stisfacotry than foreign ones. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:51, 6 May 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.

more ethnicity Cat pages for people[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. Kbdank71 13:01, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming
Nominator's rationale: ethnic group, name 'Fooian people' for consistency (see Category:People by race or ethnicity)Mayumashu (talk)
  • Rename both: Chuvashs is very hard to read, and in any case consistency in Category:People by race or ethnicity is a Good Thing. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 15:54, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unnecessary race/ethnicity categories. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:27, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep both and consider renaming the other categories to remove the word 'people' from them. Hmains (talk) 03:57, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I suggest that we give serious consideration to using the word "individuals" instead of "people" in those categories that need additional clarity. Cgingold (talk) 20:35, 4 May 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:Military Pay[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. Kbdank71 12:56, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Military Pay to Category:Military pay and benefits
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Broaden scope of category to include remuneration in kind as well as salary. For example to cover such benefits as access to Base exchange for the US military, and the similar British equivalent Navy, Army and Air Force Institutes and the Australian Defence scheme DefCom Australia. I am sure there are numerous other examples from other military Matilda talk 03:55, 1 May 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:Attractions in Hartford County, Connecticut[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. Kbdank71 12:57, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Attractions in Hartford County, Connecticut to Category:Visitor attractions in Hartford County, Connecticut
Category:Attractions in Litchfield County, Connecticut to Category:Visitor attractions in Litchfield County, Connecticut
Category:Attractions in Middlesex County, Connecticut to Category:Visitor attractions in Middlesex County, Connecticut
Category:Attractions in New Haven County, Connecticut to Category:Visitor attractions in New Haven County, Connecticut
Category:Attractions in New London County, Connecticut to Category:Visitor attractions in New London County, Connecticut
Category:Attractions in Tolland County, Connecticut to Category:Visitor attractions in Tolland County, Connecticut
Nominator's rationale: Rename. To common name used for this type of category and per consensus here and parent category. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:26, 1 May 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:24 articles consisting mainly of plot information[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 categories:
–Anthøny 12:22, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:24 articles consisting mainly of plot information to Category:UNKNOWN
Nominator's rationale: Rename at the very least. I've no idea what this should be renamed to, but the current name is clearly not of WP standard. This looks more like it should be a list on a WikiProject subpage than a category. Grutness...wha? 02:30, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note Category is not tagged. Johnbod (talk) 03:37, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Category was tagged - tag was removed by the category's creator. It has been restored. Grutness...wha? 07:29, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Appears to be a project tag, so should go on talk page, no? All are in the main 24 characters category. Johnbod (talk) 03:37, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Could well be a WikiProject category, but surely if it was it would mention that somewhere in the category header, or have a WikiProject category as a parent category, neither of which it does. Even if it is, given that all the other categories are named with "24 (TV series)", this one should be too - I'd suggest that possibly something like Category:24 (TV series) articles needing expert attention as a hidden category would be a far more reasonable name if that is the case. And if it is a WikiProject category it should also be named as such. The current name is a poor one for a permanent navigation category, which at the moment the name seems to indicate it is. Grutness...wha? 07:29, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to talk page as fix-up, project page - if the project still wants this. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:28, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I left a note at the 24 project (clock counting down at 20 hours to go) as I'm not sure how "official" this tag is. I expect they're busy shooting at each other. Johnbod (talk) 00:05, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE: - the creator of this has also pointed me to Category:24 articles containing trivia sections, which similarly needs renaming at least, and which I hyave also tagged. Perhaps the best solution might be to merge the two into one, using the Category:24 (TV series) articles needing expert attention title I suggested before. Any specifics as to what attention is needed should be fairly obvious from the articles, and if not, a comment on the article's should be enough to clarify things. Grutness...wha? 01:06, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, expert attention, no. A similar title, yes, but not expert attention. How about something along the lines of Category:24 (TV series) articles requiring general cleanup? I'm not overly sure. However, if the categories are changed, please let me know. I'm not overly fussed, I just wasn't aware of the category naming conventions. Just don't delete them. :) Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 01:12, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I could certainly live with that name (Steve, BTW, is the originator of the first-nominated category and coordinator of WP24). Grutness...wha? 01:36, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, is there any chance the sub categories can be kept in some way? I'm open to opinion as to what the titles should be, but as I mentioned on the nominators talk page, merging 2 categories into one could break a few templates I've made. Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 01:41, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Those look fine to me. Johnbod (talk) 13:45, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if no one here objects, I'll move Category:24 articles consisting mainly of plot information to Category:Wikiproject 24-Articles mainly consisting of plot information, and Category:24 articles containing trivia sections to Category:Wikiproject 24-Articles containing trivia sections. That seems a reasonable solution. And maybe a parent category, Category:Wikiproject 24-Articles requiring maintenance or something like that. What do you think? Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 14:11, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd support that, but you need to wait for the close here. Johnbod (talk) 14:15, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds fair enough to me, too. Grutness...wha? 00:46, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can we close this then? However, I'm unsure how to make the sub categories part of the parent category, if you know what I mean. Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 02:47, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

wait for the admin to close it, and let the bot do the work. Johnbod (talk) 03:07, 3 May 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:Black Nova Scotians[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. Kbdank71 13:00, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Black Nova Scotians to Category:Black Nova Scotian people
Nominator's rationale: as per reasons given below Mayumashu (talk) 00:59, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Good catch. Bearcat (talk) 20:01, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unnecessary race/ethnicity category. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:28, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep, do not rename If necessary, change the surrounding categories to remove 'people' which is unnecessary in the English language Hmains (talk) 04:02, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I suggest that we give serious consideration to using the word "individuals" instead of "people" in those categories that need additional clarity. Cgingold (talk) 05:58, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it as it is - The use of an adjective as a noun is acceptable English usage. The addition just makes the category name unnecessarily long. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:54, 6 May 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:African Americans[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. Kbdank71 12:59, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:African Americans to Category:African American people
Nominator's rationale: as per nomination immediately below Mayumashu (talk) 00:57, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Good catch. Bearcat (talk) 20:01, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unnecessary race/ethnicity category. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:28, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep, do not rename 'African American' is the common name in use and until/if this is changed by the poeple of this group, WP should not presume to impose such changes. Hmains (talk) 04:00, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I suggest that we give serious consideration to using the word "individuals" instead of "people" in those categories that need additional clarity. Cgingold (talk) 05:57, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it as it is - The use of an adjective as a noun is acceptable English usage. The addition just makes the category name unnecessarily long. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:54, 6 May 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:Black Canadians[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. Kbdank71 12:59, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Black Canadians to Category:Black Canadian people
Nominator's rationale: group constitutes an ethnic group in their own right and convention on wikip (as seen in the recent renaming of Category:Zulus to Category:Zulu people etc.) has become to add "people" to the name of ethnic or racial groups (see Category:People by race or ethnicity for a list) Mayumashu (talk) 00:52, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Good catch. Bearcat (talk) 20:00, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unnecessary race/ethnicity category. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:28, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep, do not rename If necessary, change the surrounding categories to remove 'people', which is unnecessary in the English language Hmains (talk) 04:03, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I suggest that we give serious consideration to using the word "individuals" instead of "people" in those categories that need additional clarity. Cgingold (talk) 05:57, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it as it is - The use of an adjective as a noun is acceptable English usage. The addition just makes the category name unnecessarily long. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:55, 6 May 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:UK clothing and textile companies[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename. Kbdank71 12:58, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:UK clothing and textile companies to Category:Clothing and textile companies of the United Kingdom
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Would be a speedy except that it has two speedy issues: expanding the abbreviation and placing in stand form for categories of the form X companies of the United Kingdom. Caerwine Caer’s whines 00:42, 1 May 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:US clothing and textile companies[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename. Kbdank71 12:58, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:US clothing and textile companies to Category:Clothing and textile companies of the United States
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Would be a speedy except that it has two speedy issues: expanding the abbreviation and placing in stand form for categories of the form X companies of the United States. Caerwine Caer’s whines 00:42, 1 May 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_May_1&oldid=1146511490"