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.
Delete per nominator. Debresser (talk) 21:30, 2 August 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.
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.
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Small category not likely to expand. Note I actually moved the one entry to what I consider an appropriate parent without realizing that this would actually empty the category. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:14, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "Not likely to expand" would seem to be based only on the assumption that no one will ever arrange the large Category:Musicians from Northern Ireland by genre - in fact some genre subcats already exist there. Johnbod (talk) 22:49, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- there seem to be at least 2 subcategories already available. To be honest, I'm not sure why there are so many in the Category:British musicians by genre, they probably should be re-sorted into each region, and would expand this greatly (or all the regions should be re-sorted into the country and deleted). --William Allen Simpson (talk) 11:59, 29 July 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.
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. --Xdamrtalk 22:26, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. To acheive consistency within all rugby footballers by nationality categories across both codes as per consensus reached at discussion at rugby league wikiproject. Jeff79 (talk) 12:51, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – if this is going to extend to the subcats of Category:Rugby league footballers by club, you are going to be very busy tagging. I have a vague feeling that cfd was going in the other direction with some sports - changing a specific name to 'player' if the club concerned did not have multi-sports teams (eg Category:Manchester United F.C. players). Occuli (talk) 15:12, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Category:Rugby league footballers by team have already been tidied up and are consistently 'Category:[Team name] players' as per the other part of the wikiproject rugby league discussion mentioned above. This is the last remaining category with inconcistency.--Jeff79 (talk) 15:21, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
'Support Renames as we appear to have standardized on "footballers" rather than "players". Alansohn (talk) 18:51, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as not necessary, anyone that plays Rugby League is going to be a "footballer" by definition, so there's no point extending the categories out. And can we please avoid references to these people as "rugby players" or "rugby footballers", the game in this case is "rugby league". Lankiveil(speak to me) 11:50, 29 July 2009 (UTC).[reply]
While you may be aware that a player of rugby league is by definition a footballer, not everyone else will be. These are the last remaining categories that have "player" instead of "footballer". If, as you suggest, we go with player, a whole swathe of other categories (including those for rugby union and association football) will have to be changed. Changing these last remaining few will create consistency accross the board.--Jeff79 (talk) 13:48, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I personally think association football would not need to be changed, nor anything else which is explicitly called football (i.e. AFL, American football, Canadian football etc) as "football players" seems overly formal when "footballers" suffices. However, rugby union would need to change as well. Orderinchaos 01:47, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose "Rugby ___ footballers" is essentially double emphasis, per Lankiveil, and we should reflect most common usage where possible. Orderinchaos 01:51, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - the usual way to refer to members of rugby teams, whether league or union, is as "rugby players", not "rugby footballers". HeartofaDog (talk) 00:33, 2 August 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.
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.
Support per cited discussion. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:20, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wait for me! Running to catch up the train... Support because that's the wisest course of action and as mentioned previously Accuracy & Flexibility are the renaming motives. --KrebMarkt 14:33, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support per discussion, I've briefly thought about proposing this before myself (and then promptly forgot the idea ever crossed my mind =D ). 「ダイノガイ千？！」? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 19:38, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support as there is no good reason to keep it since it the current version is misleading.陣内Jinnai 22:54, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Lists of manga chapters and volumes to reflect the fact that "chapters" seem to be overwhelmingly used over "volumes" in the titles of articles included in the category. There appears to be no better reason to put them in the order proposed in the nomination. Alansohn (talk) 00:57, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
One possible reason for volumes first: in the ordinary course of manga article development, volumes of collected serial chapters get listed first, with the chapters filled in afterward. —Quasirandom (talk) 15:53, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As was pointed out in the linked discussion, the lists of "chapters" are actually primarily lists of volumes - pretty much the entire page is formatted around individual volumes, from the template used for formatting the table, to the summaries provided. As Quasi notes, this also reflects the overwhelmingly normal course of article development, since often when creating chapter lists, the physical volumes are not available to copy chapter titles/numbers from. 「ダイノガイ千？！」? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 18:03, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nominator and as per the cited discussion. Support Alansohn's version as well. Extremepro (talk) 09:30, 29 July 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.
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.
Support Rename to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 00:58, 29 July 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:Presidents of the General Assembly of the League of Nations[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:Rename/merge. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:30, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom, --Soman (talk) 11:51, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom, could even be speedy as a simple factual matter. Timrollpickering (talk) 19:18, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rename to more accurately reflect the content of the category. Alansohn (talk) 01:56, 29 July 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.
Nominator's rationale: The nominations below are similar to this and this recent nomination, where "Ambassadors to the United Nations" was changed to "Permanent Representatives to the United Nations". Ambassadors are sent to heads of state in countries, not to organizations. The usual term for "ambassadors" to organizations is "Permanent Representative". I suggest we use the correct terms. Feel free to comment on these as a group rather than individually. — Good Ol’factory(talk) 07:35, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support All to reflect proper use of the term "Permanent Representative" in these contexts
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:Rename/merge. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:32, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. See comments above. The U.S. ambassador is a "Representative" to the AU, but not a "Permanent Representative" because the U.S. is not an AU member, nor is it an official observer state. Good Ol’factory(talk) 07:44, 28 July 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:Ambassadors to the Organization of American States[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:Rename/merge. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:33, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. See comments above. Good Ol’factory(talk) 07:40, 28 July 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.
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) 20:34, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. See comments above. Good Ol’factory(talk) 07:32, 28 July 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.
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) 20:34, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. See comments above. The usual term for "ambassadors" to organizations is "Permanent Representative", but as that article points out, the ones to UNESCO are called "Permanent Delegates". Good Ol’factory(talk) 07:27, 28 July 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.
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.
Nominator's rationale:Rename. See comments above. The Russian ambassador to NATO is a "Representative", but not a "Permanent Representative" because Russia is not a NATO member state. (Apparently Russia has mis-named its representative, but per the comments below I'm fine to go with what they have chosen.) Good Ol’factory(talk) 08:16, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That certainly is interesting. Ultimately, each country chooses what it calls its own "ambassadors", but as a general principle of international law terminology, a state can't have a "permanent representative" to an organization unless it is a full member of the organization. Russia is not a full member of NATO, but is a "partner country". Perhaps some sort of exception has been made in the Russia–NATO case, I don't know. Or maybe the Russians just haven't followed conventions of international law on this matter. I can find other sources that omit the "Permanent", and I also find references to the "Special Representative of Russia to NATO". I guess we go with what the Russians have chosen, even if it's "wrong". Good Ol’factory(talk) 22:37, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Russian category is incorrect. The proper title, in this case of Rogozin, is, per the NATO website here, "Ambassador - Head of the Mission of the Russian Federation to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization". "Permanent Representative to" and official "Ambassador to" is for members, not partners (which is what Russia is). That distinction is also discussed on the NATO web site. There's no reason to do all sorts of Google searches et al. when all we have to do is read NATO's website regarding "who's who." No?VЄСRUМВА ☎ 16:28, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it's probably best to use whatever Russia has decided to call it. As I've said above, under traditional terminology Russia has probably selected the "wrong" name for the position, but that doesn't mean we should change it here if it's the one that's been chosen and it's in wide usage. Anyhow, I've withdrawn the Russian one for now, because I believe it's probably correct. If anyone else wants to renominate it because they believe otherwise, that should be fine. Good Ol’factory(talk) 00:22, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, no problem with the withdrawal of the nom, but it has been reversed here by another editor for some reason. --RussaviaDialogue 01:03, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, OK. Well, that's fine. I suppose the closer will be able to read here that my intent was to withdraw that one. Good Ol’factory(talk) 01:10, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(od) Not to go on about this, but was www.nato.int in that list of citations? The NATO site spells out the title of every representative, I've indicated what NATO documents as Rogozin's title. I'm perplexed by the argument that whatever Russia uses is what we us even if it might not be correct. If you want to say "Ambassadors of... " that's fine per the NATO title, but neither "permanent" nor "representative" are part of Rogozin's title per NATO. VЄСRUМВА ☎ 01:23, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that ultimately the title of ambassadors and the like is the decision of the country of origin, not the target country or organization. No one can really tell Russia what to call their diplomats, though NATO may have a preferred title that they use. At the end of the day, probably either could be acceptable if it's widely used. I'm a little bit confused by NATO's preference for "ambassador", since traditionally "ambassadors" are only sent to heads of state. It seems that neither NATO nor Russia has it completely "correct", but who are we to tell them what to use? Good Ol’factory(talk) 01:28, 30 July 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:Leaders of political parties in Australia[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 but without prejudice to re-creation as part of a future scheme of sub-categorisation by party or similar. --Xdamrtalk 22:20, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. It's too broad a category to be meaningful. It lumps in all party leaders, major and minor, from all federal, state and territory parliaments. I'd submit that the connection between, say, Andrew Fisher and Janine Haines, or Billy Snedden and Clare Martin is pretty thin. Digestible (talk) 03:59, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agreed with nom - also imprecise as a category, as it implies federal only in its wording but seems to include state and even territory leaders. Also how far do we go re "party" - someone starts a party which is essentially a one man band and gets a few votes, should they be in this list as well? The questions could go on, but it demonstrates the category has no clear scope. Orderinchaos 10:30, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Orderinchaos; arbitrary similarity, not unlike the Senate appointees category a while back. Frickeg (talk) 02:23, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, while it looks like a useful category at first, per the nom, it's actually pretty fuzzy and not all that useful. A narrower category (like "Leaders of major federal political parties in Australia") might be viable, but this is not. Lankiveil(speak to me) 11:47, 29 July 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Full disclosure right off the bat: it would appear that I created this (though I have no memory of doing so and I definitely didn't do all the filing). That said, however, I'd call attention to Category:Leaders of political parties, which has comparable categories for Barbados, Canada, China, Cuba, Cyprus, East Germany, Ireland, Israel, Malta, New Zealand, North Korea, Papua New Guinea, Puerto Rico, Romania, Sweden, Turkey and the United Kingdom. The only difference between any of those and this is that where appropriate, most of those have been subdivided into more specific subcategories for individual parties — and that would also be the more appropriate solution here. It's not as though this is somehow less significant in Australia than it is in Canada or the UK; it just hasn't been organized as usefully as it could have been. Keep and subcategorize entries as appropriate. Bearcat (talk) 00:15, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Well let's take Canada, the country with the closest comparable political structure. Indeed it has been subcategorised by party, making the category much more usable. But there's a second important difference: the scope has been deliberately limited to leaders at the federal level. You won't find any provincial Premiers in there. So even if you were to retain and revamp this category along those lines, it would still involve dropping a great many (probably the majority) of the articles currently in there. Digestible (talk) 04:11, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, no, it hasn't been limited, deliberately or otherwise, to federal leaders — nine of the ten Canadian provinces have provincial-level subcategories too. (It initially looked like only five, but careful examination revealed that four more existed but hadn't been subcatted in Category:Canadian political party leaders.) Bearcat (talk) 20:25, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Bearcat. This is the way we organise things here so unless we want to delete Category:Politicians as being too broad a category and stick to more precise cats instead with no parents, lets keep it and use subcats. DoubleBlue (talk) 20:58, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Totally useless category. No thought went into creating it, and to my knowledge it still lists party presidents, who aren't even party leaders. It's a mess, and it needs to be gotten rid of. Rebecca (talk) 10:41, 7 August 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.
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:I have tagged the category and it is now relisted at 2009 AUG 5. Good Ol’factory(talk) 21:54, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Upmerge. Per WP:OC#NARROW, this qualifies as an overly narrow intersection category, I believe. As far as I can see, the two noted existing categories convey the meaning of this category, so there is no need for the intersection category. (LMBM2012 (talk) 03:42, 28 July 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Delete per nom; we don't want to start this sort of grouping. Johnbod (talk) 16:14, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge per nom. But the category is not tagged. Occuli (talk) 16:29, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Keep and Renominate The category under consideration here has not been tagged. While we generally do a poor job of reaching out to those who might have an interest in discussing the merits of the category, the failure to tag the category as being up for discussion irreversibly damages any result here. This nomination should be closed as a procedural keep and this should be reconsidered after a nomination has been properly submitted. Alansohn (talk) 16:03, 5 August 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.
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.
Nominator's rationale:Merge. Upmerge single entry category. Installation artist is not even mentioned in the only article. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:03, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per discussion yesterday about "Northern Irish" / "from Northern Ireland". Debresser (talk) 21:29, 2 August 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.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:Delete. I think consensus is clear even if the reasons for keeping are not. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:47, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Interesting, but ultimately almost never defining for a person, in my opinion. When we see categorizations of people by mental or physical disease or disability, we need to ask if it rises to the level of importance or significance to warrant categorization. For example, the following have been deleted in the past:
I believe that this is one category that clearly fits this pattern of (relatively) non-defining diseases or disabilities that we have not chosen to categorize people by. Good Ol’factory(talk) 01:53, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. This is not a way by which we sort people. If it is of noted interest, it is mentioned in the biography. DoubleBlue (talk) 02:39, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Being blind is defining; being color blind is not. I could make an excellent argument that being an alcoholic is defining, despite consensus, just as Category:People with Parkinson's disease is defining, based on the impact the condition has on their lives. However, being color blind is like most of these conditions listed in the nomination in that the individual's life is not affected to a defining degree such that they are described in defining fashion in reliable sources as being color blind, such as the imaginary sentence stating that "color-blind author Mark Twain was able to provide vivid descriptions of Mississippi River life in Huckleberry Finn". Color blind artists or fashion designers might meet the defining standard, but just being color blind does not appear to be a defining characteristic. Alansohn (talk) 04:05, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Alansohn. Occuli (talk) 12:26, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - only so that Occuli may finally have his choice between "delete per Alansohn" and "keep per Otto". Otto4711 (talk) 20:30, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If only I had waited ... Occuli (talk) 00:46, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's never too late to strike your vote and express tortured ambivalence. Good Ol’factory(talk) 02:13, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Otto, you do a disservice to yourself and to the tattered legitimacy of CfD by treating this process as a joke. If you're arguing for retention based on some principle let's hear it. If it's just a crude attempt at humor, as you clearly imply, it doesn't belong here on wikipedia. The CfD game continues, only now it's just based on taking contrary positions solely to make some needless point. Alansohn (talk) 00:51, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Captain Kirk for the thinly veiled personal attack. An attempt at humor might have included some measure of seriousness with an attempt at a cute little joke appended at the end. That you treat this entire process as a means to get your jollies only demonstrates how truly dysfunctional CfD is. It is how editors treat this process as a joke that the disruption it causes must be taken quite seriously. Read below for others taken aback by your backfiring humor. Alansohn (talk) 04:13, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We don't always get the results we want here, but I think it's a stretch to call CfD dysfunctional. But what I really don't understand is why you persist in personally attacking Otto here, often for the flimsiest of reasons. You're both valuable editors and I wish it would stop. Yes, I lost my cool when I thought (and still believe) that CfD was being abused by a certain editor for an anti-semitic agenda. But your tactic with Otto seems to be throw any accusation you can, to see what will stick. You're a better editor than that and I wish you would cool it. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:09, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You do realize that you also had an issue with the comment. See below, where you aptly state that "Otto: you can't be serious. That's your reason?". You clearly take this process seriously, as I do. There's plenty of room for humor, but a vote that consists entirely of a joke slaps the face of all those who are trying to create a meaningful structure for making decisions here that are based on some overall guiding principles rather than arbitrary ILIKEIT / IHATEIT votes with an occasional effort as Otto made here to turn the whole process into even more of a mockery. A process where there is no definition whatsoever of what is "defining" is a few steps below dysfunctional. Alansohn (talk) 04:40, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
He's got a fine command of TV and movie catchphrases, you got to give him that. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:14, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and list of deleted conditions above, most of which are far more serious than mere colour blindness (which I suffer from have). Otto: you can't be serious. That's your reason?Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:53, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Colour-blindness is more clearly defined than the other conditions mentioned above and is a life-long condition. A search reveals at least 21 people with colour blindness with articles in Wikipedia, including 2 sculptors, an etcher, an art critic and a painter who preferred to paint in black and white, all of whom had to alter their ambitions to be a painter because of their color blindness. Others were turned down by the navy or air force and so changed careers because of it. An American football quarterback who was color blind was criticised for giving away so many interceptions. It is at least worth recording. Cjc13 (talk) 20:36, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Worth recording, but unfortunately not worth categorizing. Might be worth listing in the context of an article on colorblindness, however. --Stepheng3 (talk) 03:44, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Colour-blindness is not a very determining factor of any of these individuals. Seems more like unsourced(?) trivia to me. Jafeluv (talk) 15:27, 4 August 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:American alternative rock music groups[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.
Nominator's rationale:Rename to create consistency with other "Alternative rock groups by nationality" categories. WesleyDodds (talk) 01:44, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Inherently clear as to its meaning, and consistent with similar categories Orderinchaos 10:31, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Equally clear category name, and shorter. It's also good to keep all the subcategories predictably named. Jafeluv (talk) 15:23, 4 August 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.
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 rename as a type of quasi-"spelling error" (creator supports change).Good Ol’factory(talk) 23:31, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nominator. Debresser (talk) 21:27, 2 August 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.
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.
Nominator's rationale: expanding abbreviation, as per convention Mayumashu (talk) 17:18, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Which convention is that? The WP:COMMONNAME is CIS football so I would oppose and recommend it stay where editors expect it to be. DoubleBlue (talk) 19:25, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom to resolve ambiguity. I'm from Canada and I thought "CIS" in this context meant "Commonwealth of Independent States". Matching a category name to the main article is often a good idea, but not when the name to be used is ambiguous. Category space does not work quite like article space in terms of redirects, DAB pages, and so the application of WP:COMMONNAME may be adjusted accordingly. Good Ol’factory(talk) 23:42, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think the simplest answer that would be given is probably that NCAA is not ambiguous in the way CIS is. Just examining where the two abbreviations redirect to should be evidence enough of that. But if NCAA is ambiguous (and apparently it is), then the same principles would theoretically apply. Good Ol’factory(talk) 01:59, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. We don t provide categorisation for those in the know, but to help guide those who are not. And as GOFact raises, CIS is for many outside the sports community in Canada, the state between the USSR and Russian Fed. And football was that country's first or second sport Mayumashu (talk) 03:32, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. There are a few acronyms such as NATO, UK, USA which are globally known but CIS is not amongst them. Another reason for retaining abbreviations is to keep the category name manageable (we had BAFTAs recently, and perhaps this would apply to some of the NCAA categories ). Here the target is manageable. Occuli (talk) 12:25, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There are a lot of category names that are not globally known but that's irrelevant. It's a means of organising the articles and the parent cats of this cat are Category:Canadian football leagues and Category:Canadian Interuniversity Sport which would take you there should you be cruising the category highways and byways and then you would know very well what CIS football is. DoubleBlue (talk) 17:50, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Fair enough, there's no downside to renaming. It's not like it's overly long. It's clear that CIS is far more commonly known as the post-Soviet state. Rename all subcats accordingly. The Canadian university football world will just have to lump it, I guess. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:43, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would say downside is that it does not match what the organisation is known as. DoubleBlue (talk) 17:50, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually from the contact us page on the web site the organization is know as Canadian Interuniversity Sport. So this may come down to common name and dabs. The other option would be to use CIS (football) for both the article and category if it is in fact most commonly known as CIS.Vegaswikian (talk) 19:15, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate attempts to work out improvements but this says the category is CIS, which is a kind of football. That's nearly backwards. Canadian Interuniversity Sport is the governing body for national intervarsity sport competitions. CIS football is one of those. The status quo still seems optimum to me naming the league of play. DoubleBlue (talk) 01:31, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We are not talking about Canadian Interuniversity Sport, we are talking about CIS football. DoubleBlue (talk) 19:42, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawing suggested target since Lankiveil points out that this is also ambiguous. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:30, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. As a Scot, my first thought of "CIS football" is of the competition whose first round I'll be going to see on Saturday: the Scottish League Cup. AllyD (talk) 19:43, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: I agree with DoubleBlue. FJM (talk) 21:46, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rename The more I think about this, we should not be spelling out every abbreviation simply because people might get confused. The top-level category for an organization should be spelled out, even if it is a popular abbreviation, if the article title is fully spelled out. Where there is a widely-used acronym or abbreviation for an entity and where that acronym/abbreviation is a redirect to the parent article, I see no issue with using it in a subcategory title. So Category:National Association for the Advancement of Colored People should be spelled out in full as a parent category, but I have no objection to using NAACP in the subcategory Category:NAACP Image Awards. With CIS football, there is too much ambiguity, as CIS redirects to Commonwealth of Independent States, and not Canadian Interuniversity Sport. As such, I support the rename so that CIS is fully spelled out. Alansohn (talk) 02:18, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. It is clear that the name is ambiguous. It is not clear that there is a better name. So, the case is there to rename, and lacking a better alternative, the one first proposed appears to be the only option on the table. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:38, 7 August 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.
