Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 November 23

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< November 22 November 24 >

November 23[edit]

Egoists (individualist anarchists)[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. — ξxplicit 03:22, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming:

Rationalle: Current name is somewhat unwieldy. New name would be more concise, goes better with companion article Egoist anarchism, and may make space for the few non-individualist egoists who are currently in limbo category-wise. Category:Egoists might also be better, because this is the single category for egoists of any kind. Zazaban (talk) 23:28, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak rename per nom. The head article is at Egoist anarchism, so by convention the category should follow that name. However ,I am concerned that to those unfamiliar with Stirner, the term appears to be pejorative, and I fear there is a risk of it being used as an attack category ("Egoist anarchist" = "Anarchist with an overinflated ego", hahaha, so let's put this person in there). Would it be better in this case to use a more unwieldy but clearer title such as "Adherents of egoist anarachism" or "Practitioners of egoist anarchism"? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:21, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:666 gets plenty of abuse, but the thing to do is to just revert it. Actually, I've encountered instances where the use of 'anarchist' was assumed to be pejorative. Zazaban (talk) 21:44, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • yes: i supported that myself some time ago. There are "archist" egoists such as Ayn Rand.--Eduen (talk) 21:52, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • BrownHairedGorl, I appreciate your concern, but "egoist anarchist" and variations have been self-descriptor for this class of people for centuries. It's only considered pejorative among collectivist anarchists. If this is to be used as a subcategory of Category:Individualist anarchists as at present, we should rename to "Egoist individualist anarchists", per my rationale in the previous discussion. Category:Egoist anarchists and Category:Egoists would be categories of a different scope, as they would rightly include those egoists who do not associate with the individualist tradition in anarchism.  Skomorokh, barbarian  21:54, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Although there are egoist anarchists who are not necessarily individualist. Zazaban (talk) 02:55, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Rename to correspond to title of parent category. Alansohn (talk) 16:10, 29 November 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.

Tribes of ancient British Isles[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. Vox populi seems pretty clear here, as indeed it did in Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 November 6#Category:Tribes of ancient British Isles. Hmm. --Xdamrtalk 16:10, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming:

Rationalle: In follow up to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 November 6#Category:Tribes of ancient British Isles - as Good Olfactory put it, "The tribes are ancient, not the British Isles" - same is true about Britain, Ireland and Scotland. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 21:16, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rename as per nom. Twiceuponatime (talk) 09:18, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • oppose, in this instance it is not the tribes which are ancient but the places. Hiding T 12:53, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hiding, I find your change of heart interesting. The entire reason I nominated the British Isles category for a full discussion was based on the rationale you gave me in the speedy section: that "the tribes ... are ancient, rather than the Isles". Perhaps your mind has changed in the interim. I know you reserve the right to contradict yourself, but it does make it difficult to try to satisfy you! Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:43, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • We're not here to satisfy me. This is about language usage, and that usage depends on context. The context here is different to the context in the British Isles example, which is why my opinion differs. This is a reason why standardisation for the sake of it is a dangerous thing. Hiding T 16:39, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom for consistency. They should all be one way or the other. I don't particularly care which way is chosen; I'm not particularly wed to my initial rationale and would be fine if everyone wanted to reverse the change to the British Isles one. I initially adopted the proposal for the British Isles because of Hiding's advice, but now I see he has changed his mind (see comment above), so I'm not sure what to say. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:46, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • They shouldn't all be the same. It's dependent on context. The British Isles are a geographical location that do not change. Tribes and peoples and nations are different. 'Ancient Britain' is, as has been pointed out below, a specific period, much like 'Ancient Rome'. There is no 'Ancient British Isles' period. Really, since the British Isles category is just a parent category, it might be better to simply delete it if it is proving problematic. Although there doesn't seem to be any sort of agreed standard within that classification area, "Historical ethnic groups of Europe" "Ancient peoples". Looking at that though, it does support adding an ancient to the tribes as well. Complicated. Hiding T 16:49, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ireland is also a geographical location that does not change. Ancient Ireland redirects to Prehistoric Ireland, so it's not at all clear whether the category was intended as a geographical or an "era" reference. Good Ol’factory (talk) 20:46, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Ireland's more complicated than that, same as Britain. Welcome to my part of the world. Ireland is both a nation and a location, and that simple fact has caused a huge amount of problems, there was a massive RFC not so long ago about the whole affair. I'd tread carefully and take what redirects where with a pinch of salt in areas related to history in these peninsula islands. Hiding T 21:59, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'm pretty sure a user from Ireland told me I was an idiot once because I dared to make a Northern Ireland a subcategory of an Ireland category once; I pointed out that there was also a category in the scheme named for the "Republic of Ireland", which was also a subcategory of the Ireland one, and that it looked to me like the Republic one was for the political entity and the Ireland one was for the geographical entity, after which I received a very extended lecture on how the name of the political entity is actually "Ireland" and that whoever created the Republic category didn't know their ass from their elbow, etc., etc. We really need more users like that. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:13, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • You kind of see why there was an RFC that decided where the articles would be for the next two years when you meet people like that, don't you. The way I look at it, arguing on Wikipedia about it is better than previous methods. Hiding T 11:24, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • Mind, regardless of the state of play today, there is a historical nation of Ireland. No, even that's wrong. Up until the division of Ireland, there was a unified state called Ireland. That's the right way of describing it. It's complicated. I'm sure you must run into this with England, Scotland and Wales, and how those get categorised, because they may well be countries, no-one really knows. It's also unclear whether Cornwall is a country. But that's a whole different kettle of fish. Hiding T 11:28, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • I have a bad taste in my mouth about this whole thing. Am I right to suppose that perhaps the crux of the problem is that we don't really need the British Isles category at all? Good Ol’factory (talk) 20:55, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                • It might be one way out of the mess. Another alternative is an upmerge of some sort. Hiding T 00:19, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose; 'Ancient Britain', much like 'Ancient Rome', refers to a specific historical period, as it relates to the place in question. There is therefore no problem in referring to the 'Tribes of Ancient Britain', much as you might have the 'Legions of Ancient Rome' - You normally wouldn't refer to the 'Ancient Legions' of Rome; though the meaning is quite clear it just sounds wrong. An alternative might be to rename to 'Tribes of Iron Age Britain', possibly sub-divided into 'Celtic Tribes of Britain' and 'Belgic Tribes of Britain', but the main difficulty is that the tribes in question had a continuity of identity (and some autonomy in some cases) from the Iron Age period into and through the Roman period. Josephus (talk) 23:47, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose it works fine the way it is, though if you want I wouldn't mind Category:ancient tribes of ancient Britain et al. just to make sure 76.66.197.2 (talk) 05:14, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The current titles are fine and clear, as Ancient Britain etc are accepted terms that refer to a specific historical period. Ancient tribes suggests tribes that have been around along time rather than tribes of a particular period. Cjc13 (talk) 15:45, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. For those who believe the current categories properly refer to a period in history, shouldn't these then be renamed to "Tribes of Ancient Foo"? postdlf (talk) 20:42, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • If it wasn;t for the Ireland question, I'd suggest upmerging these, because "Ancient Scotland" is a funny one. Hiding T 22:01, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all per nominator. Indeed the tribes are ancient, not the places. Debresser (talk) 13:11, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In what way is Britain not ancient ? Cjc13 (talk) 21:07, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Renames as current titles properly describe the contents of the categories. Alansohn (talk) 16:11, 29 November 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:World cups[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 Category:World cups to Category:World championships. Categorisation by shared name inappropriate, whether for World Cups or World Championships. Per the article, "a World championship is the top achievement for any sport or contest". Hence the contents of this category can quite happily be merged there. --Xdamrtalk 15:59, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:World cups (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. This is overcategorization by shared name. "World Cup of FOO" or "FOO World Cup" is just a common naming format adopted for a world championship tournament in particular sports. If a sport decided to name its world championship something that does not include the phrase "world cup", it could not be in this category, but such a naming decision is a question of semantics and nothing else. This topic is more than adequately covered by the lists at World Cup and List of world cups. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:14, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I cannot speak on behalf of User:Miller17CU94, who created the category. But when I made FIS Cross-Country World Cup the other day, I couldn't find a suitable category to put it in, other than Category:Cross-country skiing. The category in question here was exactly the category I looked for. Winter sports usually have a World Cup, which serves as the competitive season for the athletes (Oct/Nov–Mar), and is different from a World Championship which is an event held for only a week (or two), annually or biannually.
    I think this was the reason why this category was created, as Miller17CU94 is a major contributor to winter sports articles. If the title of the category is ambiguous, it could be renamed to Category:World cups in winter sports or something similar. lil2mas (talk) 13:45, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is some merit to that idea. If you can create a category that doesn't overlap with Category:World championships then it could probably be justified.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 22:12, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've notified the creator; perhaps he can provide some details for us. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:13, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This World Cup is for all World Cups whether they be summer, winter, or year-round. That was why this category was created. The most notable are the FIFA World Cup and world cups related to rugby and cricket along with the winter sports mentioned in previous comments. Chris (talk) 21:33, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(That is the creator, by the way.) In that case, what do you say about the rationale for deletion? Isn't this just grouping stuff by shared name—events that happen to call their event "world cup"? Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:36, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename: I understand your concern, but would it make sense to change this then to a category either called Sporting world cups or World cups of sports? That way it separates what one world cup would be from another and allow that to still be around?Chris (talk) 22:05, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My concern is whether or not we specify that this is limited to world cups in sports, it's really just grouping events that happen to call the tournament, or event, etc. a "world cup". Soccer has the FIFA World Cup, but they could have just as easily called it the FIFA World Championship, in which case it would be excluded from the category. That makes the category a bit arbitrary—it's like categorizing people together because their parents happened to name them "Buddy". Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:09, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I see your point, but there has to be a way of having a category for naming these World Cup events. If you have any ideas for it, be my guest. Chris (talk) 03:55, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: There is a Template:Main world cups which covers this topic and differentiates between world cups for teams and individual. It would be possible to have corresponding categories. Cjc13 (talk) 16:03, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep to allow navigation across a common defining characteristic. Alansohn (talk) 16:12, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merely sharing a name has never been viewed on WP as a common defining characteristic. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:56, 30 November 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:Places listed in the Domesday Book[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: do not delete; but consensus also seems to be that population of this category should be done carefully due to both the modern commonality of many of the names in the book and the fact that many placenames in England have changed in the intervening centuries. A future nomination should be allowed once we have a better idea how population of this is going. If it ends up being a hopeless task then users might at that time favour deletion. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:58, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Places listed in the Domesday Book (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Not defining for the settlements. As I understand the book, it is a list of places that were established by 1086 and there are over 13,000 of them. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:09, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Deletion. The category is defining of the settlements, just in a different way than other settlement categories; it is certainly more specific than, for instance, Settlements_in_England. The category defines these settlements, in most cases, in terms of the earliest record of their existence. I.E. they are being defined by persistence or endurance. For the majority of these settlements there is no earlier record of their foundation so 1086 acts as a proxy for a more specific foundation date. In this way this category is very similar to the Settlements_by_year_of_establishment group of categories. Josephus (talk) 00:56, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It is certainly true that even brief descriptions of villages often mention this, on WP and elsewhere. If it is defining it should be mentioned in the article, and I rather doubt it is in the majority. I'm not sure about this. If it is added by bot there will be a large number of mistakes - it will almost certainly be added to many places in the US, Australia etc. It is easy to search online elsewhere, & if done here should probably be broken up by county, though this would cause further problems. Johnbod (talk) 01:42, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Per Josephus, I'm inclined to think that a listing in the Domesday Book is a defining characteristic of English settlements. However, like Johnbod I'm still unsure whether a category is a good idea, for technical reasons:
  1. It will be difficult to populate it accurately. I don't see how a bot could do it without a huge level of inaccuracy. That's not just because of the overseas places with the same name, but because of the large number of places in England with the same name. I tried a few searches at http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/domesday/ and found for example that the name of village where I live generates 48 hits in the book.
  2. The common-name problem is exacerbated by the fact that county boundaries have changed several times over the years, not just in the Local Government Act 1972, but also in 19th century (see Counties of England#Ancient_origins and the following section). Some of those changes have been quite significant, and there are some big tangles such as the 19th-century abolition of enclaves and exclaves. That makes me think that Johnbod's suggestion of problems in breaking up the list by county may be an understatement.
  3. That leads me to suggest that if the category is to remain, it should be manually populated, and populated only with articles where there is an appropriate reference. Can we assume that a category containing up to 13,418 entries will be maintained properly?
I hope that a solution can be found, because I like the idea of this category. The BBC Domesday Project was a fiasco, and it'd be lovely to think that Wikipedia could maintain some of the data in a more durable format. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:58, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The practical issues raised by BrownHairedGirl deserve consideration, but are largely secondary to the question of the desirability of the category. However, here are some partial answers to the issues raised:
  1. It is true that there have been significant changes in County boundaries since 1086, with the result that some Domesday settlements are no longer in the same County in which they were originally recorded. However this should not be hugely problematic as the articles which are being categorised relate to the current settlements, and will therefore have consistently modern County assignments. Any boundary changes and former county assignments can appropriately be discussed in the article for the modern settlement.
  2. It is also true that not all Domesday settlements which have a Wikipedia entry, have that fact reflected in the entry. However, a great many do. There currently over 3,000 articles which link to Domesday Book, the majority of which are geotagged settlement articles, in which the references to inclusion in the Domesday book have a relatively small number of formulaic variations. This is the basis of the current manual population of the category, and should not be too intractable for automation or semi-automation by a bot.
  3. As well as populating the category from settlement articles with an existing link to the Domesday Book, it would be possible to approach the problem from the other side and use a Domesday gazetteer to identify the appropriate articles. To do this it would first be necessary to construct a gazetteer which included the modern settlement name and latitude and longitude coordinates, this would allow a double match of the article title and it's geotag data against the gazetteer entries; thus overcoming the problem of multiple settlements with the same or similar names. Josephus (talk) 20:48, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, this is defining per Josephus if we can do this properly. Hiding T 12:57, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As Hiding says it's a question of 'doing it properly', and that amounts to more than just populating and maintaining a category, it means developing a rational and consistent approach to the entries for all Domesday settlements. That would probably mean also looking at having an infobox for Domesday information; and already that seems to me enough work and organisation to justify forming a Wikiproject:Domesday. Josephus (talk) 00:15, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (which I think is the same as oppose). I was unaware of this category but intending to add Domesday references to places in Sussex where relevant. Some are already there but others are not. There is an online reference source, although in some cases the modern form of the name is uncertain. And as for Can we assume that a category containing up to 13,418 entries will be maintained properly?: well the contents of Domesday are not about to change, so 'maintenance' is a matter of adding the {{cat}} to the articles, in the same way as geo-coords are added. Sussexonian (talk) 17:27, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep and fully populate. A very interesting category that needs care and attention, not deletion. This based on a notable event (the census) in English history. Hmains (talk) 04:52, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- This may be a useful category, but there are thousands of places named in DB (some one above said 13000). If we are to keep this category, it needs to be split by county, so that Sussexonian should create and add places to Category:Places in Sussex listed in the Domesday Book. Please note that Domesday counties are not always quite the same as those of c.1840 (abolition of detached place) or 1974. We will need categories for each county, which should be subcategories of that we are discussing - which should be a parent-only category. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:10, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Some users will want to have settlements categorised by county, of these some will prefer categorisation by modern county (for consistency with the current settlement articles), others the county contemporary to Domesday.. The main problem is that subdividing into county categories may make it harder to find a particular settlement, if there are several with similar names, or you don't know which county to look in. Josephus (talk) 00:41, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep to allow navigation across articles defined by their inclusion in the book. Alansohn (talk) 16:13, 29 November 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:Nair 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: delete. — ξxplicit 03:22, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Nair people (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Previous discussions indicated a consensus NOT to categorize people based on caste (see discussion). The presence of categorization based on caste creates a slippery precedent for the presence of thousands of little meaningless caste categories, a prime example of overcategorization. The information in this category can be better organized in list form (and already more or less exists in List of Nairs). Pectoretalk 16:15, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And also, to head off certain incorrect arguments, Nair is a caste, not an ethnicity. All Nairs are Malayali people (Malayali being the ethnicity found in Kerala and parts of Sri Lanka).Pectoretalk 16:19, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What needs to be proven here is whether the benefit of this apparent overcategorization outweighs the benefit gained from merely keeping the caste information at List of Nairs.Pectoretalk 19:56, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose deletion: It seems that Pectore's personal hatred for the Nair people played a major part in this recommendation (Proof). The Category links to close to 500 Wiki articles. As Pectore states, Nair is not a simple caste. It is a grouping of Martial Races with a different ethnic origin compared to the other Malayali people. Although there is a controversy going on whether to count Nair as a Race or as a Caste, the consensus is that both are true in this case. Similar Categories exists in Wiki, like Category:Arain people, Category:Jat people, Category:Sherpas, Category:Goud people, Category:Bodo people, Category:Parsis, Category:Jat & Category:Hmar people. He is also spreading false information by stating that All Nairs are Malayali people. Nair subdivisions like Padamangalam Nair and Tamil Padam Nair don't have anything to do with Malayalees. Axxn (talk) 16:37, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply Where do I start? Axxn takes the statements of a troll on an irrelevant subject (look at it and note the word "Nair" is not mentioned). For the record, I honestly could care less about any caste in particular, but I strive to reject worthless overcategorization. As for Axxn's analogies, Parsi is a special ethnoreligious community (and a term for all Indian followers of Zoroastrianism), Bodo is a clearcut ethnicity, as are Hmar and Sherpa as well. Arain should be deleted as well, while I do not honestly know enough about Jat to make a judgment there, but my guess is that it should be deleted. The question is: "is Nair a caste"? The answer is yes, and therefore is overcategorization. Like I said before, List of Nairs, List of Iyers, List of Saraswats, List_of_Salagamas provide ample information for members of certain castes of the respective ethnicities Malayali, Tamil, and Sinhala.Pectoretalk 19:45, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • For those of us who are not familiar with India's caste system, I have a few questions that will hopefully elicit some context. 1) Are caste names neutral in description (even if not always neutral in consequence) or are many or all caste designations derogatory terms? To use an analogy (without intending to conflate caste with race/ethnicity), are caste labels more the equivalent of "African American" or "nigger"? 2) Will individuals only belong to one caste, or can individuals belong to many? 3) Is it controversial whether an individual belongs to one caste or another, or is it clear cut? How is it determined? Thanks, postdlf (talk) 20:24, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The caste names are the names, I don't think neutrality or offensiveness of the caste name is an issue. However, in a lot of cases, it's not easy to get RS verification to back up the so-and-so falls in this caste, sometimes you can just go by the name e.g. If someone has Mudaliar in the name, you say he belongs to that group, but that doesn't appear to be acceptable here -- see the history on List of Mudaliars; in other cases, whether they belong to one caste or another is in question, see the history of List of Nadars. While the list articles are typically looked at only by those belonging to that caste, it's easy not to bother about it and ignore those issues, however, categories seem to be an altogether different problem. e.g. In the above listed Category:Jat people you have Waqar Younis, nowhere in the article is it identified that he belongs to the Jat caste, nothing other than WP mirrors in the first few pages of Gsearch, only Icon in Gbooks, nothing on Gnews. This is a standard problem with many caste categories. I don't think this one is any better or worse. I've personally found that it's a waste of my wikitime trying to clean up these caste lists or cats. -SpacemanSpiff 20:40, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • (1)Caste names are neutral in description (Similar to African-American).
    • (2)Individuals can only belong to one caste. Depends on the locality though (in most parts of India, father's caste is passed on, while in the case of Nairs and a few other minor castes, the caste is matrilineal).
    • (3)Caste is determined at birth, as caste of the parent is passed on. Conversion from one caste to another is not possible.Axxn (talk) 01:55, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
wrt to the logic brought by Spiff and Axxn's concerns. I am NOT singling out Nairs, I am trying to get a precedent here that rejects all categorization by caste for biographies, which I assumed (rightly so) to be the consensus of well-informed users, understanding of what a clusterfuck categorization would be if we categorized Indians by all the umpteen castes they belong to. Caste lists as Spiff said, allow armchair casteists their moments of pride (and concentrate the damage in one spot, like a benign tumour). Caste categories, spread this poison across a number of wikipages (like a malignant tumour).Pectoretalk 03:16, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am once again stating that Nairs are not considered a caste, but as a Race having many subdivisions more like the Jats. There is no harm in categorization based on ethnic group and I don't think if some one is feeling some inferiority complex, it should result in the deletion of all the ethnicity related cats in Wiki. Axxn (talk) 02:28, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You have just proved the point I was making about POV pushing, with your nonsensical statement about inferiority complexes. Also, if it's not a caste, please make sure to source that to reliable sources in the article Nair, without any synthesis. And then, let's talk about the matrilineal inhertitance that you brought up, if it's an ethnic group, then the inheritance is genetic, if it's a social group, it's patri/matrilineal. -SpacemanSpiff 02:48, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nairs were classified as one of the Martial Races during the 1891 Census of India (This is the same explanation given for keeping the Jat Cat). What more proof do you want? Axxn (talk) 07:33, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ideally, I'd like for POV pushers to stay off of Wikipedia; given that it's unlikely to happen, I'll stick to deleting these POV outlets one by one. If your only source is going to be a dated census document, when everything else (all scholarly sources for that matter) classify it as a caste (social group), the category is undue. As for the Jat category, see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, once I form an opinion on that, I'll bring it up here. As for the 1891 census that you cite, it calls them a "martial caste", with origins elsewhere, not a race. No original research please.-SpacemanSpiff 07:48, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nairs were not classified as a martial caste, but as a martial race.It seems that you are the biggest POV pusher around here. People like you are one of the reasons why many wiki users quit. Honestly, what is your problem with Forward class?Axxn (talk) 12:07, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for once again proving my point so eloquently. My last comment. -SpacemanSpiff 16:03, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This entire discussion was started by two Tamils. Anyway I am not good in my communication or in understanding Wiki as a whole. Delete the Cat, I don't care. Be happy. Axxn (talk) 03:21, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support deletion. There is no place on Wikipedia for biography articles to be categorized by caste. ~Amatulić (talk) 04:27, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per my comments above, and I'll say bring the rest of the caste categories here. These are nothing but POV outlets. -SpacemanSpiff 04:29, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- I had understood that Indian WPians had decided not to have by caste categories, if so, delete. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:12, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Shyamsunder (talk) 19:53, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:12, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the discussion linked in the nomination (fascinating stuff, by the way). Call me a Tamil if you like. Drmies (talk) 04:10, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Spiff. Priyanath talk 14:27, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and SpacemanSpiff. Also, caste system in India has a certain hierarchical nature, so let’s not identify people with their caste. Salih (talk) 04:00, 30 November 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:Number-one singles in Japan[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:  Relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 December 2#Category:Number-one singles in Japan. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 11:15, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Number-one singles in Japan to Category:Oricon Weekly number-one singles
Nominator's rationale: In compliance with Category:Billboard Hot 100 number-one singles and Category:Dutch Top 40 number-one singles. The two mentioned charts are published by a separate outlet as is the charts in Japan. While others such as Category:Number-one singles in Australia and Category:Number-one singles in New Zealand are issued by their Recording Industry Association. MS (Talk|Contributions) 15:29, 23 November 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:Blogs about foo[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: do not rename. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:02, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming
Category:Blogs about Mormonism or Mormons to Category:Mormon or Mormonism blogs
Category:Blogs about Jews and Judaism to Category:Judaism and Jew blogs
Category:Blogs about the environment and environmentalism to Category:Environment and environmentalism blogs
Category:Blogs about religion to Category:Religion blogs
Category:Blogs about Muslims and Islam to Category:Muslim and Islam blogs
Nominator's rationale: Rename. This nomination is a follow up to that for Legal blogs. The consensus there was for foo blogs or fooish blogs rather than Blogs about fooism. This nomination brings in the remaining blogs. Twiceuponatime (talk) 14:23, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all per nominator and precedent. Debresser (talk) 16:36, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for the religious renaming suggestions, since the nominator's suggestion would imply that these are blogs of/by Mormons/Jews/Muslims, rather than about them (for example, Category:Blogs about Muslims and Islam includes Category:Blogs critical of Islam.) I'm also not sure that Category:Judaism and Jew blogs is correct English. Of course, if necessary for some larger scheme of categorization, the categories can be renamed to something or other, but I see no problems with the category names at present. Anti-Nationalist (talk) 23:17, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Anti-Nationalist. "Mormon" differs from "Legal" in that "Mormon" could refer to either the subject or the creator depending on how it's used; in the form "Mormon blogs," it implies the author or publisher are Mormon. postdlf (talk) 23:32, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as above. Hiding T 13:01, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I see no reason to change, but as remarked above, Category:Judaism and Jew blogs for example is bad English. Category:Judaism-related blogs would be better, and perhaps the same for the others. But Blogs about xx seems fine to me. Sussexonian (talk) 17:31, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nomination amended to
Category:Blogs about Mormonism or Mormons to Category:Mormonism and Mormon related blogs
Category:Blogs about Jews and Judaism to Category:Judaism and Jew related blogs
Category:Blogs about Muslims and Islam to Category:Islam and Muslim related blogs

I agree my proposals were not exactly brilliant English, but it can be difficult trying to be concise and clear. I like the suggestion about using related; and have changed the order to put the religion as the first term. Twiceuponatime (talk) 08:56, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The new names of the modified proposal need some punctuation for clarity. Foo related modifies the word blogs, so it should be hyphenated as a compound adjective. I can't tell for sure, but if the new names are intended to be a more concise form of "Fooism-related and Foo-related blogs" (which is one interpretation), then they should be written as "Fooism- and Foo-related blogs". — Bellhalla (talk) 12:01, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all per nominator, to whatever will be the final nomination. Either version is better than the present one. Debresser (talk) 13:07, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Bellhalla has correctly interpreted the intention of the category ("Fooism-related and Foo-related blogs") but I am not sure about the solution - it is very cumbersome. I would prefer to have a readable name and put any clarifications/specifications as a header in the category e.g. 'This category is for blogs about the religion of Islam and its adherents (Muslims)'. Twiceuponatime (talk) 09:27, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose All The current titles are far easier to understand. The proposed Category:Judaism and Jew blogs demonstrates how poorly thpught out the proposal appears to be. Alansohn (talk) 16:15, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose all especially the term "Jew related" that sounds offensive. Besides, the huge parent category for multiple "Jews and Judaism" categories is Category:Jews and Judaism and NOT the other way around. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 09:34, 30 November 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.

Isle of Man ferrying[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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:02, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge


with

Categories have only a few pages in and i see no chance of expansion. Indeed there only seems to be one ferry company. Simply south (talk) 11:36, 23 November 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:Historical people of[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 on this point, but only two users debated the issue. Personally, I think having categories like this would be more trouble than they would be worth; the subjective nature of when someone becomes "historical" is a key problem. This is easily resolved by having by-century categories for particular nationalities and occupations, which is where things seem to be headed in the overall category scheme. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:24, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

city, region or country. Should we distinguish living from historical people or leave all of them in one category?

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Hong Kong football templates[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:  Relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 December 2#Category:Hong Kong football templates. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:48, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:Hong Kong football manager history templates to Category:Hong Kong football templates
Suggest merging Category:Hong Kong football squad templates to Category:Hong Kong football templates
Nominator's rationale: There are currently two categories for football squads and managers; this seems excessive to me. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:23, 23 November 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:NATO-led peacekeeping in the former 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: do not rename. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:17, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:NATO-led peacekeeping in the former Yugoslavia to Category:NATO-led peacekeeping in Yugoslavia
Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:13, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose renaming. The current name is accurate, and the proposed rename would be wrong. Peace-keeping operations concerned were all in the area which had been Yugoslavia, but most of the operations were for most of the time in an area which was no longer Yugoslavia. The term "former Yugoslavia" is widely used for this purpose, with 1,700,000 ghits. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:09, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support BrownHairedGirl. The term was used to cover all the counties that seceded from Yugoslavia. The name continued to be used for Serbia-Montenegro for a time, and was disliked in the new countries during the war, but it is the only term we have availabel for the area. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:18, 27 November 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:United Nations operations in the former 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: do not rename. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:17, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:United Nations operations in the former Yugoslavia to Category:United Nations operations in Yugoslavia
Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:12, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose renaming. The current name is accurate, and the proposed rename would be wrong. Peace-keeping operations concerned were all in the area which had been Yugoslavia, but most of the operations were for most of the time in an area which was no longer Yugoslavia. The term "former Yugoslavia" is widely used for this purpose, with 1,700,000 ghits. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:10, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support BrownHairedGirl. The term was used to cover all the counties that seceded from Yugoslavia. The name continued to be used for Serbia-Montenegro for a time, and was disliked in the new countries during the war, but it is the only term we have availabel for the area. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:19, 27 November 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:Yugoslav wars films[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:  Relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 December 1#Category:Yugoslav wars films. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 11:42, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Yugoslav wars films to Category:Yugoslav Wars films
Nominator's rationale: Per main article and CfR below —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:12, 23 November 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:Yugoslav wars[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:  Relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 December 1#Category:Yugoslav wars. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 11:42, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Yugoslav wars to Category:Yugoslav Wars
Nominator's rationale: Per main article. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:00, 23 November 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:Rigdonite-Bickertonite movement[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. — ξxplicit 03:22, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Rigdonite-Bickertonite movement (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. "Rigdonite-Bickertonite movement" appears to be a neologism. The only hits the phrase receives in a google search is from WP or WP mirror sites. There is no article Rigdonite-Bickertonite movement. Rigdonite exists; Bickertonite redirects to The Church of Jesus Christ (Bickertonite)—but I'm not sure that it makes sense to combine the two terms when no one else does so when writing about the Latter Day Saint movement. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:26, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There shouldn't be a category if the term isn't used in the literature, or even notable enough for a Wikipedia article. COGDEN 02:41, 24 November 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:Italian DOCG[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; a more specific nomination proposal with a focus on the principle of avoiding abbreviations in category names may be productive. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:14, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Italian DOCG to Category:Something comprehensible
Nominator's rationale: As below. Occuli (talk) 01:37, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In fact that's the one below - DOC. Johnbod (talk) 20:01, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How do you distinguish from the lower-level DOC ones below, then? Johnbod (talk) 01:43, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That would be impossible then, and one is left with the DOCG and DOC lists. MURGH disc. 02:13, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Part of the reason why I have been thinking Category:Denominazione di origine controllata wines. The wines need to be split out on their own so that other products can be listed and not intermixed with the wines. That leaves the issue of a need to further split this out by type of classification. Also it is not clear from the article how regions are defined. Are they really controlled like the appellations normally are? Would a better name on the article help? Does the fact that the article is about a label make a case against this category or move us in a different direction? Vegaswikian (talk) 19:56, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose rename for now. Right now I'm leaning towards the example of Category:French wine AOCs and supporting changing the Italian, Spanish and Portuguese appellations to fit that format. In this example it would be Category:Italian wine DOCGs with the "wine" needed to distinguish it from the DOCG foodstuff and the plural to denote that category will list specific DOCGs. I don't think Category:Wine appellations of Italy is the way to go because, as Murgh points out, we need to distinguish DOC, DOCG and IGTs wines. As Amatulic notes below, both AOCs and DOC/G are widely recognized and accepted wine terminology. AgneCheese/Wine 06:23, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You have to understand that abbreviations are only very rarely allowed in category names, & won't be in these cases - see the policies. Johnbod (talk) 08:57, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that abbreviations maybe a problem. Do you have a link for the particular policy where abbreviations are discouraged in categories? I didn't see it in WP:CAT. The closest I found was at Wikipedia:FAQ/Categorization#What_is_the_naming_convention_for_categories.3F where it only specifies against the use of "unnecessary" abbreviation. I think a very well known and WP:COMMONNAME abbreviation would fall into the "necessary" side of the equation. Even Italian speakers rarely speak of their Denominazioni di Origine Controllata e Garantita regions, instead talking about DOCGs. AgneCheese/Wine 18:14, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Here Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(categories)#General_naming_conventions. There is also a list of previous decisions somewhere. Anyone? Precedents here are even more strongly against abbreviations than the policy might suggest. UK, USA, and EU are not allowed, so being well-known is not an issue. Johnbod (talk) 20:06, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well I see that the naming convention itself states "However, abbreviations that have become the official or generally used name (such as NATO) should be used where there are no other conflicts." with the example of NATO and the Category:BBC families being another worthwhile example. You hardly ever see people talk about North Atlantic Treaty Organization and British Broadcasting Corporation, the same is true with DOCs and AOCs. It goes beyond well known to simply being WP:COMMONNAME. AgneCheese/Wine 23:34, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was about to make the same point, saves me spelling it out in my oppose below. It's a wine thing I guess, but as with the BBC, if you told a wine drinker that the Penedès was a Denominación de Origen they'd either not know what you were referring to or would say, "oh, you mean a DO...?" The acronym is much more well-known than the full phrase, and the same is true of all European wine regions. mikaultalk 00:50, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. While the article title is better spelled out for disambiguation purposes, the term is always referred to as DOCG rather than the full name, and the combination "Italian" + DOCG should be clear enough. Very strange to see a proposal for an unspecified move, not even giving e.g. two different alternatives, doesn't entirely look like a well thought-through proposal(?) to me. Tomas e (talk) 13:36, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as there is no better alternative proposed. MURGH disc. 14:57, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Nomination is invalid, as nominator provided no constructive suggestion, nor provided any evidence of precedent that terms well-understood within the confines of a topic need to be explained and expanded when naming them. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:41, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: for the category to be generally comprehensible it should include the words ‘Italian’ and ‘wine[es]’. I really don’t see much point in spelling out the acronym in this case. People with at least a little knowledge of either wine or Italian will have a broad understanding of either form. But monoglot teetotalers will just be confused by the expansion: the literal translation will be pretty obvious but ‘denomination’ is highly technical English outside of the spheres of religion and banknotes. One solution to all the EU quality wine categories would be to note that the French, German, Spanish, Italian, etc. systems are all national implementations of an EU standard which has an official translation. But is that better known? I can only recall the first two words. Actually, I am not perfectly certain of those. So Category:Italian DOCG wines would seem sensible to me. But I am making this as a comment, rather than a suggestion, because I am not sure that identical solutions are the right ones for all the ‘denominated’ EU wines. But on the other hand they should all be considered togetherIan Spackman (talk) 23:23, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Agne. There's no alternative I can think of that doesn't obfuscate and/or genericise what the cat is supposed to cover. mikaultalk 00:50, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Category:Italian wines designated DOCG, or classified or classed or whatever is technically correct. Sussexonian (talk) 23:06, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Italian DOCG wines or something similar. The equivalent French, Spanish etc categories should be renamed to conform to whatever the outcome of this debate is. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:23, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as all alternatives appear even more incomprehensible. Alansohn (talk) 16:17, 29 November 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:Italian DOC[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: Don't rename. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 11:35, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Italian DOC to Category:Something comprehensible
Nominator's rationale: Same as French below. (Also one is plural the other not. Why?) Abbreviations are generally not acceptable in category (and article) names. Occuli (talk) 01:31, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that removing the abbreviation would be preferable, but see no good alternative. alternative. Debresser (talk) 16:32, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Wine Denominazioni di Origine Controllata if that's not too much of a mouthful. "Italian" could be added. Johnbod (talk) 20:02, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Nominator failed to make a constructive suggestion. DOC is a well-understood wine term pertaining to Italian wine. I see no precedent to renaming any category that happens to contain terminology unique to the subject. If a renaming is to be done then perhaps Category:Italian wine appelations might be more meaningful. ~Amatulić (talk) 04:56, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Category:Controlled appellation wine labels of Italy 76.66.197.2 (talk) 05:17, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose rename for now, though as noted above I'm leaning towards something like Category:Italian wine DOCs. I'm opposing for now because I would like to see some progress in first cleaning up the basic wine category tree before we get to more of the nitty gritty details and renaming. It is best to work in deliberate increments, if we bit off too much and try to fix everything at once then progress will be difficult. AgneCheese/Wine 06:27, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. While the article title is better spelled out for disambiguation purposes, the term is always referred to as DOC rather than the full name, and the combination "Italian" + DOCG should be clear enough. Very strange to see a proposal for an unspecified move, not even giving e.g. two different alternatives, doesn't entirely look like a well thought-through proposal(?) to me. Tomas e (talk) 13:37, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as there is no better alternative proposed. MURGH disc. 14:57, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per, comments above, dispenses with brevity and accuracy with no viable alternative suggested. mikaultalk 00:53, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Italian DOC wines for reasons as DOCG above. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:25, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as current title is most comprehensible of proposed alternatives. Alansohn (talk) 16:18, 29 November 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:French wine AOCs[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; a more specific nomination proposal with a focus on the principle of avoiding abbreviations in category names may be productive. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:12, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:French wine AOCs to Category:Quelque chose
Nominator's rationale: Clarify the contents, AOC not being a globally familiar abbreviation - what is a 'French wine AOC' in grammatical English? Occuli (talk) 01:21, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • A rename to Category:French wine appellations would actually confuse things rather than making them clear. This is because 1) the classification VDQS is officially referred to as AOVDQS as well (with AO = "appellation d'origine...") and 2) the way the term "appellation" is used very loosely in connection with New World wine would make French Vin de pays an "appellation" as well, which is definitely isn't according to the official French use (and therefore EU-protected in that part of the world) of the term. See the first sentence of the article fr:Vin de pays for an interesting way to make it abundantly clear that these are not appellation wines. Tomas e (talk) 13:54, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose nominator's suggestion. AOC is a well-understood wine term pertaining to French wine. I see no precedent to renaming any category that happens to contain terminology unique to the subject. If a renaming is to be done Category:French wine appelations would be acceptable. ~Amatulić (talk) 04:53, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Category:Controlled appellation wine labels of France 76.66.197.2 (talk) 05:17, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for now. As Amatulic notes, AOC is a well understood wine term. As Murgh notes, there are several layers of appellations and we need to distinguish between the several hundred AOCs, VDQS, VDPs and so forth. The inclusion of "wine" in the name is needed to distinguish it from cheese and other foodstuff AOCs. Overall I'm leaning towards this particular format as the blueprint for how other country's controlled appellation. AgneCheese/Wine 06:32, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. While the article title is better spelled out for disambiguation purposes, the term is always referred to as AOC rather than the full name, and the combination "French" + AOC is clear enough and useful. Very strange to see a proposal for an unspecified move, not even giving e.g. two different alternatives. Just saying that it should be moved to "something else" doesn't entirely look like a serious and well thought-through proposal to me. Tomas e (talk) 13:54, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose FCOL, wouldn't it have been a good idea to sound this idea out on one cat first? mikaultalk 00:54, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:French AOC wines -- reasons as DOCG above. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:27, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, as the current title is the most useful of all the names proposed. Alansohn (talk) 16:19, 29 November 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:Uncategorised musical 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.
The result of the discussion was:  Relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 December 1#Category:Uncategorised musical groups. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:58, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Uncategorised musical groups (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: What is the purpose of this category - is it only to remove uncategorized templates? If so, it serves no real purpose. noq (talk) 00:51, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The purpose is to gather together articles (if any) on musical groups which are yet to be categorised, in the hope that this deficiency will be remedied. (Yesterday there was one, so I categorised it.) Occuli (talk) 08:53, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So someone goes to an article and adds it to Uncategorised musical groups instead of a more specific group? Why not just miss the the middle bit out? noq (talk) 13:25, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • There does seem to be some redundancy here... If categorisation goes through a template, then I can agree with this, but if it is by hand, then delete. Debresser (talk) 16:31, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I regularly categorize articles that I find in this category - no matter what/who adds them. And I consider that acitivity of mine useful. The fact that articles are added looks like proof to me that the category fulfills some sort of need, so keep until a better method for gathering uncategorized musical groups articles is established. BNutzer (talk) 23:43, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but hide. This is a maintenance category, and in principle it sounds like a good idea provided that it is tagged with {{hiddencat}}. As a maintenance category, it should be visible to editors who choose to view hidden categories, but not general readers. If it's not hidden, then delete. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)11:12, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but hide as above. Hiding T 13:01, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete - Just about as much work to categorize pages in this than it would be to properly categorize them. I can understand keeping this sort of category if there were numerous entries, but the fact it is empty means the number of potential pages for this category is manageable so it probably makes more sense just to categorize properly. Also if we want to be technical, this no longer becomes true the moment someone adds the category to the page (even if it becomes hidden, it will still be categorized). VegaDark (talk) 02:45, 26 November 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.

Storms[edit]

Category:South-West Indian Ocean Severe Tropical Storms[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 rename as capitalization fix. Good Ol’factory (talk) 20:51, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:South-West Indian Ocean Severe Tropical Storms to Category:South-West Indian Ocean severe tropical storms
Nominator's rationale: caps –Juliancolton | Talk 00:16, 23 November 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:Very Intense Tropical Cyclones[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 rename as capitalization fix. Good Ol’factory (talk) 20:51, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Very Intense Tropical Cyclones to Category:Very intense tropical cyclones
Nominator's rationale: caps –Juliancolton | Talk 00:15, 23 November 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:South Pacific Tropical Depressions[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 rename as capitalization fix. Good Ol’factory (talk) 20:51, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:South Pacific Tropical Depressions to Category:South Pacific tropical depressions
Nominator's rationale: caps –Juliancolton | Talk 00:13, 23 November 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:Cyclonic Storms[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 rename as capitalization fix. Good Ol’factory (talk) 20:51, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Cyclonic Storms to Category:Cyclonic storms
Nominator's rationale: caps –Juliancolton | Talk 00:10, 23 November 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:Severe Cyclonic Storms[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 rename as capitalization fix. Good Ol’factory (talk) 20:51, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Severe Cyclonic Storms to Category:Severe cyclonic storms
Nominator's rationale: caps –Juliancolton | Talk 00:10, 23 November 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:Super Cyclonic Storms[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 rename as capitalization fix. Good Ol’factory (talk) 20:51, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Super Cyclonic Storms to Category:Super cyclonic storms
Nominator's rationale: caps –Juliancolton | Talk 00:09, 23 November 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:Very Severe Cyclonic Storms[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 rename as capitalization fix. Good Ol’factory (talk) 20:51, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Very Severe Cyclonic Storms to Category:Very severe cyclonic storms
Nominator's rationale: caps. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:06, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_November_23&oldid=1144513264"