Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 May 10

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< May 9 May 11 >

May 10[edit]

Category:MPs elected in UK elections[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:Lists of MPs elected in UK general elections. — ξxplicit 05:59, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:MPs elected in UK elections to Category:Lists of MPs elected in UK elections Category:Lists of MPs elected in UK general elections (adjustment made per discussion)
Nominator's rationale: Rename. It is a category for lists and describes itself as such. Its parents is Category:Lists of United Kingdom MPs. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:55, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
comment ...maybe I'm missing something, but doesn't Category:Lists of United Kingdom MPs cover Category:Lists of MPs elected in UK elections? As in, to be a MP, you have to be elected? Or is there a Category: Lists of United Kingdom MPs not elected in UK elections for those appointe to fill out terms and whatnot? - The Bushranger Return fireFlank speed 00:30, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think the distinction is just that these lists don't include those elected in by-elections that are held at a time other than the general election. These by-elections would occur if an MP died or resigned in the middle of a Parliament. I suppose by-elections are still UK elections, but I think the meaning that is intended is "Lists of MPs elected in UK general elections". If this is thought to be a problem, perhaps we should rename to Category:Lists of MPs elected in UK general elections. |Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:39, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, thanks, that makes more sense. I can Support renaming to Category:Lists of MPs elected in UK general elections, then. - The Bushranger Return fireFlank speed 00:48, 11 May 2010 (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:Criminal defense attorneys[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 05:58, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Criminal defense attorneys to Category:Criminal defense lawyers
Nominator's rationale: Rename. To match main article Criminal defense lawyer. "Attorney" is generally only used in the U.S. and a few other jurisdictions; "lawyer" is much more widespread. It is a subcategory of Category:Lawyers by type. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:50, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support In England, the profession is not divided formally into prosecution and defence solicitors or barristers, but in some countries it is. "Lawyers" is a better global term. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:38, 10 May 2010 (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:Sporting 89' players[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 05:58, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Sporting 89' players to Category:Sporting San Miguelito players
Nominator's rationale: Rename. The team formerly known as Sporting '89 is now Sporting San Miguelito. (If kept for some reason, the apostrophe in the current name is misplaced—should be Category:Sporting '89 players.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:42, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Rename to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 17:56, 11 May 2010 (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:Jewish 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: rename. Quite snowy, too. — ξxplicit 05:58, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Jewish people to Category:Jews
Nominator's rationale: Category:Jews was previously renamed to Category:Jewish people per this discussion, the DRV of which has been closed as overturn and relist. Procedural nomination only, I am neutral. Tim Song (talk) 21:22, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support "Jews" is a perfectly good noun describing persons of Jewish religion or ethnicity without the unnecessary addition of "people". Likewise for Germans, Americans (and many more), but not French (Frenchmen); likewise we have Spaniards and Scots, but Englishmen, Welshmen, and Irishmen (and women), so that in these cases "people" is needed to cover both sexes. This is a typcial case of trying to make one size fit all. This is frequently attempted in WP, but only has the effect of distorting the language. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:10, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support and Rename to Category:Jews only, per nominator, for the reasons cited at the original recent Deletion Review: This long-time category was named Category:Jews since 9 June 2004 [4] to the satisfaction of all editors, particularly experienced and knowledgeable Judaic editors. Suddenly on 10 March 2010, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 March 10#People by ethnicity - Fooians to Fooian people, a barely noticed but sweeping decision was made by a tiny handful of editors, without serious input and discussion from Judaic editors or digging into this at WP:TALKJUDAISM, the long-established Category:Jews was redirected to the new Category:Jewish people, sweeping six years of consensus aside with abruptness and now trying to apply it to other Jews categories. This is wrong for many reasons and should be reversed and overturned and because of the complexity of this topic, these are some of the main reasons: (1) First off, there are over 38 million Google hits for "Jews" but a little over 3 million for "Jewish people", "Jews" outnumbers "Jewish people" 12 to 1. (2) The term "Jews" is not offensive and Jews ARE Jewish "people" -- that's what "Jews" means. (3) This flouts the correct English proper noun and 100% correct translation for the Hebrew word and proper noun for the word Jews = יְהוּדִים Yehudim (singular: Yehudi) and the Yiddish word for Jews = Yidden יידן (singular: Yid) and in all languages Jews are called Jews and not Jewish "people" that defies logic, history, facts, reality, truth and much more. (4) At times Jews or things connected with them are described in adjectival terms as being "Jewish" meaning "of the Jews" or "about the Jews" or "concerning the Jews" but the main subject is always "Jew/s". (5) The usage of the term "Jewish this-and-that" is sometimes helpful and sometimes just wasteful circumlocution, but the correct name for Jews is Jews! (6) In the bulk of the sub-categories in Category:Jews the term "Jews" predominates and correctly so. (7) It would also seriously mess up the fact that Category:Jews is the first half of the key parent category Category:Jews and Judaism. (8) Jews are not an ethnicity as such, see the Jews and Judaism articles to better grasp this. (9) To push all Jews into an "ethnicity" category is a violation of WP:NEO and WP:MADEUP and even of WP:NOR. Wikipedia cannot take on itself to decide serious matters of theology and peoplehood and dump topics relating to "Jews" into categories that are totally incorrect and wasteful. Jews are members of a religion, known as Judaism, and they are also part of a "nation" or as some would have it an "ethnicity" but they cannot be split, unlike Christians who are only part of a religion called Christianity and do not belong to an ethnicity unlike Jews who by definition are both part of a religious group as well as a national/ethnic/cultural group. (10) For this kind of serious discussion relating to the complex subject of Jews and Judaism there should have been very long and highly serious input requested from learned and highly experienced Judaic editors at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism many of whom are highly skilled editors some are admins, fully aware of this subject matter. IZAK (talk) 23:27, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The term Jew has a long history of usage, nothing pejorative about it. The original change was part of a larger change that may have made sense for the other categories, but Jew is a special case. Torchiest (talk | contribs) 00:10, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support and Rename to Category:Jews as discussed on the DRV page. -- Avi (talk) 03:50, 11 May 2010 (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:Music genre compilation albums[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: procedural close. Category nominated for rename previously at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 May 8#Category:Music genre compilation albums. — ξxplicit 05:58, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:Music genre compilation albums to Category:Compilation albums by genre
Nominator's rationale: Merge. To match the "X albums by genre" and "Compilation albums by X" schemes. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:12, 10 May 2010 (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:University of the South alumni[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: redirect to Category:Sewanee: The University of the South alumni. — ξxplicit 05:59, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete Category:University of the South alumni. This is a redundant category. The appropriate category already exists under the schools proper name, Category:Sewanee: The University of the South. Jared Cramer (talk) 18:02, 10 May 2010 (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:Eddie "Lockjaw" Davis albums[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: withdrawn. Mike Selinker (talk) 11:37, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Eddie "Lockjaw" Davis live albums to Category:Eddie Davis live albums
Propose renaming Category:Eddie "Lockjaw" Davis albums to Category:Eddie Davis albums
Nominator's rationale: per main article, Eddie Davis (saxophonist) —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:49, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I doubt anyone ever referred to him as Eddie Davis; if you were to ask jazz fans about an Eddie Davis, the reaction would be blank; Eddie Lockjaw Davis or Jaws would get recognition though. So I reckon the correct thing here would be to conform the article to the category name rather than vice versa. AllyD (talk) 18:27, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response I agree completely that they should match. I am completely indifferent as to which name is better, so if the article gets moved to Eddie "Lockjaw" Davis, consider this withdrawn. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:16, 11 May 2010 (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:Greg Brown albums[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 both. — ξxplicit 05:58, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Greg Brown live albums to Category:Greg Brown (folk musician) live albums
Propose renaming Category:Greg Brown albums to Category:Greg Brown (folk musician) albums
Nominator's rationale: To dab, per Greg Brown. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:41, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Change it. Airproofing (talk) 19:26, 10 May 2010 (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:Jewish American film directors[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. If anyone intends to pursue a review of the deletion of Category:Jewish film directors, please remember: (1) to contact the editor who closed the discussion for that category; and (2) that Jewish American film directors is a triple-intersection and, therefore, requires additional justification beyond Jewish film directors.
If anyone would like to pursue Doorautomatica's suggestion of a list, I can provide a list of the articles in this category. -- Black Falcon (talk) 19:43, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Jewish American film directors (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Fails WP:OC: Non-notable intersections by ethnicity, religion, or sexual orientation / Intersection by location. Rob Sinden (talk) 10:57, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This category might make sense if it focused on Jewish American film directors who have made films pertaining to Judaism, but then the category name would still be imprecise. That idea would be better served as a list anyway, I would think. -- doorautomatica (talk) 13:54, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep.

1. Nationality. The Jews are a nation, not just a religion. Jews are members of the Jewish people (also known as the Jewish nation). The Wiki definition of "nationality" states, inter alia: "Generally, nationality is established at birth by a child's place of birth (jus soli) and/or bloodline (jus sanguinis)." In the (abnormal) case of Jews, who consist of a nation that has largely been dispersed from its homeland, it would not be appropriate to delete.

Other religions are in the "normal case" distinct from the nation. In other words, there was not a Protestant, or Buddhist, or Christian, or Hindu, or Aethiest nation per se. They are not a "people." They are not a "nation." Jews, peculiarly, are not just a religion. They are also a nation. Dispersed (largely) for a couple of thousand years.

2. Notability. Wiki policy calls for a sensitivity towards "notability." To determine what notability means here, one must go to Wikipedia:Notability (people), the notability criteria guideline for Wikipedia. That guideline states, inter alia, that "Notability on Wikipedia for people is based on the following criterion: The person has been a primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person. This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, magazine articles, books, scholarly papers, and television documentaries ...."

Thus, where one is noted as being a Jew in multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person, such as newspaper articles, magazine articles, books, and the like, they meet the notability requirement. And thus it would be appropriate to have a distinct category.

That the intersection is notable is clear to anyone familiar with the area, or who does a google search. Entire books have been written on the intersection. As American Jewish filmmakers, by David Desser and Lester D. Friedman

3. See also Wiki Naming Convention Policy 3.3, which demonstrates that something such as this is clearly contemplated, saying ...

Heritage People are sometimes categorized by notable ancestry, culture, or ethnicity, depending upon the common conventions of speech for each nationality. A hyphen is used to distinguish the word order: ....The heritage should be combined with the occupation, replacing the nationality alone (for example, Category:African-American actors).

Concurrent citizenship may be reflected by duplicating the occupation (for example, Category:Jewish American actors and Category:Israeli actors)."

Furthermore, per Wikipedia:Categorization/Ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality, "General categorization by ethnicity, gender, religion, or sexuality is permitted', with the following considerations:
  1. Terminology must be neutral....
  2. Subcategories by country are permitted, although terminology must be appropriate to the person's cultural context....
  3. Inclusion must be justifiable by external references. (For example: regardless of whether you have personal knowledge of a notable individual's sexual orientation, they should only be filed in a LGBT-related category after verifiable, reliable sources have been provided in the article that support the assertion.) People who occupy the grey areas are not a valid argument against the existence of the category at all; if they don't fit, they just shouldn't be added to it."
Clearly, this category is just the sort contemplated by Wikipedia guidelines.

The Jewish ethnicity, nation, and religion of Judaism are strongly interrelated, as Judaism is the traditional faith of the Jewish nation.[1][2][3]

  1. ^ [1] "The Jewish Problem: How To Solve It," U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louis D. Brandeis, "Jews are a distinctive nationality of which every Jew, whatever his country, his station or shade of belief, is necessarily a member" (April 25, 1915), University of Louisville Louis D. Brandeis School of Law, Retrieved on June 15, 2009
  2. ^ [2] Palmer, Henry, A History of the Jewish Nation (1875), D. Lothrop & Co., Retrieved on June 15, 2009
  3. ^ [3] "The Collected Papers of Albert Einstein, Vol. 7: Berlin Years," U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louis D. Brandeis, "The Jewish Nation is a living fact" (June 21, 1921), Princeton University Press, Retrieved on June 15, 2009

--Epeefleche (talk) 07:31, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wow - Impressive response. However, whilst I could accept that Category:American film directors, Category:Jewish film directors and Category:American Jews may be valid categories, is the INTERSECTION necessary, or is this a case of overcategorisation? Rob Sinden (talk) 08:15, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah - It would seem that previously Category:Jewish film directors was deleted after prior discussion, so by that reckoning, Category:Jewish American film directors is definitely overcategorisation. Rob Sinden (talk) 08:22, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Rob. I would chalk that up to the vagaries of this process, as not all editors are involved in each discussion. Frankly, this type of CfD comes up frequently, and some editors (me included) get bored with it after a while, and then some deletions slip in. It's not like the US Supreme Court, where the same justices (or those who replace them) review all the cases, leading to consistency. In fact, it would be best IMHO to just have an understanding that -- for the above reasons -- the intersection is as notable as an intersection with nationality in general. In category after category one will find more RS support for that than, say, "Monaco scientists", or "Malta film directors" or "Luxembourg windsurfers".--Epeefleche (talk) 21:55, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But we're talking about an additional intersection here. Whether or not you count Judaism as a nationality, "Jewish American", cannot be counted as such. Rob Sinden (talk) 08:04, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Not only do I find Epeefleche's arguments convincing, there are over 160 articles in this category, which means that a large number of Wiki users also considered this category of value. Davshul (talk) 16:13, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to point out that all these additions could heve been made by one, or a handful of editors. Rob Sinden (talk) 08:04, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- But if it wasn't done "correctly so", which for the reasons expressed above I maintain is the case, we should not compound the error but making it twice.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:52, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's policy: WP:OC#CATGRS. Jewish mathemeticians is even given as an example of overcategorisation, let alone the equivalent "Jewish American mathematicians" with the additional intersection. Rob Sinden (talk) 11:54, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OC is a guideline, not a policy—but your overall point does still stand. It is a guideline. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:53, 17 May 2010 (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.

Populated places by year of establishment[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 all, while preserving the BC format, rather than the BCE format. As the year and decade categories were not listed or tagged, they will not be renamed with this batch. — ξxplicit 05:58, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming:
Nominator's rationale: Rename per Wikipedia talk:Categorization/Categorising human settlements and Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 April 17#Category:Settlements. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:56, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose to changing BC to BCE. BC is correctly used here. Vegaswikian (talk) 08:24, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support the rest of the proposal and the BC renames as long as they go to populated places using BC and not BCE. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:20, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per above, though redirects should be created. --Extra 999 (Contact me + contribs) 08:37, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support change of 'Settlements' to 'Populated places' per many similar discussions. Oppose any other changes as no rationale is supplied. Occuli (talk) 14:18, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stongly Oppose BCE. Jesus Christ was a historical figure, as even Jewish commentaries (Targums?) admit. BCE is an attempt to deny this truth. I also oppose the change from settlement, which is much better than populated place, but it seems I am in a minority on this. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:15, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per above. - The Bushranger Return fireFlank speed 00:31, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support "populated places" change. It seems like there's no support for "BCE," so I propose that the closing decision be restricted to the change to "populated places."--Mike Selinker (talk) 19:47, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose changing BC to BCE. BCE would be inconsistant with all other by year categories. *Support populated places change, such as for the AD centuries.
    Also waiting on bot approval here to tag things just like this.şṗøʀĸɕäɾłäů∂ɛ:τᴀʟĸ 01:21, 12 May 2010 (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:Alleged al-Qaeda safe houses[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 05:59, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Alleged al-Qaeda safe houses (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. We don't normally categorize based on allegations. I suspect that there are also POV issues at play here. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:31, 10 May 2010 (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:Shelters[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: depopulate and establish disambiguation category. — ξxplicit 05:59, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Shelters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Grouping of unlike items. What do an animal shelter, a bed and breakfast and the space station have in common? The main article is a dab page. If you stretch the point here, everything in Category:Buildings and structures is a shelter. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:17, 10 May 2010 (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:Mammals of India[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Keep. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:55, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Mammals of India (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Large category of little use and often incorrect - sources lacking unlike the list of mammals of India Shyamal (talk) 02:08, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete - as per nom. I'd deleted this anon's addition of it before. It's time for it to be more formal. - UtherSRG (talk) 05:13, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment since India is a subcontinent, its use is appropriate. WP does not have sources for categories. If non-Indian mammals are included, then edit the article and delete the category for those where it is wrong. I have often opposed species by country categories, but this is not really one. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:19, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Part of the problem is that there is Category:Fauna_of_the_Indian_Subcontinent and a covert aim of the key contributor (anonymous dynamic IP - from Manchester) seems to be to show that the Subcontinent is not just India political - in fact there was even a Category:Fauna of Kashmir (Kashmir is a politically disputed region). The aim is mainly some kind of political statement. I can see the purpose for endemic species, but the vast majority are found across national boundaries within the Subcontinent (at least the mainland). This would be just a precedent as the anon IP is now into other things like Category:Frogs_of_India soon (and there is Category:Amphibians_of_India the difference between the two in theory being one species of newt). Shyamal (talk) 03:40, 11 May 2010 (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:Campbell family[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/2010 May 17. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:03, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Campbell family to Category:Campbell family (Sierra Leone)
Nominator's rationale: Campbell is a common surname - disambiguation needed Mayumashu (talk) 01:59, 10 May 2010 (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:Krio Organizations[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/2010 May 18#Category:Krio Organizations. — ξxplicit 05:58, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming/merging

(:Propose keeping

Nominator's rationale: to disambiguate Krio while matching these category pages to the article page Sierra Leone Creole Mayumashu (talk) 00:14, 10 May 2010 (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/2010_May_10&oldid=1138394256"