Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 April 18

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< April 17 April 19 >

April 18[edit]

Category:Multi - Cultural Theatre[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 11:51, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Multi - Cultural Theatre (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Multi-Disciplinary Theatre (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete Both categories were created to include The Bridge - Stage of the Arts but the two concepts are too vague to be the basis of categories. Pichpich (talk) 23:56, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Vague? Multi-Disciplinary Theatre and Multi- Cultural Theatre are known and widely used terms and concepts If one Googles either one, the results speak for themselves. Mx96 18:55, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not saying they're unused. I'm saying that they're ill-defined terms that have various meanings for various people. If there's not a clear-cut line, then there's no objective way to populate the categories. Pichpich (talk) 13:29, 21 April 2011 (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:Wikipedians who contribute using Google Chrome[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 11:52, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:Wikipedians who contribute using Google Chrome to Category:Wikipedians who use Google Chrome
Nominator's rationale: Speedy merge Pichpich (talk) 23:38, 18 April 2011 (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:Guards Division[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, with discussion becoming confused. A new CFD can be opened if necessary. Dana boomer (talk) 13:38, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Guards Division to Category:Household Division
Nominator's rationale: The Division mentioned is officially and popularly known as the Household Division, so I feel the category should be named to reflect that. Philip.t.day talk 23:18, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Perhaps other editors may find something like "Category:Household Division (British Army)" more attractive, but overall I think it is pretty well known that the Household Division refers to the 5 foot guards regiments and 2 mounted guards regiments. Just my opinion of course. Philip.t.day talk 00:16, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. In light of that, I feel this discussion may get a bit messy - as we are now also considering an umbrella category. Just to summarise: We could:
1. Rename to 'Guards Division (British Army)'
2. Rename to 'Household Division (British Army)'
3. Rename to 'Household Division' - although this may now be an obsolete issue.
4. Create an umbrella category called 'Household Division' for the category under discussion, as well as the 'Household Cavalry.' Philip.t.day talk 10:05, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. We usually name categories after the article so Brigade of Guards would be OK - If Household Division is ambiguous of which I'm not convinced, the correct disambiguation would be Household Division (United Kingdom) as per numerous other British Army Division cats. In terms of merging the two cats into Household Division this defects the object of categorising two autonomous and seperate organisations Kernel Saunters (talk) 10:18, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I move to early close as the above discussion is now pretty confused and a new CFD can be opened if necessary Kernel Saunters (talk) 13:04, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I would second that suggestion at this juncture. Philip.t.day talk 13:23, 19 April 2011 (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:Modus (band)[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 11:50, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Modus (band) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete per well-established precedent on eponymous categories for bands. Pichpich (talk) 23:13, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – perhaps its creator could explain why its 2 subcats are empty (although Modus (band) have several albums). Occuli (talk) 01:00, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – there are now 3 non-empty subcats and such eponymous musical cats (with more than 2 subcats) have been not been deleted at cfd since around 2007. Occuli (talk) 10:07, 20 April 2011 (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:EMBO members[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Relist, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 April 26. Dana boomer (talk) 13:41, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:EMBO members to Category:Members of the European Molecular Biology Organization
Nominator's rationale: Rename Acronym should be expanded. I suppose this is a speedy candidate but some might question the very relevance of the category. Pichpich (talk) 23:03, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. An important organization, but the acronynm is not well known. GcSwRhIc (talk) 23:30, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • leave unchanged, the full acronym is a bit of a mouthful and the category page links to the relevant info. Also comes up in a logical place in google results google.com/search?q=EMBO+members Duncan.Hull (talk) 08:02, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The acronym attracts 12 times as many ghits (at 3.2 million), but then the first page includes a Wookie bounty hunter. I have heard EMBO used as a word/name, and have never seen the expansion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:33, 20 April 2011 (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:Aquiles[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 11:50, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Aquiles (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete eponymous category. Can't see what else might make it into the category. Pichpich (talk) 22:50, 18 April 2011 (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:Sesame Street human cast[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 11:49, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Sesame Street human cast (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Actors don't get categories based on the TV shows they've been on. Harley Hudson (talk) 20:43, 18 April 2011 (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:Mysterious Island[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 11:48, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Mysterious Island to Category:Mysterious Island (Disney)
Propose renaming Category:Adventureland to Category:Adventureland (Disney)
Propose renaming Category:American Waterfront to Category:American Waterfront (Disney)
Propose renaming Category:Arabian Coast to Category:Arabian Coast (Disney)
Propose renaming Category:Liberty Square to Category:Liberty Square (Magic Kingdom)
Propose renaming Category:Mermaid Lagoon to Category:Mermaid Lagoon (Disney)
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Rename to match main article. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:57, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I created these categories and have no objection to the proposed renaming. Themeparkgc  Talk  22:12, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hopefully I can also propose the following for the same reason:
Propose renaming Category:Production Courtyard to Category:Production Courtyard (Walt Disney Studios Park)
Propose renaming Category:Toon Studio to Category:Toon Studio (Walt Disney Studios Park)
Propose renaming Category:Backlot to Category:Backlot (Walt Disney Studios Park)
Thanks Themeparkgc  Talk  08:26, 22 April 2011 (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:Disney themed area[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Rename to Category:Themed areas in Disney parks. Timrollpickering (talk) 11:47, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Disney themed area to Category:Disney themed areas
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Category names are generally plural. I also wonder if Category:Themed areas in Disney parks or Category:Disney parks themed areas would be better choices. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:51, 18 April 2011 (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:Golden State[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 11:46, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Golden State to Category:Golden State (Disney's California Adventure)
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Golden State is ambiguous. Rename to match the name of the main article. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:46, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I created this category and have no objection to the proposed renaming. Themeparkgc  Talk  22:12, 19 April 2011 (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:Aircraft architecture[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 11:46, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Aircraft architecture (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Entirely redundant with Category:Aircraft and Category: Aerospace engineering. Seems to be created as a (properly spelled) clone of Category:Aircraft arquitecture under the same rationale. (In Spanish, and other Romance languages, the word "architecture" has a broader connotation than in English.) Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû (blah?) 19:30, 18 April 2011 (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:Wikipedians who participate in the US Collaboration of the Week[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 11:44, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Wikipedians who participate in the US Collaboration of the Week to Category:Wikipedians who participate in the U.S. Collaboration of the Month
Nominator's rationale: The initiative now goes by the name "U.S. Collaboration of the Month". -- Black Falcon (talk) 19:14, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. A speediable misspelling? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:35, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speediable, perhaps, as routine housekeeping, but it was not a misspelling: the initiative was a COTW that became inactive and was revived as a COTM. -- Black Falcon (talk) 00:59, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy support: Non-controversial housekeeping Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 00:28, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. VegaDark (talk) 05:12, 24 April 2011 (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:WikiProject on User Warnings[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 11:44, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:WikiProject on User Warnings to Category:WikiProject User warnings
Nominator's rationale: To match the name of the WikiProject: "WikiProject user warnings". Even though the main project page uses a lower-case "user", I think an upper-case "User" is more appropriate for the category title: a glance through Special:PrefixIndex/Category:WikiProject shows that almost all WikiProject categories capitalize the word that follows "WikiProject", regardless of whether the word is a common or proper noun. -- Black Falcon (talk) 18:26, 18 April 2011 (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 Toronto Scarborough[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Merge. Timrollpickering (talk) 11:43, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:University of Toronto Scarborough to Category:University of Toronto
Nominator's rationale: Merge. This category only has a couple of links. It shows no potential for future growth and is quite a narrow category as the articles listed here are properties of the University of Toronto and can easily be listed at that respective category. EelamStyleZ (talk) 16:50, 18 April 2011 (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 Toronto Mississauga[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 11:43, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:University of Toronto Mississauga to Category:University of Toronto
Nominator's rationale: Merge. This category only has a couple of links. It shows no potential for future growth and is quite a narrow category as the articles listed here are properties of the University of Toronto and can easily be listed at that respective category. EelamStyleZ (talk) 16:50, 18 April 2011 (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:Towns and villages in Shanghai Province[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:Towns in Shanghai. Timrollpickering (talk) 11:42, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Towns and villages in Shanghai Province to Category:Towns and villages in Shanghai
Nominator's rationale: Misleading, as Shanghai is a municipality, not a province HXL's Roundtable and Record 16:00, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • By all means, no problem here.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:01, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question. What is a municipality in China? Can cities really include towns and villages in addition the neighborhoods? Vegaswikian (talk) 18:02, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'd rather you reference it yourself first than come asking here, though I have no problem explaining it to you. In formal terms, a municipality is strictly a city that is controlled directly by the central government; hence it is akin to, but not the same as, a province. And yes, towns (镇) are classified as 4th-level divisions while villages (村) are 5th-level, so they can be administratively parts of designated cities. Don't know about neighbourhoods though. --HXL's Roundtable and Record 18:40, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I did and was getting more confused in trying to sort it out. Thanks for the explanation. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:48, 18 April 2011 (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.

Delete Coal power in the United States, Coal power by country, Coal power[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 11:54, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose deleting Category:Coal power in the United States and Category:Coal power by country and Category:Coal power
Nominator's rationale: The American category has only 4 articles which can be upmerged to Category:Coal in the United States; most “country” articles on coal are about mining rather than power generation apart from articles on individual power stations. There are 8 countries in the category Category:Coal by country, and more country categories could be added , eg Russia and China. Hugo999 (talk) 10:53, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The series of nation-specific coal articles was very sparse when I was working on them, and I never had any intention of fostering different "coal power" and "coal" article series. Because I thought I was the only one dong it, I used "coal power", consistent with the "nuclear power", "wind power", and other series of articles. Other editors, however, argued for separate articles. If an article gets big enough, we could get into the subcategories of mining, generation, emissions, etc. but until then I want this to be kept as simple as possible. I really don't care which one is used, just get it consolidated. -Theanphibian (talk • contribs) 20:25, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Clarify. Several seperate articles fine, but one category per country Hugo999 (talk) 09:59, 20 April 2011 (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:Medieval Arab physicians[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 as is. A new CFD may be necessary to rename the categories that do not conform to the naming scheme of the two nominated categories.. Dana boomer (talk) 13:44, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Medieval Arab physicians to Category:Arab physicians of medieval Islam
Propose renaming Category:Medieval Moorish physicians to Category:Moorish physicians of medieval Islam
Nominator's rationale: Rename. More consistent with the categories under Category:Physicians of medieval Islam:
Category:Persian physicians of medieval Islam
Category:Jewish physicians of medieval Islam
Category:Assyrian physicians of medieval Islam. Al-Andalusi (talk) 05:39, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would add that two of the examples mentioned above by the Nominator represent the two instances where the Nominator has retained that national (or ethnic) character of the categories. However he has emptied the contents of the pre-existing categories and moved the contents to two new categories created by him. (Clearly in contravention of Wiki guidelines - he should have opened a cfd for renaming.) However, as a start I proposed that this action be reversed by the following actions:
Propose merger of Category:Persian physicians of medieval Islam into Category:Medieval Persian physicians
Propose merger of Category:Assyrian physicians of medieval Islam into Category:Medieval Assyrian physicians
A lot of work appears to be necessary to undue the unilateral action taken by the Nominator. Davshul (talk) 13:29, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: You have clearly missed a lot of the discussions going on for the last months regarding the categorization of scientists in medieval Islam (here "medieval Islam" has both geographical and temporal definitions, and not a religious definition to compare it to "medieval Christianity". The term includes notable Arabs and non-Arabs, Muslims and non-Muslims who lived in medieval Islamic civlization from North Africa and Al-Andalus in the west to India in the east, from the 7th to 15/16th centuries). So there is no need for the agenda accusations. Please see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 April 2#Islamic Golden Age and also some support for the idea of removing "modern-day" Iraq, Syria, Egypt...etc Al-Andalusi (talk) 13:51, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I also would like to add that the Iraqi/Egyptian/Syrian/Azerbaijani or any "modern-day" country category were created at a time when we did not have Category:Physicians of medieval Islam (recently created then renamed by concensus).
Al-Andalusi. The discussion to which you referred centers around the replacement of the term "Islamic Golden Age", which resulted in a decision to rename to "medieval Islam". However, the choice of the latter name was hardly conclusive and the administrator's decision states that "followup nominations might produce a different result". The decision did not, either explicitly or impliedly, authorize the renaming, without any form of discussion, of a large number of categories that did not even have the word 'Islam' as part of their title. At the very least, were such changes merely for the sake of consistency, which I strongly contend is not the case, such changes of name would have required the use of the CFD/Speedy procedure. Instead you merely emptied the old categories of their contents and transferred the contents to new categories created by you. For example, in the case of Category:Medieval Persian physicians, you individually removed nearly 50 articles to the new category created by you, rather than making a single CFD nomination. As you appear to be an experienced Wiki user, my assumption was that such laborious action was undertaken by you in order to try to avoid discussion, but am willing to accept that it was done in "good faith" if you can justify why this and similar actions were taken by you in an apparent contravention of Wiki guidelines. Also your reference to "some support" for the idea of removing "modern-day" country names (which was not the subject of a full discussion, let alone a decision) is hardly a justification for your unilateral actions. Davshul (talk) 12:32, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just to echo this, when I closed that discussion, the consensus was merely about finding a replacement for the term "Islamic Golden Age." Nothing about that close took a position on whether "medieval Islam," the term I selected from the offered options, was the right term for other categories with differing content.--Mike Selinker (talk) 22:06, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: The renaming of 'national' categories to 'religious' or 'civilizational' categories is certainly a process of the utmost importance which has not been discussed enough. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 15:58, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I don't think I'd like to like to see a whole set of categories "<Ethnicity> <profession> in <time frame>". "<Etnicity> <profession>" and "<Profession> in <time frame>" should suffice. —Ruud 16:15, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
IMO, all the categories you listed above should be merged into Category:Physicians of medieval Islam. —Ruud 17:19, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: <whatever> of medieval Islam just sounds strange. It sounds as though you're saying that Islam is medieval, which means "old-fashioned, primitive" according to the dictionary, and is insulting. "Moorish physicians of the Middle Ages" would be fine. "Islamic physicians of the middle ages". --Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû (blah?) 19:47, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Strange wording. The current wording is much better. -- Necrothesp (talk) 22:37, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support medieval Islam is the most concise means of conveying the necessary information. Islamic civilization of the Middle Ages might be better, but it would not fit in the dropdown list on the search box. Consistency is clearly the guiding principle here. And why would some wish to obscure the contributions Islamic civilization, with its relatively tolerant multiculturalism, made to the sciences and world civilization as a whole? As for the Scientists of Christianity, this term is a misnomer. The correct phrase would be Scientists of Christendom. Note here Islamdom has been suggested by some to distinguish the religion from the civilization it fostered, but the word has never come into general use. English has no separate word for Islamic civilization. -Aquib (talk) 03:54, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, nationalism is a relatively recent development, and can be misleading when used in the context of medieval history. -Aquib (talk) 04:01, 20 April 2011 (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:Davachi Rayon[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 11:41, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Davachi Rayon to Category:Shabran Rayon
Propose renaming Category:Davachi Rayon geography stubs to Category:Shabran Rayon geography stubs
Nominator's rationale: Rename. I am not an expert of the topic, but the main article of the category tree was renamed to Shabran Rayon in 2010. Silvonen (talk) 04:47, 18 April 2011 (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.

Architecture by year in the US[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 11:40, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:1923 architecture in the United States to Category:Buildings and structures completed in 1923
Propose merging Category:1980 architecture in the United States to Category:Buildings and structures completed in 1980
Propose merging Category:1994 architecture in the United States to Category:Buildings and structures completed in 1994
Nominator's rationale: Merge. Based on previous discussions categorizing buildings built in a specific year in by country categories, this does not appear to be a supported concept. The articles here seem to be grouped based on the year of completion. So simply upmerge to the logical parent category. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:32, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per previous discussion. These categories are not useful in any way. --Elekhh (talk) 04:09, 19 April 2011 (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/2011_April_18&oldid=1136463093"