Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 January 17

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< January 16 January 18 >

January 17[edit]

Category:Fictional people by medium[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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 01:22, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:Fictional people by medium to Category:Fictional characters by medium
Nominator's rationale: These are redundant, unless I'm missing something here. "Characters" are more generic than "people" (read: "persons"), so that seems better to me. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:56, 17 January 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:United States Army Air Forces in 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: Rename per nom. Ruslik_Zero 17:24, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:United States Army Air Forces in films to Category:Films about the United States Army Air Forces
Nominator's rationale: Rename. As with the other USAAF categories listed below, this would bring the category into "X of Y" compliance, and consistency with other C:USAAF subcats. In addition, there are already Category:Films about the French Resistance and Category:Films about the German Resistance, and Category:Films about the First Indochina War as fellow subcategories of Category:Films set in the 1940s, so this would bring this category into line with them as well. The Bushranger One ping only 23:54, 17 January 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.

USAAF X of Y renamings[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 Category:United States Army Air Forces groups and formations to Category:Groups and formations of the United States Army Air Forces (the 'X of Y' convention is dominant in that category tree); do not rename the others. Perhaps it might help to clarify consensus if future discussion focused on higher-level categories, such as the sub-subcategories of Category:Military personnel by branch (at a glance, most or all currently seem to use the 'Foo personnel' format). If consensus to rename to 'Personnel of Foo' is reached on such high-level categories, the subcategories can then be changed via the speedy renaming process. -- Black Falcon (talk) 03:19, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Category:United States Army Air Forces groups and formations to Category:Groups and formations of the United States Army Air Forces
Rename Category:United States Army Air Forces personnel to Category:Personnel of the United States Army Air Forces
Rename Category:United States Army Air Forces officers to Category:Officers of the United States Army Air Forces
Rename Category:United States Army Air Forces generals to Category:Generals of the United States Army Air Forces
Rename Category:United States Army Air Forces pilots to Category:Pilots of the United States Army Air Forces
Rename Category:United States Army Air Forces soldiers to Category:Soldiers of the United States Army Air Forces
Nominator's rationale: These renamings to "X of Y" standard were submitted for speedy but objected to on the grounds that "This would put this category out of sync with the names of similar categories for the rest of the US armed forces". We don't demolish the house because it's half-built; these categories are being submitted a few at a time in easy-to-handle blocks, in the end they will all be 'in sync' with the X of Y standard, which is highly reccomended. It should also be noted that two subcategories of Category:United States Army Air Forces are already in X of Y format ("Airfields of..." and "Awards and decorations of..."), and these would "sync up" the rest of the subcats (bar "in films", listed seperatly) with them. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:50, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • do no rename no reason whatsoever has been provided as to why these should be renamed to these new names or anything else. These names are in sync with all other names of the similar US armed forces personnel categories as well as non-US armed forces personnel. Justification must be provided as to why all of these from all services and countries should be renamed from what appear to be their perfectly satisfactory present names. Hmains (talk) 04:02, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...did you even read the explanation? All those other categories you mention are going to be renamed in the future, this is just the first batch. Nomininating all those categories at the same time would be ridiculous; it's done one batch at a time. And they're not "perfectly satisfactory", the general consensus is that "X of Y" is the preferred format for category names. - The Bushranger One ping only 04:06, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see no justication for renaming one such category and no justification for renaming them all. There is no such consensus or general use. In these cases, the most important attribute should come first as they do: the armed service involved. And repeating that you want it changed changes no opinions Hmains (talk) 03:52, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you say there's no consensus for X of Y, you clearly don't come around CfD very often. But ah well. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:55, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmmm. I've just read WP:NCCAT several times and I must confess I can find nothing that backs up your statement. Am I missing something? To me, these constructions look artificial and forced when involving people. For instance, we don't in common speech say that someone was "an officer of the United States Army Air Forces". We say he was a United States Army Air Forces officer (or more commonly simply a USAAF officer) or maybe an officer in the United States Army Air Forces. I actually have no problem with Category:Groups and formations of the United States Army Air Forces. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:18, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, but not by mine. I can't find any evidence that it recommends anything of the sort. And while I do agree that "X of Y" is best for most categories, I do not think it should be used when that results in odd English, as I think it does here. We should not slavishly adhere to something unless it results in something better. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:37, 20 January 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.

Foo Archbishops and Bishops[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. -- Black Falcon (talk) 02:04, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Closer's notes
Based on this discussion, and this one, there appear to be two main ways to interpret the title of a category such as Roman Catholic Bishops of Toronto:

  1. (Roman Catholic bishops) (of Toronto) or (Roman Catholic) (bishops) (of Toronto), where "Roman Catholic" identifies the denomination, "bishops" identifies the occupation and "of Toronto" identifies the location
  2. (Roman Catholic) (Bishops of Toronto), where "Roman Catholic" identifies the denomination or diocese and "Bishops of Toronto" identifies the position or title

In the case of the former meaning, Category:Roman Catholic bishops of Toronto would be the correct title. In the case of the latter, Category:Bishops of Toronto (Roman Catholic) or Category:Bishops of the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Toronto (the second form was suggested by Lear's Fool in the 15 January discussion) would be correct. The current (capitalized) form also could be said to be correct, but it is not unambiguous.
The consensus in this discussion is that "Bishop of Foo" and "Archbishop of Foo" are formal titles and, therefore, should be capitalized. A follow-up nomination to consider alternate, less ambiguous naming likely would be useful.

Propose renaming Category:Anglican Archbishops of Brisbane to Category:Anglican archbishops of Brisbane
Propose renaming Category:Anglican Archbishops of Cashel to Category:Anglican archbishops of Cashel
Propose renaming Category:Anglican Archbishops of Central Africa to Category:Anglican archbishops of Central Africa
Propose renaming Category:Anglican Archbishops of Dublin to Category:Anglican archbishops of Dublin
Propose renaming Category:Anglican Archbishops of Kenya to Category:Anglican archbishops of Kenya
Propose renaming Category:Anglican Bishops of Ballarat to Category:Anglican bishops of Ballarat
Propose renaming Category:Anglican Bishops of Dorchester to Category:Anglican bishops of Dorchester
Propose renaming Category:Anglican Bishops of Gibraltar to Category:Anglican bishops of Gibraltar
Propose renaming Category:Anglican Bishops of Lancaster to Category:Anglican bishops of Lancaster
Propose renaming Category:Anglican Bishops of Liverpool to Category:Anglican bishops of Liverpool
Propose renaming Category:Anglican Bishops of Plymouth to Category:Anglican bishops of Plymouth
Propose renaming Category:Anglican Bishops of Richmond to Category:Anglican bishops of Richmond
Propose renaming Category:Anglican Bishops of Wellington to Category:Anglican bishops of Wellington
Propose renaming Category:Roman Catholic Archbishops of Armagh to Category:Roman Catholic archbishops of Armagh
Propose renaming Category:Roman Catholic Archbishops of Cashel to Category:Roman Catholic archbishops of Cashel
Propose renaming Category:Roman Catholic Archbishops of Detroit to Category:Roman Catholic archbishops of Detroit
Propose renaming Category:Roman Catholic Archbishops of Dublin to Category:Roman Catholic archbishops of Dublin
Propose renaming Category:Roman Catholic Archbishops of Edmonton to Category:Roman Catholic archbishops of Edmonton
Propose renaming Category:Roman Catholic Archbishops of Melbourne to Category:Roman Catholic archbishops of Melbourne
Propose renaming Category:Roman Catholic Archbishops of Munich and Freising to Category:Roman Catholic archbishops of Munich and Freising
Propose renaming Category:Roman Catholic Archbishops of New York to Category:Roman Catholic archbishops of New York
Propose renaming Category:Roman Catholic Archbishops of San Francisco to Category:Roman Catholic archbishops of San Francisco
Propose renaming Category:Roman Catholic Archbishops of São Salvador da Bahia to Category:Roman Catholic archbishops of São Salvador da Bahia
Propose renaming Category:Roman Catholic Archbishops of Tuam to Category:Roman Catholic archbishops of Tuam
Propose renaming Category:Roman Catholic Bishops and Archbishops of Vancouver to Category:Roman Catholic bishops and archbishops of Vancouver
Propose renaming Category:Roman Catholic Bishops of Detroit to Category:Roman Catholic bishops of Detroit
Propose renaming Category:Roman Catholic Bishops of Dromore to Category:Roman Catholic bishops of Dromore
Propose renaming Category:Roman Catholic Bishops of Honolulu to Category:Roman Catholic bishops of Honolulu
Propose renaming Category:Roman Catholic Bishops of Meath to Category:Roman Catholic bishops of Meath
Propose renaming Category:Roman Catholic Bishops of Pittsburgh to Category:Roman Catholic bishops of Pittsburgh
Propose renaming Category:Roman Catholic Bishops of Quebec to Category:Roman Catholic bishops of Quebec
Propose renaming Category:Roman Catholic Bishops of Steubenville to Category:Roman Catholic bishops of Steubenville
Propose renaming Category:Roman Catholic Bishops of Toronto to Category:Roman Catholic bishops of Toronto
Nominator's rationale: Rename. These were originally speedied to correct the capitalization here. They were disputed on the grounds that Roman Catholic bishops of Foo suggests there is a post "Roman Catholic Bishop of Foo" when it's actually just "Bishop of Foo". I argued that as they were (with capital Bishop) that did look the case but by making it lower-case it means they are just generic bishops who are Roman Catholic. There are about 70 existing categories with the form Roman Catholic (or Anglican) bishops of Foo. I say rename to correct the capitalization and match the existing category naming scheme. Tassedethe (talk) 23:48, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. (I don't see that either capitalisation makes any implication about the title of the post. A capital B suggests a group of people, 'the Bishops of Toronto', a chess team perhaps.) Occuli (talk) 01:18, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I would suggest that disambiguation in this case should be through parentheses, i.e.Category:Bishops of Foo (Roman Catholic). This avoids any suggestion that the position is titled "Roman Catholic Bishop (or bishop) of Foo" and is in line with the preferred disambiguation convention. The main problem with this is that the parent articles are named Roman Catholic Diocese of Foo (i.e. Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Melbourne). Ideally the articles should be titled as Archdiocese of Melbourne (Roman Catholic) etc. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 01:53, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose proposal. These are categories for the holder of a post which will be known as "Bishop of Foo", and the category should follow that format, with a denonminational disambiguator added if needed, as in "Bishop of Foo (Roman Catholic)" or "Bishop of Foo (Anglican)". I contested the speedy, because the proposal in front of us just makes a bad situation worse, and a convention has emerged to use "Denomination Bishops of Foo" or "Denomination bishops of Foo", it needs to be corrected.
    I don't known we got to a situation where "Roman Catholic archbishops of Tuam" is considered to be acceptable, because the title is always capitalised as "Archbishop of Tuam". The only explanation I can see is that someone had mistakenly extrapolated the capitalisation from the national container categories, such as Category:Roman Catholic bishops in Ireland, without spotting that the container category requires different capitalisation because it does not refer to a post. "Jim is a bishop", but "Jim is the Bishop of Foo". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:36, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose -- The title is "Archbishop of Tuam", not "archbishop of Tuam". The denomination is an adjective. Similarly Duke of Leinster, Earl of Arundel, etc. This debate arose out of the renaming of Anglican bishops in Australia with their denomination , adopting this word order. I could support an alternative rename to "Archbishop of Tuam (Roman Catholic), if preferred. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:11, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The debate about Anglican bishops in Australia did not adopt this word order de novo; it was (and remains for the moment) the accepted manner of disambiguating bishops (and dioceses). -- Mattinbgn (talk) 20:12, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Where exactly was this discussion was which decided that "Bishop of Foo" is a description rather than a title? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:25, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment Where have I said that there was any such discussion or even mentioned "descriptions and titles" at all? The word order with the denomination at the front e.g. "Anglican Archbishop of Brisbane" and "Anglican Diocese of Brisbane" as opposed to "Archbishop of Brisbane (Anglican)" and "Archdiocese of Brisbane (Anglican)" was not created out of the recent renaming of Australian Anglican bishop categories - it has been around for some time and appears to be the standard convention. As it happens, after the point you raised at the RM for Category:Archbishops of Melbourne, I think the convention should be changed, not just for categories but for articles about the dioceses as well. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 20:57, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per user Peterkingiron. Laurel Lodged (talk) 23:30, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. It's normal to capitalise titles. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:20, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose; keep or rename to Category:Bishop of Foo (Catholic) and so on. The misunderstanding here seems to be that the existing phraseology should be parsed as (Roman Catholic Bishops) (of Foo) rather than as (Roman Catholic) (Bishops of Foo), which may follow in turn from a conflation of city and see (i.e. "Bishop of Foo," in Catholicism at least, means only that Foo is a principal city of the see, and probably home to its cathedral, but the bishop is probably charged with a larger geographic area than just the city). There would not really be a point to categorizing (Roman Catholic Bishops) (of Los Angeles); such a category would contain for example all the bishops of Monterey who predate the erection of Los Angeles as its own see— a categorization which would be undefining for those bishops.- choster (talk) 19:51, 21 January 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.

USAAF C2A objections[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 per nom. Ruslik_Zero 17:16, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Category:Groups of the United States Army Air Force to Category:Groups of the United States Army Air Forces
Rename Category:Wings of the United States Army Air Force in World War II to Category:Wings of the United States Army Air Forces in World War II
Nominator's rationale: These are simple C2A spelling renames to add the pluralisation of "Army Air Forces" per the main parent article, which is at United States Army Air Forces (with United States Army Air Force as a redirect to the plural form of the name). However the speedy renaming was objected to on the grounds that "This would put this category out of sync with the names of similar categories for the rest of the US armed forces". I have no idea how this is so, but since it was objected, I've taken it to full CfR. :) - The Bushranger One ping only 23:43, 17 January 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.

Cold War sub-sub cats[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. Note that Category:Cold War guided missiles cannot be successfully emptied, since changes to the by-missile templates will affect all wars' missile categories. Right now there's only one other affected conflict's categories, Category:World War II guided missiles, So another nomination is needed to deal with that.--Mike Selinker (talk) 01:22, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Category:Cold War attack aircraft to Category:Attack aircraft of the Cold War
Rename Category:Cold War bomber aircraft to Category:Bomber aircraft of the Cold War
Rename Category:Cold War fighter aircraft to Category:Fighter aircraft of the Cold War
Rename Category:Korean War aircraft to Category:Military aircraft of the Korean War
Rename Category:Vietnam War aircraft to Category:Military aircraft of the Vietnam War
Rename Category:Korean War naval ships to Category:Naval ships of the Korean War
Rename Category:Cold War aircraft carriers to Category:Aircraft carriers of the Cold War
Rename Category:Cold War amphibious warfare vessels to Category:Amphibious warfare vessels of the Cold War
Rename Category:Cold War battleships to Category:Battleships of the Cold War
Rename Category:Cold War frigates to Category:Frigates of the Cold War
Rename Category:Cold War corvettes to Category:Corvettes of the Cold War
Rename Category:Cold War cruisers to Category:Cruisers of the Cold War
Rename Category:Cold War destroyers to Category:Destroyers of the Cold War
Rename Category:Cold War mine warfare vessels to Category:Mine warfare vessels of the Cold War
Rename Category:Cold War missile boats to Category:Missile boats of the Cold War
Rename Category:Cold War patrol vessels to Category:Patrol vessels of the Cold War
Rename Category:Cold War torpedo boats to Category:Torpedo boats of the Cold War
Rename Category:Cold War artillery to Category:Artillery of the Cold War
Rename Category:Cold War infantry weapons to Category:Infantry weapons of the Cold War
Rename Category:Cold War guided missiles to Category:Guided missiles of the Cold War
Rename Category:Iran–Iraq War weapons to Category:Weapons of the Iran–Iraq War
Rename Category:Cold War naval weapons to Category:Naval weapons of the Cold War
Rename Category:Vietnam War weapons to Category:Weapons of the Vietnam War
Nominator's rationale: Awhile back, the top-level subcategories of Category:Military equipment by conflict were renamed through a full CfD to be "X of Y" compliant, without objection. Following that, I set about speedy-ing the subcategories of those categories, one war at a time, starting with the Cold War. The next 'level' down, subcategories of Category:Military equipment of the Cold War, was speedy-renamed without objection here. And so I moved another level down in the renaming project, just following the Cold War tree for now, speedy nominating the 'sub-sub cats' of C:MEotCW. However, this time, just before the time ran out for speedying, an objection was raised that This would put this category out of sync with the names of similar categories for the rest of the wars (war name first). ...which is exactly the point of this set of renamings. In the end, the entire set of C:MEby(War) will be renamed from (War) (weapon) to (Weapon) of (War), which is the easier-on-the-eyes and more-encyclopediatic "X of Y" format that is strongly encouraged for categories to follow whenever possible. Now, due to the sheer number of categories involved, they're being taken one block at a time, which, yes, means for awhile there will be categories "out of sync" with other categories. But in the end they will all be in sync, and in the reccomended format. We just need time to get there, without inspectors saying that the house is half-completed and therefore shouldn't be finished. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:38, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- No doubt we will get another nom for lower level categories in due course. "Rome was not built in a day". Peterkingiron (talk) 16:04, 18 January 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:Taipei City[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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 01:22, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:Taipei City to Category:Taipei
Nominator's rationale: These categories separately existed because of the existence of Taipei City and Taipei County. Taipei County is now New Taipei, and with one exception (Category:Geography of New Taipei is still a subcategory of Category:Geography of Taipei, although I am trying to think of a way to undo that hierarchy properly) there is no reason why there has to be separate categories for "Taipei City" and "Taipei." Merge. --Nlu (talk) 21:59, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further comment. I think I've untangled the Geography of New Taipei/Taipei dependency, so there is no further reason at all to maintain separate Taipei/New Taipei categories, I think. --Nlu (talk) 22:08, 17 January 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:Wikipedia introduction cleanup[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:Pages with intro too long (delete, technically, since the category is template-populated and all of its members are also in the dated subcategories of Category:Wikipedia introduction cleanup); no consensus on Category:Pages missing lead section (if an alternative parent is needed, Category:Wikipedia articles with style issues seems appropriate). -- Black Falcon (talk) 01:06, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:Pages missing lead section to Category:Wikipedia introduction cleanup
Propose merging Category:Pages with intro too long to Category:Wikipedia introduction cleanup
Nominator's rationale: There are eight introduction cleanup maintenance templates, but only two subcategories. There is no reason to single out these two, especially since they are all very closely related. Debresser (talk) 16:18, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a continuation of this discussion, but since the two involved templates were not tagged for the first three days of that discussion, I opted to make a separate entry here. Debresser (talk) 16:49, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I'd prefer to keep the missing intro category separate, as that issue is a very different one from other introduction issues. The other categories refer to existing problems with an existing intro; that does not apply here - there's no introduction to cleanup, so to speak. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 16:04, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Would it make sense to move the missing intro cat over as a subcat of Introduction cleanup? UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 16:09, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Don't know. If there is no introduction, then technically speaking, as you have pointed out yourself, it has nothing to do with "introduction cleanup". Debresser (talk) 17:25, 22 January 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:Illegitimate children of Popes[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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 01:22, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Illegitimate children of Popes to Category:Illegitimate children of popes
Nominator's rationale: Rename. This was originally speedied to fix the capitalization but opposed on the grounds that popes can't have legitimate children so the "Illegitimate" is superfluous. I think it is clearer with the inclusion of illegitimate. Tassedethe (talk) 14:56, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Illegitimate is not superfluous. Popes can have legitimate children; historically, they have done so before taking holy orders. Two quick examples are Pope Innocent I and Pope Silverius, who most scholarly sources regard as the legitimate sons of their predecessors. Savidan 14:59, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- Correct capitalisation. If a pope was married (whether before or after ordination), his children will inevitably be legitimate. I suspect that celebacy has only been universal for the past 1000-1200 years, but am not quite sure from when. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:59, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per Peterkingiron. Debresser (talk) 19:48, 17 January 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:Hauptsturmführer[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 to Category:SS officers.--Mike Selinker (talk) 01:22, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Hauptsturmführer (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. No added value by sorting people by rank. (I fixed up the nomination. Tassedethe (talk) 14:51, 17 January 2011 (UTC))[reply]
  • Delete -- There might be some point in categorising people by rank, but not as low as the equivalent of captain or even major. It might have some merit of colonel and above. In any event people should be categorised according to the highest rank they reached. It would be an exceptional captain who was notable enough at that rank to merit inclusion in WP. Possibly rename to Category:Officers of SS or Category:Officers of Schutzstaffel; if so I would prefer the former, as few of us remember what SS Stood for. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:01, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:SS officers already exists. --78.53.32.190 (talk) 17:08, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. We certainly shouldn't be categorising by ranks, with a few exceptions such as field marshals. Captains are certainly out. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:24, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge' to Category:SS officers. Long-standing convention is not to categorise military officers by rank, other than for a few higher ranks (general and above). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:32, 24 January 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.

People who attempted suicide[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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 01:22, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete The parent category, Category:People who attempted suicide was discussed on January 9. Since that category was decided to be deleted, these should be deleted as well. Karppinen (talk) 12:34, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I also see no reason so differentiate between these four categories. Debresser (talk) 19:52, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. If the parent category was deleted, then so too should we delete the occupation-specific categories. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:38, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment there were no delete !votes at the previous discussion. In this case I incline to Delete but note that the deletion of a putative parent category should not prejudice a given category per se, as the reasons may or may not apply (for example "too large to maintain"). Rich Farmbrough, 02:04, 18th day of January in the year 2011 (UTC).
    • My comment essentially amounted to delete?; some of the other comments can probably best be interpreted as being in favour of deletion. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:22, 18 January 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:Pakistani people by district[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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 01:22, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Pakistani people by district to Category:People by district in Pakistan
Nominator's rationale: To match Category:People by city in Pakistan Mar4d (talk) 09:47, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: not tagged. BencherliteTalk 12:11, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done. You could have done that yourself, you know. Debresser (talk) 19:55, 17 January 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:People from Balochistan[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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 01:22, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:People from Balochistan to Category:People from Balochistan (Pakistan)
Nominator's rationale: The 'Balochistan' in this category should be renamed to 'Balochistan (Pakistan)' as the category is being used for people from Pakistani Balochistan and not just Balochistan. Mar4d (talk) 09:44, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: not tagged. BencherliteTalk 12:11, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done. You could have done that yourself, you know. Debresser (talk) 19:55, 17 January 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:Academics of the University of Dublin[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 per nom. Ruslik_Zero 15:48, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Academics of the University of Dublin to Category:Academics of Trinity College, Dublin
Nominator's rationale: Rename'. For all practical purposes the University of Dublin and Trinity College, Dublin (TCD) are synonymous: the university has only one college. All the other TCD categories take format "Foo of Trinity College, Dublin", and the other people categories are grouped under Category:People associated with Trinity College, Dublin. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:22, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Query I am somewhat hazy about it but I seem to remember the college and the university suing each other, but presumably the academics are employed by the college? I would suggest that is how the naming should fall. Rich Farmbrough, 02:07, 18th day of January in the year 2011 (UTC).
They did try suing each other back in 1888, but the court held that they are one body (see University of Dublin#Organisation).
I don't know the exact situation wrt employment, but the pattern elsewhere is that college and university are used somewhat randomly as interchangeable terms, with the college by far the more widely used, and little consistent division of usage; so I expect that similar chaos applies to academic tenure. However, per the WP:COMMONNAME principle, we should follow the common usage of the place as "Trinity College, Dublin", as has been done for all the other categories. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:51, 18 January 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.

Tornadoes and hurricanes in the United States by 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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 01:22, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming:

Foo tornadoes to Tornadoes in Foo
Foo hurricanes to Hurricanes in Foo

Rationalle: Per similar categories of other countries, e.g Category:Cyclones in Madagascar (not Category:Madagascar cyclones), Category:Tornadoes in Bangladesh (not Category:Bangladesh tornadoes), etc. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 04:14, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rename all per nom. Resolute 14:27, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral While I am generally in favor of the ____ tornadoes/hurricanes phasing, I will take time to reevaluate and post a comment later. I highly reccommend that notification of this nomination be given on WT:TROP and the talk pages of active WP:SEVERE and WP:METEO members (those two projects are less active, thus the user talk notifications) so that members can comment on this wide-ranging nomination. Ks0stm (T•C•G) 23:42, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. Tornadoes are, for the most part, single-state events (outbreaks not so much, of course, but...), and therefore this works. I'm not sure a state-by-state breakdown of hurricanes is as feasible since they tend to affect multiple states, but that's another kettle of fish and another CfD. "X of Y"/"X in Y" shoud be followed whenever possible, and, therefore, this has my full support. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:03, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename both per nom, and to be similar to Category:Earthquakes in California and Category:Blizzards in the United States among others. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 06:58, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename tornadoes and don't rename hurricanes. Tornadoes are microscale weather features, meaning they are too small to appear on a surface weather analysis and their presence is usually limited to within a few miles. As such, it is perfectly feasible that they should exist "within" a state. Tropical cyclones, on the other hand, never exist purely within the confines of a particular state, so I strongly hesitate to say Hurricane Ivan, for example, was a "Hurricane in Florida". It wasn't; it simply affected Florida. Cucurbitaceae (talk) 15:38, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • comments Multi-US-state tornado events are not that uncommon. These by-state categories only show that the tornado affected a state, not that it exclusively affected that state. Please read the articles. Same as with hurricanes. Hmains (talk) 19:46, 18 January 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 Assassinations inspired by religion[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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 06:19, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Assassinations inspired by religion (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Assassinations inspired by islam (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: "Assassinations inspired by religion" has one subcategory, "Assassinations inspired by islam" (note the lowercase i). Firstly, most of what's in that category isn't actually assassination at all; secondly, we already use the "religiously motivated violence" categories to cover religiously-motivated assassinations (see for example Assassination of George Tiller). Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:05, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Mar4d (talk) 09:37, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (perhaps renamed) or merge -- If it is mis-populated, the answer is to purge it, not delete it. It is an undesirable feature of Islam that (according to some of its exponents), it is pleasing to God to kill apostates and other enemies of Islam. Converts from Islam to Christianity tend to have to keep a low profile, because of the risk of being murdered. This is liable to mean that they fail the notability test, at least until their martyrdom is reported in the Christian press. However, if I remember correctly one of the Crusader kings of Jerusalem was killed by an Assassin (in the technically correct sense). Looking at the categories in the Tiller article, I do not think the event was really "terrorism". It was "religiously-motivated violence", but in an extreme form that ought to be categorised as Category:religiously-motivated murder. The answer would appear to be that the categories need a major clean up to remove parallel overlapping categories. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:19, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Assassins routinely lie about their motivations in order to justify their actions. Actual real-life studies have shown that assassins will use sometimes use religion or politics to self-justify what in many cases is just murder of a prominent person in order to gain fame or prominence or self-worth, so I think determining who is and who is not "inspired" by religion to be an assassin is fraught with difficulties. We already have categories for "religious-motivated violence", and these are problematic enough without compounding the problem. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:41, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename. Religion is a major motivation and/or trigger for assassinations and should not be ignored. Enough assassinations are carried out in the name of religion. The argument that Category:Assassinations inspired by religion contains just one subcategory is invalid. If there are any other assassinations in the name of a religion (and there probably are), they should be added, instead of deleting the hierargy now and recreating it later. In the Islam case, 'islam' should just be capitalized to 'Islam'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pereant antiburchius (talk • contribs) 03:14, 19 January 2011
  • Delete. Hopelessly vague category, since most human acts are inspired by many different factors, and the inspirations are frequently misrepresented both the perpetrators and by their opponents. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:04, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename, no delete! Perhaps you are right and the article's title is too vague and should be renamed. But I seriously doubt it should be removed because assassinations inspired by religion are very real. Perhaps 'Assassinations in the name of religion' is more accurate (or less vague if you will) and therefore more suitable. Only assassinations which are clearly carried out in the name of a certain religion should be categorized. Of course any subcategories should be renamed in the same manner. --Pereant antiburchius (talk) 20:47, 19 January 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:PEN[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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 01:22, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:PEN to Category:International PEN
Propose renaming Category:PEN centers to Category:International PEN centers
Propose renaming Category:PEN literary awards to Category:International PEN literary awards
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Propose renaming to match article International PEN. PEN is ambiguous. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:08, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename All: To match the main articles. RevelationDirect (talk) 08:25, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Renames to match title of parent article and reduce ambiguity. Alansohn (talk) 04:15, 19 January 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.

People from, part 5[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. Please feel free to add dabs as needed.--Mike Selinker (talk) 01:22, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:People from Ada to Category:People from Ada (Serbia)
Propose renaming Category:People from Barnes to Category:People from Barnes, London
Propose renaming Category:People from Bow to Category:People from Bow, London
Propose renaming Category:People from Camden to Category:People from Camden Town
Propose renaming Category:People from Chelsea to Category:People from Chelsea, London
Propose renaming Category:People from Crystal Palace to Category:People from Crystal Palace, London
Propose renaming Category:People from Forest Hill to Category:People from Forest Hill, London
Propose renaming Category:People from Harlington to Category:People from Harlington, London
Propose renaming Category:People from Harrow to Category:People from Harrow, London
Propose renaming Category:People from Holloway to Category:People from Holloway, London
Propose renaming Category:People from Kilburn to Category:People from Kilburn, London
Propose renaming Category:People from King's Cross to Category:People from Kings Cross, London (no apostrophe)
Propose renaming Category:People from Manor Park to Category:People from Manor Park, London
Propose renaming Category:People from Northwood to Category:People from Northwood, London
Propose renaming Category:People from Ham to Category:People from Ham, London
Propose renaming Category:People from Plaistow to Category:People from Plaistow, Newham
Propose renaming Category:People from Southgate to Category:People from Southgate, London
Propose renaming Category:People from St Pancras to Category:People from St Pancras, London
Propose renaming Category:People from Stratford to Category:People from Stratford, London
Propose renaming Category:People from Sutton to Category:People from Sutton, London
Propose renaming Category:People from Upton Park to Category:People from Upton Park, London
Propose renaming Category:People from Whitton to Category:People from Whitton, London
Propose renaming Category:People from Wimbledon to Category:People from Wimbledon, London
Nominator's rationale: Rename. As before 1, 2, 3, 4; these are ambiguous, rename to match main article. And to be extra clear, these are all geographically ambiguous i.e. there is another place with the same name e.g. Ada (Serbia) and Ada, Croatia. Several categories will need to be turned into dabs: Camden (Category:People from Camden, Arkansas, Category:People from Camden, Maine, Category:People from Camden, New Jersey, Category:People from Camden, New York, Category:People from Camden (district)), Chelsea (Category:People from Chelsea, Massachusetts, Category:People from Chelsea, Vermont), and Stratford (Category:People from Stratford, Ontario) Tassedethe (talk) 01:10, 17 January 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:Exploding animals[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. Ruslik_Zero 17:12, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Exploding animals (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Vague criterion for inclusion. This includes confirmed demolition of a whale, an ant that explodes in self defence and articles on spontaneous combustion. Very, very loose connection. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 00:32, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Semi-Procedural Keep: Boy, this is a weird one. There are certainly times when an editor creates a ridiculous article and a ridiculous category to go with it and they both should be deleted simultaneously. But the main article has shown remarkable persistance. Here is the fourth nomination for deletion. And interestingly, these are not the same conversation with no consensus over and over: they are different discussions, and at least one of the nominations was labeled as disruptive. In this case, I would favor deferring to the decision about the main article. RevelationDirect (talk) 08:08, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
* Update: If it matters to anyone's analysis, the article was kept. RevelationDirect (talk) 03:06, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – we have deleted many categories whose main article is completely afd-proof: eg Category:John Wayne. Spontaneous combustion is not 'exploding' and the phrase 'Exploding animals' is being used in 2 different senses - the exploding of animals by the addition of explosives, and animals with the ability to self-detonate on a whim. (Suicide bombers?) The article IMO ties together these disparate threads in an interesting way but simply lumping these into a category doesn't work. Occuli (talk) 10:38, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- having looked at the main article, I am convinced that there is a legitimate subject, even through the cases are disparate. Since the category does manage to be populated, I see no objection to keeping the category. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:32, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Category:Suicide bombers into this category. Debresser (talk) 19:57, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the arguments of RD and PKI, and Haha at DeB. But seriously folks, animals do explode, and therefore there should be a category for the articles about said critter-shattering kabooms. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:05, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as {{Historical}} if nothing else. Rich Farmbrough, 02:12, 18th day of January in the year 2011 (UTC).
  • Keep. This should also have the various bomb/animal combinations, like Bat bomb. I'm pretty sure it once did.--Mike Selinker (talk) 08:01, 20 January 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:One-of-a-kind computers[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. Ruslik_Zero 15:22, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:One-of-a-kind computers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Doesn't seem like a notable definition; categorized as a "class of computer" but I don't see any evidence that this is a widely used term. Even in 2005 there was discussion over the name of the category being odd. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 00:01, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - it was renamed from Category:Individual computers by cfd in 2005; there were no 'delete' views. And quite a few of its contents are described exactly as 'one of a kind'. And the phrase is used 'out there': see e.g. google search. Occuli (talk) 12:02, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, basically, the category is "miscellaneous computers", which I do not see as a useful category. Resolute 14:36, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, possibly renaming back to Category:Individual computers. They are defined as being experimental ones of those too large for more than one of them to be made. This is clearly the basis for a legitimate category. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:36, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename to Category:Individual computers, per Occuli; as noted, there's Category:Individual aircraft and so on and so forth. Articles about, well, one-of-a-kind computers should have a category to collect them, and this is it; consensus seems to be that categories of this type should be "Individual foo". QED. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:07, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - not please as "individual" - I have an individual computer here. Rich Farmbrough, 02:15, 18th day of January in the year 2011 (UTC).
  • keep as is The computers here are truly one-of-a-kind so why should they be categorized as anything else. Another name would simply mislead our readers. Hmains (talk) 19:49, 18 January 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_January_17&oldid=1084319793"