Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 March 8

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< March 7 March 9 >

March 8[edit]

Category:Norstar Bank Hamlet Challenge Cup[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) 00:02, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:Norstar Bank Hamlet Challenge Cup & Category:Waldbaum's Hamlet Cup to Category:Pilot Pen Tennis
Nominator's rationale: Former names of the event. No need for three categories for the same thing. Armbrust WrestleMania XXVII Undertaker 19–0 23:32, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment You also propose the changing of the pilot pen tennis category to what the tournament is at the moment. This is very strange since the tournament is now a women's only tournament so I don't quiet follow your thinking here. KnowIG (talk) 09:54, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, that it is now a women's only tournament don't change the fact, that it is the same tournament under a different name. I propose these categories to merged to Category:Pilot Pen Tennis, because this is the current title of the category, until it isn't renamed. Armbrust WrestleMania XXVII Undertaker 19–0 20:45, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ok I support this anyway as it's just a bit of house keeping KnowIG (talk) 09:28, 10 March 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.

SEC and WAC football seasons[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) 00:02, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming
Nominator's rationale: To expand the abbreviations, per general category naming conventions and the parent categories Category:Southeastern Conference football and Category:Western Athletic Conference football. See the related nomination for ACC football season categories. -- Black Falcon (talk) 23:11, 8 March 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:Diasporas[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 14:05, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Diasporas to Category:Emigrations and emigrants.
Nominator's rationale: The word "diaspora" is reserved by diaspora scholars for only a few of the world's many emigrations and emigrant communities. It has been proposed at Norwegian diaspora that all articles with "diaspora" in their names should be scrutinized for eligibility to be called diasporas. Those found unworthy are to be given a less dramatic name such as "Foo emigration and emigrant communities." It seems sensible to create a new general category to include all the articles and categories for which we are now using the word "diaspora" in its general popular sense. Later, presumably, a new category will be established for the smaller subgroup of articles about "real" diasporas. Articles/categories than have been suggested will no longer be able to be called diasporas include Norwegian, Swedish, Dutch, English, and French diaspora; I don't know if this discussion should be signalized somehow to those categories or not. Sharktopustalk 22:56, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Judging by the goings-on at Talk:Norwegian diaspora, which I have only skimmed through, it looks to me like there is no consensus on changing the name of that article. I don't think the categories would be renamed unless and until corresponding article names were changed, but as far as I can see they all still use "diaspora" is the article name. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:35, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There seemed to be more consensus for renamings to avoid "diaspora" in 3 recent AFD discussions, and the Norwegian diaspora article rename is not complete. --doncram 18:18, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Could these AFDs be linked to? It's really difficult to assess the merits of claims that there has been a consensus for something without links to any of the discussions in question. Good Ol’factory (talk) 20:47, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think these are the three AFDs Doncram means: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Norwegian_diaspora, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Swedish_diaspora, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Norwegian_diaspora_(2nd_nomination). Sharktopustalk 20:55, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, that is helpful. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:21, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, those are the three i meant. Thanks. --doncram 00:26, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The issues wrt Wikipedia's use of "diaspora" in article titles need a wider discussion than they are getting. The same rule being proposed for these articles is equally applicable to many others and indeed to our use of a category named "diasporas" to cover the widest possible range of "foo people living in not-foo." I believe it will be less disruptive to have a general discussion at the category level rather than to have our previous practice changed piecemeal in some articles and categories but not in others. Sharktopustalk 04:51, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Renaming My view is that "a large portion of the foo people were scattered" is a diaspora, "some foo people emigrated" is just migration. I realize that some people outside wikipedia are using diaspora in the latter sense, but I think it is a misuse of the term. Dingo1729 (talk) 05:24, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments. 1) What do the RSs call it? 2) Does that answer vary, depending on the event? 3) Doesn't "emigration" have a wholly different connotation?--Epeefleche (talk) 06:00, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Yes, of course most of the so-called diasporas should be renamed. There are only a handful that warrant the name diaspora. Will anything come of the discussion? Of course not. Common sense isn't very common. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 06:09, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, there are very few articles within Category:Diasporas and its subcategories that need to be renamed. Very few use "diaspora" in article names, but rather are titled "People of Angolan descent" or "Angolan expatriates in South Africa", etc. Mostly it is just the categories that were given controversial "diaspora" term and which need to be renamed. Please note: IMO, any rename of any article to include the word "diaspora" should be considered a controversial rename, requiring a wp:RM move request. --doncram 00:26, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Request If there are articles or categories that you think should be renamed to exclude "diaspora" from their titles, please specify what they are so that people who edit those pages can be notified of this discussion. Sharktopustalk 02:39, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – to judge from Diaspora the word is being used in its sociological sense: "3. diaspora - the dispersion or spreading of something that was originally localized (as a people or language or culture)". This also seems consistent with the article diasporas. (I really don't see how we could possibly decide which diasporas are 'genuine' and which are not, without indulging in arbitrary thresholds of some sort. The discussion about 'Norwegian diaspora' concedes that the phrase is used but less frequently than 'Norwegian emigration' ... we don't usually base Wikipedia names on the most common usage.) (There is Category:Human migration.) Occuli (talk) 11:03, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The same location provides first meanings for the Jewish diaspora, then one that has been more focussed upon in previous discussion: "A dispersion of a people from their original homeland." One key aspect is that term diaspora refers to a whole community (or large portion) being scattered, as would happen in an involuntary expulsion of many due to famine or force, rather than merely the natural departures of a few. I am of the view that "diaspora" is a dramatic term, which does not generally apply. --doncram 18:18, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
When your definition deviates from the dictionary definition you are telling us what the word means to you personally, but we don't engage in original research in Wikipedia, we stick to dictionary definitions when people disagree over meanings. I don't read any indication that the entire population or a certain percentage has to be involved, or "drama". We really shouldn't be deciding on percentage of the population. We just see what reliable sources use when they refer to it. How do we determine drama? The people at Norwegian diaspora wanted to only include populations listed in a book of essays edited by Ember. I say if the New York Times or other reliable sources call it a diaspora, it is. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:46, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I agree with Epeefleche: The term "diaspora" applies equally well to non-emigrants—often later generations who were born and raised in the host country. Therefore we should not rename articles "emigrant communities" unless they really are about actual emigrants. In articles about minority (non-emigrant) communities, diaspora is a perfectly reasonable term. Aristophanes68 (talk) 14:47, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move The term diaspora refers more narrowly to forced emigrations of an entire people; wikipedia should not apply a different usage merely because it is "convenient". Many, perhaps most, of the articles in this category and its subcategories do not use the word "diaspora"; the category name is imposing a dramatic word upon many articles about emigrations and emmigrants where there is no "diaspora" ever associated. --doncram 18:18, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Can I ask where you are getting your definition? It diverges from the dictionary definition in Random House and Merriam Webster and the OED that I have access to. I don't know where you are getting "forced emigrations of an entire people". Is that your personal definition or is it from a dictionary that I have not come across? I would say your definition describes the usage in 1881 when the term "diaspora" was first coined in English for the "Jewish Diaspora". Usage has changed in the past 130 years and the New York Times uses "New Orleans diaspora" and "Gay diaspora". So, do we stick to the definition from 130 years ago or use it the way the New York Times does? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:19, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There are probably hundreds of different definitions of diaspora in dictionaries and scholarly sources, so it would be really helpful if people insisting on a "real" definition for diaspora would say what that definition is and what the RS is where they got it. One two-sentence definition (from the Encyclopedia of Diasporas) is "Diaspora. A people dispersed by whatever cause to more than one location. The people dispersed to different lands may harbor thoughts of return, may not fully assimilate to their host countries, and may maintain relationships with other communities in the diaspora." If you favor some definition other than this, please state what it is. If you favor treating the second sentence as if every "may" really means "must", please explain why. If you think the authors say "a people dispersed" to require an entire people to be dispersed, please explain why their book includes chapters titled "British diaspora", "Chinese diaspora", and "Swiss diaspora." Sharktopustalk 20:28, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, there are three almost identical definitions in the top three dictionaries. Yes, you can cherry pick an alternate definition from essays and other scholarly papers, and that is why we stick to the dictionary when people disagree. We don't give equal weight to all sources because they are published by someone reliable, we stick to the most reliable source there is for defining any word, the dictionary. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 00:42, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I recently helped work on improving our own account of the meaning of "diaspora". Editors may want to take a look at Diaspora#Origins and development of the term, where numerous reliable sources for different definitions (and indeed sources discussing changes in the definition over time) are cited. Cordless Larry (talk) 00:21, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: If Doncram is correct and most articles are simply "people of X descent", then I think the term diaspora is much more appropriate than "emigrant communities", since members of a diaspora do not have to be emigrants themselves: are 5th generation Japanese Americans really "emigrants"? Update: After looking at the cat page that Doncram listed, I see that the Norwegian diaspora page includes both "people of Nor. descent" and "Nor. emigrants", "Nor. expatriates" and "Nor. migration to N.Am." This seems good to me: it covers all the bases and captures what our modern understanding of diaspora really is: a combination of emigrants and foreign-born communities. Moreover, going off of Sharktapus's request for RS, Robin Cohen's book Global Diasporas: An Introduction defines the causes of diaspora as two alternatives:
  1. "Dispersal from an original homeland, often traumatically, to two or more foreign regions;
  2. "alternatively or additionally, the expansion from a homeland in search of work, in pursuit of trade or to further colonial ambitions."
So the term does not have to refer to forced scatterings at all. And his work is well-known enough that I used it in my graduate research. Therefore I vote to
  • Keep cat name as it is. Aristophanes68 (talk) 03:25, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as Diasporas It is concise and already in use in 244 categories or articles. WP:Title suggests to not move stable titles when there is no pressing need to do so. "Emigration" only covers the one generation that actually moves, "diaspora" seems the perfect word to incorporate both migration and the continuation of the culture in the new land. Coming up with an artificial threshold of what constitutes a diaspora will require endless hours at each article just was was done as Norwegian diaspora. The Merriam-Webster definition is: "the movement, migration, or scattering of a people away from an established or ancestral homeland". This matches our categories perfectly. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:36, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As has been discussed in 3 AFDs, that Merriam-Webster definition is interpreted by me and others to mean an actual dispersal of a whole people (or a majority), and DOES NOT APPLY to the Norwegian out-migrations and most other articles now caught up in incorrect categories. The fact that you and others have incorrectly set up 244 categories does not mean you "win". We can and will fix them by renaming them, as part of this CFD or an amended, larger CFD to specifically name all the incorrect usages of "diaspora" that have been applied in your and others' categorizing. In fact, the vast majority of articles within these "diaspora" categories do not use the term "diaspora", so i and others should "win" by removing the categories that obviously do not apply. Why do you want so much to use the term "diaspora", when it is clearly controversial to many other editors? Why not use a general term that is not controversial? --doncram 13:55, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes! and that was why I awarded you the coveted William Jefferson Clinton It depends upon what the meaning of the word 'is' is award for your distinguishing between "people" and "a people" in the definition of diaspora in the dictionary: "the movement, migration, or scattering of a people away from an established or ancestral homeland". In your reading of the definition "a people" means a large percentage of the population. Now we can debate endlessly what "large" is to satisfy your definition. I recommend we just call it a diaspora when a reliable source uses the term. That makes it objective instead of the subjective: was it large enough for Doncram to call it a diaspora. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:25, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There are indeed some WP:RS that define diaspora to mean scattering a large fraction of a population. On the other hand, the many categories and articles with "diaspora" in their titles were created in good faith by a large number of people at different times, most of whom had no inkling that usage would be controversial to anyone. Is there a good clear short synonym for "diaspora" that is not controversial to anybody? Sharktopustalk 00:09, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I just checked my Merriam-Webster and see that it includes the definition "people settled far from their ancestral homeland", which certainly applies to non-emigrant minority communities. I also see that the example they give for "movement, migration or scattering" is "the black diaspora to northern cities". Would "the Great Migration" really be an example of a forced scattering or dispersal? Wouldn't that be just another out-migration? So I'm not sure the dictionary supports the more restrictive definitions. Aristophanes68 (talk) 04:38, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It certainly seems to be used by RSs for many such events (answering my first question above). A deletion of it as a cat would therefore appear to be unwarranted. The fact that the applicability may be less clear in certain instances -- due to a low level of RS support -- is a separate issue, not to be resolved by deleting the [name of the] entire cat, [and replacing it with another name -- despite the fact that the name in question is a name used by all manner of RSs].--Epeefleche (talk) 04:50, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose the current title is concise and accurate, and fits the dictionary definitions pointed out in the deletion discussions of Norwegian diaspora (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Swedish diaspora (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). The definition used by the people who wanted to delete those two articles is WP:JARGON. The common definitions of the words are preferred over jargon. 184.144.163.245 (talk) 05:21, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Just because the term might not apply to all of the articles presently in this category, doesn't mean the category isn't useful as it's currently named. The contents are subject to debate, but the name is sound. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:10, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, although i object to the application of the category and its subcategories to most of the articles now within them, this point is logically valid. The category could be kept but nearly emptied, keeping just a few articles about legitimate diasporas such as the Jewish one, the Irish famine one, and a few others, IMO. The overall proposal here should be more specific about renaming all the subcategories that do not actually refer to a real diaspora.
But, despite the fact that a few real diasporas exist and can be included in this category, the real proposal meant is to rename the category and its subcategories so that they can keep all of their contents, about emigrations and emigrant communities and so on, in a broader, accurate term. Maybe the current proposal is not formed correctly to allow for a proper !vote on this decision. --doncram 13:35, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, although if you take a look at diaspora, you'll find reliable sources that use the term in a much wider sense that what you call "real diasporas". Cordless Larry (talk) 13:41, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I still protest that "emigrant communities" is not an accurate term for these groups. Fifth generation Americans of Asian descent are not emigrants in any realistic sense--in fact, to call them emigrants is rather an insult. Diaspora, however, is more neutral and allows for the preservation of customs and ideas over generations. Aristophanes68 (talk) 21:21, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree 100%, it is the best title to cover migration and culture in the new land. I also don't see where the other definitions are coming from that require a "dramatic event" or "forced migration". I think that is a truthiness thing, people feel in their heart that it should mean that, even if the definition is much broader in OED and Merriam-Webster and Random House dictionary. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:11, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep All One could claim that Category:Jewish diaspora is the only legitimate use of the term diaspora, based on its original Greek root, though the lead sentence of that article defines the term as "the movement, migration, or scattering of a people away from an established or ancestral homeland" or "a people dispersed by whatever cause to more than one location". I could offer a myriad of reasons that would decimate the argument that "diaspora" only refers to the deliberate scattering of an entire people from their original homeland. Myriad, which originally meant "ten thousand", now simple means "an unspecified large quantity" and by decimate I don't mean having nine of the arguments kill the tenth, I mean "to wipe out a large part". I could offer a cornucopia of other examples, and by that I mean "an abundance", rather than "a goat's horn filled with grain and flowers and fruit symbolizing prosperity". "Diaspora" has undergone a similar transformation from its original meaning, and is far more widespread in use than "emigrations and emigrants". I tried to do a search on many of the "diasporas" to see if sources are available. Starting at the beginning of the alphabet, I found "What to make of the Australian diaspora" from The Sydney Morning Herald (though suprisingly there isn't a category for this group, yet). From the end of the alphabet, "Diaspora meeting in Botswana aborted" from NewsDay discusses both the "Botswana Diaspora community" and the "Zimbabwean Diaspora", in the context of the overall structure of African diaspora communities. I found many other uses in a rather casual search from throughout the scores (again, "a lot" not "multiples of 20") and I'm sure that I could find multiple examples for any other country or peoples, including in books and scholarly journals. The use of "diaspora" in this context is so widespread that there is no reason to try to try to create an arbitrary, artificial and unsupported term "emigrations and emigrants" to replace it. Alansohn (talk) 15:06, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This discussion is essentially about the meaning of diaspora and I think Cordless Larry has done a very good job in that article documenting the way it has changed and is changing. The academic literature, being older and naturally slower to change, tends toward the older, much more restrictive meaning. However the more current literature can certainly be seen to lean toward a definition which makes diaspora a shorthand for "expatriates, emigrants or their descendants". I am in favor of the older more restrictive definition, but this discussion seems to be tending toward the wider meaning. Although doncram points out that very few of the articles in this category currently use the specific word "diaspora" I expect that there will be a diaspora of usage amongst them if the community agrees on the new definition. Dingo1729 (talk) 22:16, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment We apparently also have a List of diasporas in addition to this category. Sharktopustalk 02:43, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep as is The definition is fine, the population of the categories and lists and articles are fine. Diaspora is good word to describe all these movements of people, whatever their motivation, from the their native countries. Hmains (talk) 04:22, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Doncram and others have made the very good point that many of the actual pages when you dig down in this category have titles that reflect a narrower scope: "foo emigration", "foo emigrants", "foo expatriates", and the like. I am certainly not suggesting that we rename such articles "foo diaspora" if their current title describes what is actually in them. On the other hand, we also have pages like Dutch diaspora that were built around the larger scope implied by the general meaning of diaspora, combining all of the above plus emigrant culture, ties to the homeland, etc. I myself would favor ZERO massive renaming of articles, instead letting the people creating such articles choose titles that express the scope of what is in the article. I would like to have the word "diaspora" considered appropriate for those articles and categories that embrace the widest scope of "foo people outside foo." I proposed renaming this category only because I thought that "diaspora" was just about to be redefined for Wikipedia, something that has not yet AFAIK been formally proposed, and it's quite a few days after I filed this CFD. Sharktopustalk 23:15, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It seems to me that the consensus from people !voting here is to leave the current name for Category:Diasporas, and to use that category to contain and describe all the articles and subcategories currently inside it, without making judgments about what is or is not a "real" diaspora. There seems to be also a divergent but strongly-felt belief of some people that the word "diaspora" should not be paired with any nationality foo that did not experience major forced emigration from its homeland. I would be grateful if someone could suggest an appropriate forum to adjudicate this slightly different dispute, instead of seeing it fought out article by article as it ongoingly still is in Norwegian diaspora. Sharktopustalk 13:38, 14 March 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 by alma mater: Central Missouri State University[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) 00:02, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: Central Missouri State University to Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: University of Central Missouri
Nominator's rationale: This category should be renamed to reflect new name of school. Tavix |  Talk  22:16, 8 March 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:US Open Series tournaments[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) 00:03, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:US Open Series tournaments to Category:US Open Series
Nominator's rationale: To match parent category. Armbrust WrestleMania XXVII Undertaker 19–0 22:08, 8 March 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:Cincinnati Masters[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 11:59, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Cincinnati Masters to Category:Western & Southern Open
Nominator's rationale: To match parent category. Armbrust WrestleMania XXVII Undertaker 19–0 22:04, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Should be moved to Cincinnati Open at best. Oppose Since the name of the tournament always changes due to sponsors there is no need to use sponsor names. Genric names for categories are great. KnowIG (talk) 09:51, 9 March 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:Canada Masters[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:01, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Canada Masters to Category:Rogers Cup (tennis)
Nominator's rationale: To match parent category. Armbrust WrestleMania XXVII Undertaker 19–0 22:04, 8 March 2011 (UTC)Should be moved to Canadian Open at best.[reply]
  • Oppose Since the name of the tournament always changes due to sponsors there is no need to use sponsor names. Genric names for categories are great. KnowIG (talk) 09:52, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The name of the tournament hasn't changed since 2005 and there is no sign that it will change either. Armbrust WrestleMania XXVII Undertaker 19–0 20:40, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose there are tournaments that are not Rogers Cup in that category. 184.144.160.156 (talk) 06:46, 13 March 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:Pilot Pen Tennis[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) 00:03, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Pilot Pen Tennis to Category:New Haven Open at Yale
Nominator's rationale: To match parent article. Armbrust WrestleMania XXVII Undertaker 19–0 22:03, 8 March 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:Indianapolis Tennis Championships[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) 00:03, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Indianapolis Tennis Championships to Category:Atlanta Tennis Championships
Nominator's rationale: To match parent article. Armbrust WrestleMania XXVII Undertaker 19–0 21:57, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support won't be going back to Indy any time soon, unless someone feels that a new category would be more suitable. KnowIG (talk) 09:49, 9 March 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:Dancing with the Stars (US TV series) participants[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) 00:14, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Dancing with the Stars (US TV series) participants (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. For the "celebrities" (the "Stars" part of the pairings) included in this category, this factoid is not defining. It is not one of the important facts one would think of when considering the life of Buzz Aldrin, Evander Holyfield, or Steve Wozniak, for example. An adequate list exists at List of Dancing with the Stars (U.S.) competitors. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:56, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as being non-defining. Lugnuts (talk) 08:01, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as not defining of the person. No one is a DWTS contestant unless they are already known for another field of endeavor. Lafe Smith (talk) 23:34, 9 March 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:Tripolitana[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) 00:04, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:Tripolitana to Category:Tripolitania
Nominator's rationale: Merge. Same thing as Category:Tripolitania just under a different name. Only one should exist, see also Tripolitania. Gryffindor (talk) 21:33, 8 March 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:Los Angeles Open (tennis)[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:02, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Los Angeles Open (tennis) to Category:Farmers Classic
Nominator's rationale: To match parent category. Armbrust WrestleMania XXVII Undertaker 19–0 19:15, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: I am not sure about the relevant wikipedia naming conventions, but it seems strange to include the sponsor in the title of the category. The sponsor changes every few years, but the tournament is always located in Los Angeles. The category also includes subcategories for each yearly tournament. So the category currently includes Category:2007 Countrywide Classic, Category:2009 LA Tennis Open, and Category:2010 Farmers Classic. It seems strange to include the sponsor of the current year in the category that includes all of these differently named tournaments. Cmcnicoll (talk) 01:00, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It would be interesting to see some comparison of RS usage.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:42, 10 March 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:Communication engineering[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) 00:04, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Communication engineering to Category:Telecommunications engineering
Nominator's rationale: Communication engineering and Communications system engineering redirect to Telecommunications engineering, which the category's description identifies as the main article. If the three terms refer to the same concept, then we should rename the category to match the main article. If they refer to different concepts, then it is necessary to clarify that and perhaps split the category. I have notified WikiProject Engineering (see here). -- Black Falcon (talk) 18:18, 8 March 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.

Devices by feature[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 all. Timrollpickering (talk) 00:14, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose deleting
Category:Camera phones (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Universal Mobile Telecommunications System mobile phones (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:USB OTG compatible devices (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Wi-Fi devices (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  • Delete. First, as technology and industry progress, features that were once unusual and notable in devices and which set them apart become commonplace and trivial. In the 1980s, airbags were a luxury item in automobiles; today, they are standard in just about every vehicle manufactured for the industrialized world. A decade ago, "3G" and camera-equipped mobile phones were all the buzz, but today the challenge would be to find a phone without those features. Second, with devices boasting of so many bells and whistles these days, categories are becoming quite cluttered. Evidently Category:Smartphones is not enough; phones are also being added to Category:Digital audio players, Category:Portable media players, and Category:GPS navigation devices (Category:Email devices escaping notice is probably a factor of timing). WP is not a shopping guide or an equipment review site; we should save ourselves the maintenance of "equipment by bell or whistle" categories where possible.- choster (talk) 17:26, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, delete all the articles too. Or maybe we should go back into our old High Fidelity copies and enter all the reviews of stereos and receivers and turntables and while we're at it VCRs and Laserdisc players and speakers and so forth. Mangoe (talk) 11:08, 9 March 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:Experimental design[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) 00:05, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Experimental design to Category:Design of experiments
Nominator's rationale: Rename. To match title of main article and avoid ambiguous meaning. Melcombe (talk) 16:45, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The "ambiguous meaning" seems ambiguous to me. Would you explain the difference between "experimental design" and "design of experiments", please?
There are plenty of books referring to "experimental design", after all.
(I'm guessing that "experimental design" could also refer to avant garde haute couture .... Has this ever been a problem on Wikipedia?) Thanks,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (Discussion) 18:40, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In the experimental design footer, 14 articles have titles with "design" as the terminal noun. Only two have "experiment" as terminal noun:
versus
Notice that, despite its having the advantage of being the article's name, "factorial experiment" doesn't seem clearly preferred to "factorial design", according to the first page returned to " 'factorial design' OR 'factorial experiment' ".  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (Discussion) 20:05, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It seems better to rename "Design of experiments" as Experimental design!  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (Discussion) 18:59, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
An "experimental design" is most obviously a design which is experimental. In all the instances quoted of having "design" at the end, the first part is an adjective. Treating "experimental" as an adjective gives "a design which is experimental". This rationale seems to have been behind the renaming of the old "experimental design" article, a renaming that has been in place for several years (and not instigated by me).Melcombe (talk) 09:56, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Melcombe, could you supply a diff for the change. The move log is empty. I did see QWPFY make a comment similar to yours, about "experimenting in design", which again seems like a straw-man.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (Discussion) 20:16, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom; both reasons Melcombe offered are solid. postdlf (talk) 12:42, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Would you please address the proposal to rename to lead article to match the 14 articles using "design" as a noun? Thanks!  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (Discussion) 19:40, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Given that I said I agreed with both reasons set forth by Melcombe, I thought it obvious that I didn't support your rename proposal. The norm is for categories to match the article title, and as Melcombe said, "experimental design" is ambiguous out of context. If you want to rename the article, this is not the forum for doing that; you need to take it up at Talk:Design of experiments. postdlf (talk) 19:49, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As suggested, I have proposed renaming the article to match the related articles better. This proposal should be tabled, pending the outcome of that discussion.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (Discussion) 20:09, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Endorse: The abbreviation "DoE" is standard, while "ED" seems non-existent.

That said, the other arguments seem weak, imho: The present name is more economical, and is consistent with the majority of articles listed on the template. The phrase "experimental design" is established in statistics, and is distinguished from "combinatorial design" and "spherical design" etc.

Melcombe, your imputation seems almost like a willful misreading, which is unlike you. Are you seriously saying that you cannot find "related to experiments" in a decent dictionary under "experimental"! Merriam–Webster 's 2nd meaning for "experimental" is "serving the needs of or used as a means of experimentation". MW gives Melcombe's imputed meaning as the third meaning. Again, I repeat the question to Melcombe: Has anybody been confused by the current terminology on WP?  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (Discussion) 18:38, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That said, renaming or preserving the name would be harmless.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (Discussion) 19:03, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename: Although both terms are in use in applied statistics, and unambiguous to statisticians, the better title is Design of Experiments (as in the classic text of Montgomery, "Design and Analysis of Experiments" ... not to mention Fisher.) The adjective "experimental" to describe a design is less precise in its meaning for non-statisticians. Mathstat (talk) 22:56, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Experimental design" is the title of the books by Frank Yates, by Walter Federer, and Cochran & Cox.
Montgomery's engineering text confuses blocks and treatments, and promotes the inefficient designs of George Box, whose defects are noted by Jeff Wu & Michael Hamada.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (Discussion) 14:15, 10 March 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:Chardal rabbis in Israel[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) 00:13, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose deleting Category:Chardal rabbis in Israel (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: This categorization is OR and is not supported by verifiable sources. Yoninah (talk) 15:54, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Query surely you are not suggesting that the existence of the Chardal movement is OR, right? So are you then suggesting that the membership of the current Rabbis in the category is OR? In that case, remove them from the category. I don't see how this would be grounds to removing the category itself. Perhaps you can explain better what is the OR element? --Muhandes (talk) 17:53, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, I'll remove the rabbis from the category. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 18:42, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as overcat and inappropriate intersection. Classifying rabbis by religious affiliation is enough (charedi), no need to also classify by political leanings (leumi). We aren't, for example, splitting Chassidim along pro Zionist – anti Zionist lines. -- Y not? 18:55, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Many Rabbis are mis-labeled Charedi when they are Chardal — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manonano (talk • contribs) 19:03, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete because the informal term "Chardal" is not clearly defined in either religious or secular scholarly circles. It also violates WP:OR by imposing a "definition" upon rabbis who lived when this term was not around and never used it about themselves, such as Abraham Isaac Kook and his son Zvi Yehuda Kook. IZAK (talk) 05:22, 14 March 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:American Chardal rabbis[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) 00:12, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose deleting Category:American Chardal rabbis (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: This categorization is OR and is not supported by verifiable sources. Yoninah (talk) 15:19, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Per the discussion in Chardal rabbis in Israel, I'm removing the pages that have OR and V issues from the category. Now this category is empty. Yoninah (talk) 18:44, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as overcat and inappropriate intersection. Classifying rabbis by religious affiliation is enough (charedi), no need to also classify by political leanings (leumi). We aren't, for example, splitting Chassidim along pro Zionist – anti Zionist lines. -- Y not? 18:55, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Many Rabbis are mis-labeled Charedi when they are Chardal — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manonano (talk • contribs) 19:00, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete because this category is now empty. The informal term "Chardal" is not applied nor used in the American context in any case. IZAK (talk) 05:17, 14 March 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:Alternative Photographic Processes[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) 00:06, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Alternative Photographic Processes to Category:Alternative photographic processes
Nominator's rationale: Rename to fix capitalization. This would be a speedy candidate but there are two other possibilities. The first is to rename to Category:Alternative processes to match the name of the article alternative process. The other one is to delete and rely only on the list. My preferred option is to simply fix the capitalization because "photographic" avoids any ambiguity. Pichpich (talk) 13:37, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm leaning towards delete/upmerge as needed; this categorizes historic photographic processes, some of which were quite dominant in their day, by their status now. It may not be all that long before all non-digital processes are "alternative". postdlf (talk) 13:58, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it would be appropriate to rename the category, but alternative photographic processes are not the same as historic photographic processes, and I don't think they should be considered one in the same. Most artists perform these processes without the intention of being historically accurate, they are usually used for artistic purposes and are not constrained by historical inaccuracies (although most originate from the early days of photography). In fact, new developments have been made that were not possible or thought of in the rush of technological advancement at the time. Perhaps in the future when the articles expand there will be separate categories for contemporary alt processes and historical processes. Important to note that there are digital alt processes, as well. --Helenaak (talk) 17:01, 9 March 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:Books critical of liberalism[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, then prune any that don't fit. Timrollpickering (talk) 00:07, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Books critical of liberalism to Category:Books critical of modern liberalism in the United States
Nominator's rationale: Rename. None of these books are about Liberalism worldwide, they are all about modern liberalism in the United States. --Kevlar (talk • contribs) 12:06, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support to align to the appropriate main article. (Not quite all articles in the category relate to this usage though - one relates to Norway and looks like it is criticising "liberal conservatism", illustrating the term's elasticity.) AllyD (talk) 21:37, 8 March 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:Villages in Brazil[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) 00:11, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose deleting Category:Villages in Brazil
Nominator's rationale: Delete as only two members, with most places in Brazil categorized as Category: Populated places in Brazil by state etc. I have added these two villages to the appropriate state category. Hugo999 (talk) 11:52, 8 March 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:Kidnapped Georgian 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. Timrollpickering (talk) 00:07, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Kidnapped Georgian people to Category:Kidnapping victims from Georgia (country)
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Disambiguate the word "Gorgian", per Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 March 10#Category:Georgian people, Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 May 28#Category:Georgian culture and Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 February 14#Category:Georgian society, where other "Georgian" categories were renamed. A simple "Kidnapped people from Georgia (country)", however, would be ambiguous - it would imply that they were kidnapped in Georgia and brought out against their will. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:21, 8 March 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:Jewish Georgian history[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) 00:07, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Jewish Georgian history to Category:History of the Jews in Georgia (country)
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Per main article in category, and per Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 March 10#Category:Georgian people, Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 May 28#Category:Georgian culture and Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 February 14#Category:Georgian society, where other "Georgian" categories were renamed. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:18, 8 March 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:Heritage places of Western Australia[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: withdrawn.--Mike Selinker (talk) 18:57, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Heritage places of Western Australia to Category:category:Heritage places on the Western Australia Heritage Register Withdrawn
Nominator's rationale: standardize with category:Heritage places on the Commonwealth Heritage List category:Heritage places on the Northern Territory Heritage Register etc. Muhandes (talk) 09:51, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The proposal below now asks for suggestions for standardization of the names of all categories. --Muhandes (talk) 11:07, 8 March 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:Victorian Heritage Register sites[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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 18:57, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Victorian Heritage Register sites to Category:Heritage places on the Victoria Heritage Register
Nominator's rationale: standardize with category:Heritage places on the Commonwealth Heritage List category:Heritage places on the Northern Territory Heritage Register etc. Muhandes (talk) 09:49, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I created this category. Weakly oppose the change, but don't really care. Surely short, succinct names are to be treasured. Also, the VHR is more than a list of places, as it also lists objects. Billingd (talk) 10:45, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The proposal just below now asks for suggestions for standardization of the names of all categories. --Muhandes (talk) 11:07, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that discussion moved below. --Muhandes (talk) 06:44, 14 March 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:Australian National Heritage List[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. It seems like there is the basis for consensus on a recategorization scheme here, but it has not yet crystallized. A new nomination, uncluttered by all the options in this one, might succeed.--Mike Selinker (talk) 18:57, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Australian National Heritage List to Category:Heritage places on the National Heritage List (see below)
Nominator's rationale: standardize with category:Heritage places on the Commonwealth Heritage List category:Heritage places on the Northern Territory Heritage Register etc. Muhandes (talk) 09:47, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose (with the disclaimer that I created the category) I recall putting quite a bit of thought into the name of this category (even down to capitalisation) and concluding that the name I gave it was the best possible; ICI House is a building, not a place, for instance. Might be better to change the other cats; Heritage places on the xxx Heritage list reads rather ugly to my mind (Crusoe8181 (talk) 10:08, 8 March 2011 (UTC)).[reply]
All I want to do is standardize the 7 categories, so I went by majority. If someone can propose a better alternative:
* Category:Australian National Heritage List
* Category:Heritage places of Western Australia
* Category:Heritage places on Queensland Heritage Register
* Category:Heritage places on Register of the National Estate
* Category:Heritage places on the Commonwealth Heritage List
* Category:Heritage places on the Northern Territory Heritage Register
* Category:Victorian Heritage Register sites
Does "X sites" sound better? --Muhandes (talk) 10:27, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Victorian register uses "sites" or "places and objects"; UNESCO use World Heritage Site and WP has Category:World Heritage Sites and Category:World_Heritage_Sites_in_Australia, so I used sites. I don't have a strong opinion, though. Billingd (talk) 11:54, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We could keep this title and "standardize" the others by naming the categories after the corresponding register

Category:Australian National Heritage List

* Category:Western Australian Register of Heritage Places
* Category:Queensland Heritage Register
* Category:Register of the National Estate
* Category:Commonwealth Heritage List
* Category:Northern Territory Heritage Register
* Category:Victorian Heritage Register
and so on. Billingd (talk) 12:11, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer the "Sites on ..." formula but as above that would be an alternative. Johnbod (talk) 12:23, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think "Sites on the X" is the best suggestion so far. A category named after the register itself does not seem right and cannot be easily subcategorized later, where "Site on the X" can later be subcategorized as "Site on the X in Y" or as, say "Lighthouses on the X" etc. --Muhandes (talk) 15:37, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose the use of sites/places as not everything thats listed on the WA list is actually a site two particular examples are the Vasse Floodgates and the Ballarat bridge both of which are on the register yet dont fit the description of a site or place. The floodgates are now in a museum because though on the register pratical necessities required that they be replaced a section was removed and place in a museum near by. The Ballarat bridge is listed on the register but was demolished due to falling into a nonrepairable state. Additionally Category:Heritage places on the National Heritage List is totally meaningless and very poor grammer The UK has a national heritage register, as does US, Canada, New Zealand and a host of other countries where as Category:Australian National Heritage List is concise, descriptive and a logical search option its also has no ambiguarity as to its contents. Gnangarra 16:21, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"site" is surely exactly right for a now dismantled bridge? And the floodgates are not "places" either. One can't always meet every item exactly in names. I agree about the main cat, as said above. Johnbod (talk) 22:20, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to summarize where we stand and see how we can move forward to consensus. My original proposal is now withdrawn, as there are two much better ones. One proposal is to use the register name as the name of the category. The second is "Sites on the ..." or "... site". I see some opposition to the second proposal and no real opposition so far for the first. Is this a fair assessment? --Muhandes (talk) 16:28, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The register name is the most appropriate category structure, though the addition of a locator would not be an issue ie National heritage register --> Australian National heritage register also noting that state registers aren't subserviant to the national register they have different criteria. Gnangarra 10:42, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I am attempting to create a new category tree on this model:
Category:Buildings and structures by heritage register (global)
Category:Buildings in Canada by heritage register (national)
Category:Buildings in Alberta by heritage register (sub-national / regional)
Category:Buildings in Edmonton by heritage register (local)
Categories referring to a specific heritage register (such as Category:National Historic Sites in Alberta or Category:Provincial Historic Resources of Alberta) become sub-categories of the tree. Please consider creating Australian national and state branches from this tree. --Kevlar (talk • contribs) 11:02, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
except that as stated above not all listings on Australian heritage registers are of place or buildings, to categorise under a structurethat works for other countries just doesnt make sense for the Australian ones. Gnangarra 10:42, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A bridge or floodgate isn't a building or a structure? If not, what is it? --Kevlar (talk • contribs) 06:18, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Floodgate is an object, it not in place but a preserved reminent in a museum, Eureka Flag is an object, then theres the Dingo Flour sign, CSIRAC, Skipping girl sign....the ship HMVS Cerberus, or the Day of Mourning, Eureka Rebellion and so on... what ever the result the Australian register is not exclusively buldings nor even just locations it recognises much more than that, any category structure/naming should be inclusive. Gnangarra 09:45, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In that case you need sub-categories for buildings/structures and for smaller items. --Kevlar (talk • contribs) 06:01, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I would be happy with Billingd's suggestion, so have relisted below (perhaps List could be added to some) - succint, don't need places or sites (as they are called in Australia). Kevlar's cat tree may well be OK, but would need to select from the articles rather than have the Australian cats fit the tree (Crusoe8181 (talk) 11:33, 16 March 2011 (UTC)).[reply]
*Category:Australian National Heritage List
* Category:Western Australian Register of Heritage Places
* Category:Queensland Heritage Register
* Category:Register of the National Estate '''of Australia'''
* Category:Commonwealth Heritage List
* Category:Northern Territory Heritage Register
* Category:Victorian Heritage Register
Comment - I find it strange that the cats are being tailored to an external category issue - without taking any cognisance that movable objects are implicit in most levels of heritage description in Australia - and I would strongly support Crusoes considered comment that the need to select from the articles rather than have the Australian cats fit the tree is actually carried out with due process and consideration SatuSuro 13:14, 16 March 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:For-profit universities and colleges[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, and then recreate the main category. It is much easier to do this by bot first, then put the outliers back.--Mike Selinker (talk) 18:57, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:For-profit universities and colleges to Category:For-profit universities and colleges in the United States
Nominator's rationale: Merge. There are hundreds of entries, the majority of which are in the United States. Renaming the category (and re-creating the larger category later) is easier than re-categorizing each entry. --Kevlar (talk • contribs) 09:12, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Renaming the category = recategorizing every entry; it involves removing the current tag and placing a new one for the new category on every included article. If not all the entries are U.S., then they shouldn't all be moved to a U.S.-specific category, they should be properly categorized by country. Or it should be left alone, because all of the entries fit on two screens, and there arguably aren't enough to merit subdivision by country. postdlf (talk) 13:54, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes but can't a bot do that? --Kevlar (talk • contribs) 10:49, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If that's easier, then go ahead and I will withdraw my proposal. --Kevlar (talk • contribs) 10:48, 12 March 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:Walkers brands[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 match the article, revisit if that is moved. Timrollpickering (talk) 00:08, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Walkers brands to Category:Walkers (snack foods) brands
Nominator's rationale: Rename. I suggest renaming this categories to match Walkers (snack foods). There is a convention that a category for a company's products should match the article name for the company. There are other meanings of Walkers that the category name could be confused with, like Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:00, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The formal name of the company is "Walkers Snacks Ltd." - choster (talk) 15:23, 8 March 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:Sharp[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) 00:09, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Sharp to Category:Sharp Corporation
Propose renaming Category:Sharp products to Category:Sharp Corporation products
Propose renaming Category:Sharp mobile phones to Category:Sharp Corporation mobile phones
Nominator's rationale: Rename. I suggest renaming these categories; they are about Sharp Corporation, not anything else that could be called "Sharp". There is a convention that a category for a company and a company's products should match the article name for the company. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:18, 8 March 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:Sara Lee[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 the Sara Lee spellings. Timrollpickering (talk) 00:09, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Sara Lee to Category:Sarah Lee Corporation Category:Sara Lee Corporation
Propose renaming Category:Sara Lee brands to Category:Sarah Lee Corporation brands Category:Sara Lee Corporation brands
Nominator's rationale: Rename. I suggest renaming these categories; they are about Sara Lee Corporation, not a person named Sara Lee. There is a convention that a category for a company and a company's brands should match the article name for the company. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:14, 8 March 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:R. J. Reynolds[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) 00:10, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:R. J. Reynolds to Category:R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company
Propose renaming Category:R.J. Reynolds brands to Category:R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company brands
Nominator's rationale: Rename. I suggest renaming these categories; they are about R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, not the person R. J. Reynolds. There is a convention that a category for a company and a company's brands should match the article name for the company. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:09, 8 March 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:Post Cereals brands[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) 00:10, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Post Cereals brands to Category:Post Foods brands
Nominator's rationale: Rename. I suggest renaming this brand category to match Post Foods. The company is sometimes called "Post Cereals" and Post Cereals redirects there. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:03, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
query. Have they all always been Post Cereals brands? Johnbod (talk) 03:04, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No. Shredded wheat is one example. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:29, 8 March 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_March_8&oldid=1142533838"