From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< April 19 April 21 >

April 20

Category:Pseudonymous album releases

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. — ξ xplicit 05:01, 6 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Propose renaming Category:Pseudonymous album releases to Category:Pseudonymous albums
Nominator's rationale: I don't see why "releases" is necessary. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 23:44, 20 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Rename per nom. I agree that the extra word is redundant and unneeded. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:14, 29 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Rename What's important is the album, not the release of the album. This is assuming that the album continues to be pseudonymous after its release. Steve Dufour ( talk) 08:02, 4 May 2010 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Visitor attractions in Orlando, Florida

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. The discussion was complicated by the fact that there was a simultaneously held discussion regarding the category for visitor attractions in Greater Orlando on this same page. That discussion was closed as "keep". In light of that result, I suggest that it would be worthwhile to renominate this category now that the consensus is clear that Category:Visitor attractions in Greater Orlando should be kept. The new nomination should focus on whether we need both categories or just the one for Greater Orlando. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:30, 28 April 2010 (UTC) reply
Category:Visitor attractions in Orlando, Florida ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Duplicate of Category:Visitor attractions in Greater Orlando. Unnecessary expansion of existing category as existing category already covers "Orlando, Florida". Marc Averette ( talk) 21:32, 20 April 2010 (UTC) reply
Support per nom. - The Bushranger ( talk) 21:37, 20 April 2010 (UTC) reply
Comment. Bearing in mind the deletion nomination below [1] where both of you have already voted to oppose I think this nomination, at this juncture, is a little premature. I suppose both categories could be deleted. Is that what you meant? -- Richhoncho ( talk) 21:55, 20 April 2010 (UTC) reply
Comment At least in my case, deleting this one, and keeping the other ("Greater Orlando") version, is what's intended, since the "in Orlando" clearly falls within "in Greater Orlando". - The Bushranger ( talk) 23:09, 20 April 2010 (UTC) reply
Opposing the other and supporting this are not conflicting opinions. This one fixes the problem identified by the other nomination. But as I comment below, this should not be a delete but a merge. Vegaswikian ( talk) 23:57, 20 April 2010 (UTC) reply
And as somebody who has no opinion either way in the result, but assumes good faith in the result, I just think this nomination should have been bundled with the other to create a clear and concise debate. The kindest thing would be for the nominator to withdraw this nomination and restate his opinion below. All in my opinion only. -- Richhoncho ( talk) 08:19, 21 April 2010 (UTC) reply
Ah, good point. Support Merge per the above then. - The Bushranger ( talk) 01:19, 21 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose. This category is already part of a previously submitted CFD proposal on this page. By splitting the CFD campaign into two parts, there will be unresolved conversation and possible conflict with editors monitoring one discussion and not the other. No good resolution can come from having competing CFD campaigns. Resolve the first one before beginning another anew. SpikeJones ( talk) 04:25, 21 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - Just wanted to point out that this has been discussed ad nauseum before, if interested parties hadn't noticed: Category talk:Visitor attractions in Orlando, Florida. Also, as Vegaswikian pointed out in a previous discussion, "The city categories tend to include the surrounding areas in this class of categories and none of the existing ones specify area in the name. Vegaswikian 00:48, 29 April 2007 (UTC)" SpikeJones ( talk) 04:41, 21 April 2010 (UTC) reply
    • And that was in renaming to or keeping Category:Visitor attractions in Orlando. That is the general name used for these areas. Once you add the state, it becomes specific to the city or county and is not longer appropriate for the broader area. Either rename to the area category or we can decide to use these without the state qualifier. If the last was implemented for Los Angles, there would be no confusion for the attractions and buildings and what ever. Vegaswikian ( talk) 19:27, 21 April 2010 (UTC) reply
      • That rename from a category that did not include the city,state to one that did was done to consolidate a large number of Orlando-related categories per the CFD listed at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_October_31#Orlando.2C_Florida. At the time, Vegaswikian supported the rename by stating Support except rename Category:Universities and colleges near Orlando to Category:Universities and colleges in Orlando, Florida as is common for metro areas. In other words, previous consensus and established guidelines already take into account that a "City, State" display does allow for it to apply to a metro region. SpikeJones ( talk) 03:13, 22 April 2010 (UTC) reply
        • And this is where it looks like the standardization of US City-related categories were mass-changed to a standardized "city, state" format by TexasAndroid, which includes Vegaswikian's contribution to the associated debate that occurred at that time as well, stating a strong opposition to the renaming (but ultimately failing to win over the others participating in the debate at the time). The point is that there is a much larger issue at hand here beyond the current Orlando-centric conversation going on. I encourage that any changes made to handle Orlando-area items need to be applied to all city/state metro areas unilaterally for consistency across WP, as was done under the previous CFD where this was discussed. SpikeJones ( talk) 03:26, 22 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose - Just to make one distinction. I have done no mass renaming/standardization on my own. I started a few CFD discussions a few years back, and have created many, many new city categories. I generally use the "City, State" format because it is by far the most commonly used. For me personally, standardization of these things is far more important than the "City" vs "City, State" debate. "City, State" is more common, in categories and in the city article names, so that's the format I have stuck with for a long, long time. If a mega-mass CFD were to somehow change every single one to just "City", I would likely shrug and start using "City" myself.
That all said, I have never agreed with Vegaswikian's contention that "City" vs "City, State" makes a difference in the scope of a category. In my mental parsing of both name options, they both end up with scope of just the city, not the metro area. "Visitor attractions in Orlando" and "Visitor attractions in Orlando, Florida" have exactly the same scope in my mind. Neither in my mind scopes in things outside the city, things in the "Metro Area". To get scope of the metro area, IMHO the category needs to have a name that reflects the metro area, not just a lack of a state name tacked onto it. That's part of the reason I do not ultimately have a strong preference between "C" and "C, S", beyond the standardization issue.
Anyway, getting to my actual reason for the Oppose, IMHO in the general case, the City category is the much more important one, and the Metro Area category is more optional. IMHO metro categories belong under the top level category for the metro area, *not* under the top level city category. But when people go to the top level category for a city, they expect to be able to drill down to the categories for things within that city. But if some things from within the city are off in a metro area category instead, it's confusing. So I'm of the opinion that the city category should stay, and if there are things that are in the scope of the metro area, but not the scope of the city, then that's an argument for needing the metro area category as well. - TexasAndroid ( talk) 15:37, 22 April 2010 (UTC) reply
Perhaps having Category:Visitor attractions in Orlando, Florida as a subcat of Category:Visitor attractions in Greater Orlando (in addition to its other logical categorisations)? - The Bushranger ( talk) 18:05, 22 April 2010 (UTC) reply
Like it already is now? :) - TexasAndroid ( talk) 18:32, 22 April 2010 (UTC) reply
"...indeed." [/Teal'c] :) - The Bushranger ( talk) 20:38, 22 April 2010 (UTC) reply
Why do we need to say "Greater Orlando" when "Orlando" by itself would suffice? There is no such place as "Greater Orlando"? SpikeJones ( talk) 23:08, 22 April 2010 (UTC) reply
The Greater Orlando Aviation Authority would likely beg to differ. - The Bushranger ( talk) 00:22, 23 April 2010 (UTC) reply
I'm sure they would, but think of it in terms of the average Orlando visitor...and in terms of how it affects other cities as well as the long history seen regarding this specific category controversy and similar with other city catagories as mentioned above (as well as the fact that this CFD was placed as a challenge/counter to the previous and similar CFD mentioned below. Just want to be sure that everyone has all the facts and history from those involved. SpikeJones ( talk) 22:23, 23 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose Nominator has had a bone to pick with the category for a couple of years now. Attractions in and around the city of Orlando are part of the Orlando market, and always have been considered as such. The "Visitor attractions in Orlando, Florida" introduction clearly states that it includes the environs, and the attraction articles themselves also state "in" or "near" the city, where appropriate. Conversely, the "Attractions in Greater Orlando" category was recently created by the nominator, which makes the proposal to delete the duplicate all the more suspicious, in my opinion. -- McDoobAU93 ( talk) 23:46, 23 April 2010 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Judaising Jerusalem

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:34, 28 April 2010 (UTC) reply
Category:Judaising Jerusalem ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Category title clearly not NPOV, no value added Plot Spoiler ( talk) 20:40, 20 April 2010 (UTC) reply
Should be speedily deleted. Plot Spoiler ( talk) 20:41, 20 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy delete Wildly POV. I have removed the two entries: E1 Plan and Judaization of Jerusalem. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 20:48, 20 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - the title is not "POV", this is the word used to describe actions of the Israeli government that attempt to change the demographic makeup of Jerusalem. The word "Judaize" was also the literal translation of an official Israeli policy in the Galilee (see Judaization of the Galilee). The main article for this category is Judaization of Jerusalem. The removals of the category from those two articles should also be reverted. nableezy - 20:54, 20 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Delete To me, this seems more of an attempt to have the I/P political issues spill over into categorization. The article is one thing, categories another. Is there a category "Islamising Israel"? Joseph's Tomb would be appropriate for that category. My point is that we should leave this to NPOV discussions in articles and rants on other websites, not make wikipedia even more of a battleground than it already is. -- Avi ( talk) 21:50, 20 April 2010 (UTC) reply
Avi, if you got sources talking about "Islamising Israel" by all means write that article (though my guess is they would use "Islamification of Palestine"). And if there are articles that fit such a category then by all means make that cat and add those articles. There is scholarly literature about the "Judaization of Jerusalem" and they discuss a number of different actions in that context. That being the case, a category is appropriate to group articles on those actions. nableezy - 23:03, 20 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Question - Setting aside the appropriateness of the category shouldn't it be called 'Judaizing Jerusalem' ? That gets more far more hits on google scholar e.g. Judaizing + Jerusalem => about 6,760 hits Sean.hoyland - talk 05:55, 21 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - The category Cultural assimilation contains quite of lot things that appear to be superficially analogous to this case if not so spatially precise (although I see that there is a Frenchification of Brussels article in there) and if you ignore the it's not assimilation issue. There aren't analogous categories in there though. There is also a Template:Cultural_assimilation which includes similar links to all sorts of <something>ations including Islamization and Judaization articles. So, who knows what all that indicates is the best approach... It seems to me that there should be cats for all those <something>ations, Africanization · Albanization · Americanization · Anglicization · Arabization etc etc and that a 'Judaization of Jerusalem' cat would have the parent 'Judaization'. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:48, 21 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I think the title is obviously NPOV, could you please explain how it is not NPOV?! Also the added value from this category comes from categorizing and grouping all of the acts that are carried out by the israeli government to change the natural and original characteristics of Jerusalem; those acts and each of them could be a stand-alone article. I think by time those articles will be created and grouped under this category. Yamanam ( talk) 09:57, 21 April 2010 (UTC) reply
    Let us not get into political debates, but Jerusalem was Jewish centuries before Islam existed, so the "natural and original chracteristics" are more likely Jewish than Muslim. See what I mean about working to minimize the political spillover? Which is why this category should be removed. -- Avi ( talk) 13:49, 21 April 2010 (UTC) reply
    Quite right. Why has this Jewish building been replaced by this ? Chesdovi ( talk) 15:32, 21 April 2010 (UTC) reply
    Because it's more shiny ? So, I guess that is possibly another vote for an Islamization cat with a Islamization of Jerusalem subcat. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:07, 21 April 2010 (UTC) reply
    Well, it depends how many pages that subject has, otherwise it does not warrant its own cat. By the way, the Dome was only coated in that "shiny" gold exterior recently. Beforehand, when most Muslims bearly knew of its existance, it was a dull greyish colour. No, the temple, which the Talmud describes as: "He who has not seen the Temple in its full construction has never seen a glorious building in his life" was more pleasing. It states further that the Temple was made of yellow, blue and white marble. Herod was going to overlay it with gold, but the Rabbis asked him to leave it as was, since it was so beautiful, having the appearance of waves of the sea. So, the Jewish Temple was definatley more shiny. But the Dome is better than nothing I suppose. Chesdovi ( talk) 18:17, 21 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - for the simple reason that with only two pages currently in the category (one being the article itself), it is highly unwarranted. Chesdovi ( talk) 10:41, 21 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Clearly POV. Davshul ( talk) 10:57, 21 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Let's stop wasting everyone's time and delete please. Plot Spoiler ( talk) 19:24, 21 April 2010 (UTC) reply
    Agree to delete. Why is a category needed for 2 pages? Or are we supposed to include every Israeli building in the city here? Hmmmm. Chesdovi ( talk) 23:19, 21 April 2010 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Band-centric video games

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. No prejudice against speedy renomination. Bradjamesbrown ( talk) 06:31, 24 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Propose renaming Category:Band-centric video games to Category:Video games about bands
Nominator's rationale: It seems better to me than a coinage. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 20:26, 3 April 2010 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Black Falcon ( talk) 02:44, 12 April 2010 (UTC)} reply
  • Comment: I noticed that this category is both a subcategory of and a parent to Category:Musician video games. -- Black Falcon ( talk) 02:44, 12 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Note: WikiProject Video games has been notified using Template:Cfd-notify. -- Black Falcon ( talk) 02:50, 12 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Although the name of the category does need clarifying, 'video games about bands' doesn't quite get there. A lot of kids' cartoons etc. have 'bands' (I'm thinking things like Bratz etc.), so ideally the title should convey that these are video games based on real musicians/bands. 'Video games featuring non-fictional musicians and singers' or something along those lines would be clearer IMO, if not quite as snappy. Someone another 03:00, 12 April 2010 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Black Falcon ( talk) 20:34, 20 April 2010 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Braniff

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Keep. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:06, 16 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Propose renaming Category:Braniff to Category:Braniff International Airways
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Braniff is ambiguous since at least three airlines used this name, see Braniff (disambiguation). If renamed, the two articles on the other airlines would need to be removed from the renamed category. Vegaswikian ( talk) 17:19, 12 April 2010 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Black Falcon ( talk) 19:56, 20 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Rename. Seems obvious enough since they are separate entities. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:13, 29 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Comment:Oppose: Technically all three companies were direct corporate descendants of each other. So I'm not quite convinced this is necessary. - The Bushranger ( talk) 12:57, 29 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose. The category has few entries so not a problem to keep it as one. The statement that "at least three airlines used this name" is POV, another way to put it would be say that the airline known as Braniff was operated by at least three separate legal entities at different times. This is the case with very many commercial brands and to split the categories according to legal ownership will not be helpful to users of the category. Sussexonian ( talk) 22:30, 29 April 2010 (UTC) reply
    • They weren't just operated by different legal entities, the airline itself was separate legal entities 3 different times. They each owned the brand name "Braniff", but so what? It was never the same airline. It's categorization by shared name. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:03, 29 April 2010 (UTC) reply
      • According to the pages for the different airlines, each acquired large shares of the assets of the previous Braniff (and the second was absolutely a direct desencent of the first; the third was slightly more removed). - The Bushranger ( talk) 02:53, 30 April 2010 (UTC) reply
        • Seems like a pretty borderline case, since there were two different changes and they were significantly different in scope—one being quite a close retention of the previous organization and the third being less so. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:12, 3 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Somewhat oppose I think the issue is going to be that even if the name were changed, all the articles would still remain in the category, even those about the successor corporations. Mangoe ( talk) 10:59, 6 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose. The staff, operating certificate, trade name, office and (I think) planes of the third were from the second, see citation given. It's not coincidental categorisation by shared name; it was a common brand. I think it's useful to readers to keep these categorised together. - Fayenatic (talk) 19:58, 6 May 2010 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Bolehall Swifts F.C.

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:37, 28 April 2010 (UTC) reply
Category:Bolehall Swifts F.C. ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Category has no scope for growth per WP:OC#SMALL. Only contains the team article and there is no chance of other Bolehall Swifts related articles being created. Big Dom 16:43, 20 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. – Pee Jay 16:50, 20 April 2010 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

subcats of Category:People by religion

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 all. — ξ xplicit 05:01, 6 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Propose renaming:
Extended content
Nominator's rationale: for consistency in catting people by group - catting for people by nationality and ethnicity follow, by WP catting convention, the 'Tooian people' and not the 'Toois' pattern Mayumashu ( talk) 14:45, 20 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose – I think the analogy with nationality (where the majority were 'Fooian people' with a few 'Foos') is false. Here all but 2 of the subcats of Category:People by religion do not include 'people'. Many of the proposed names are awkward and contrived. Occuli ( talk) 16:34, 20 April 2010 (UTC) reply
The ones ending in '-ist' do sound a bit awkward, but grammatically they are fine. Again, there really needs to be consistency between these similar categories (by nationality, ethnicity, and religion) - either Fooian people or Foos Mayumashu ( talk) 17:32, 20 April 2010 (UTC) reply
Why does there need to be consistency between different subcat schemes? In the other 2 there was a good reason to add 'people' but here there is not. (There are a lot more in Category:Christians by denomination.) Is this going to be extended to say Category:Mathematicians? Occuli ( talk) 00:41, 21 April 2010 (UTC) reply
The volume is not a concern as I would gradually get the renaming of subcats done as speedies. Good point in that I would not want to extend it to 'people by occupation' - Category:Mathematician people would indeed be awkward. I say there needs to be consistency amongst the three because what they describe is that similar - essentially forms of ethnicities.
  • Comment/question. I agree with Occuli that we don't necessarily need consistency between entirely different category schemes. But am I correct in assuming this proposal has its genesis in the recent disputes at speedy rename as to whether it will be "Jews" (religion tree) or "Jewish people" (ethnicity tree)? This seems to be the only real common thread between these two trees. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:43, 21 April 2010 (UTC) reply
It s been one that I have been in favour of for some time but, yes, the recent wish to reverse the recent change from 'Jews' to 'Jewish people' caused me to present this now. I disagree that it is the only common thread, although it is the most prominent one, as each religion constitutes "a group of people whose members identify with each other, through a common heritage that is real or assumed[, thus] sharing cultural characteristics" which the definition of 'ethnic group' at Ethnic group. Describing certain religions as ethnoreligions and others as not is arbitrary, involves pencilling in a line. Mayumashu ( talk) 16:31, 21 April 2010 (UTC) reply
The Jewish categories are the only really widely-developed ones that are actively categorized as both a religion and an ethnicity. This is not really done for any of the others you have nominated; not even the Jains. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:54, 21 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Mild oppose. I don't know—doing this certainly would solve the problem with the Jewish ones being placed in religion trees and ethnicity trees, but otherwise I can't see any benefit of doing this. To me, the nouns sound much more natural in almost all cases than using adjectives. Apart from the wrinkle with the Jewish/Jews categories, I don't think these are really comparable to nationality/ethnicity categories. I'd be OK if this change was made, but on balance I just don't think it's a good idea. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:40, 28 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Strongly oppose. I see no good reason to change the names of these categories from the present generally-accepted names to the proposed contrived and somewhat artificial names. Davshul ( talk) 22:07, 29 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose Per WP:POINT-- agr ( talk) 17:36, 30 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose. It doesn't really need to be named. It is not like there are any "Neopagan animals" or "Shintoist animals" or "[religion] animals" at all (I'm not trying to be a jerk, but I'm just saying that that doesn't need to be distinguished). Also, in its current state, it already tells all that is required to be told about this person's religion in categories. Adding "people" at the end won't necessarily add more info. Backtable Speak to me concerning my deeds. 20:36, 1 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose - there's no need for consistency here, and religion is not an ethnicity, though the concepts may be related. Converts change their religion, not their ethnicity. Huon ( talk) 21:17, 1 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose. You simply aren't going to find any usage of this kind in general use. Most religious groups are not synonymous with an ethnicity. Such a naming convention would likely invite random users to try to change things or complain. At best it would be an artificial imposition. Smkolins ( talk) 21:22, 1 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose I do not think it adds significantly useful information, and it lengthens titles (and the space at the bottom of articles listing the categories is already crowded in many instances). I can also see where this would mean piping wikilinks to accomodate the new category names and preserve readability. • Astynax talk 21:59, 1 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose I agree that there's no need for consistency here— as words and lables are used differently for religions. In theory it should be on a case by case basis— and "Bahá'í people" seems to be better than "Bahá'ís"— but as far as I can tell, most of these categories are fine as is, and many are better as is. şṗøʀĸɕäɾłäů∂ɛ: τᴀʟĸ 01:00, 2 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose unnecessary change as per User:Backtable -- TheMandarin ( talk) 06:57, 2 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Oppose. Who talks this way? "I know some atheist people." "Those Christian people are really spiritual." This is a silly categorization which may apply to Category:People by ethnicity, but it certainly doesn't apply to Category:People by religion. Yoninah ( talk) 20:53, 3 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Oh good grief, oppose Since "Christian people" means "people who are Christians" and "Buddhist people" means "people who are Buddhists" and so forth, this is simply silly. I'm not enamored of the "ethnic people" naming anyway, but since religions have a perfectly regular convention, we ought to use it rather than contriving some special Wiki-speak terminology. Mangoe ( talk) 02:21, 4 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Strong oppose. Whatever for? Leave well alone. (Anyway, in what world are nationality and religion "essentially forms of ethnicities"?! Many of these proposed names are ridiculous, no less than " Category:Mathematician people".) Shreevatsa ( talk) 15:02, 4 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose. Completely pointless and throws up some very odd constructions (e.g. Scientologist people). -- Necrothesp ( talk) 22:11, 4 May 2010 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Gangs and Organized crime in Chile

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:57, 4 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Propose deleting:
Category:Outlaw gangs in Chile
Category:Organized crime groups in Chile
Category:Historical gangs of Chile
Category:Organized crime in Chile
Nominator's rationale: Unless any of these cats can be populated I suggest they be deleted. They currently hold 3 pages: Pincheira brothers, a pair of Spanish royalists during the Chilean War of Independence; and labeling Coordinadora Arauco-Malleco and Mapuche conflict as "organized crime groups" seems fairly POV to me (not to mention the latter is more a movement rather than a group). - Ruodyssey ( talk) 07:59, 20 April 2010 (UTC) reply
Delete all per OP. - The Bushranger ( talk) 01:56, 28 April 2010 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:People from Okinawa

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. (I'll make Category:People from Okinawa a disambiguation category.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:23, 28 April 2010 (UTC) reply
Propose renaming Category:People from Okinawa to Category:People from Okinawa Island
Nominator's rationale: to disambiguate from Category:People from Okinawa Prefecture and as per article page Okinawa Island Mayumashu ( talk) 15:43, 24 March 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Is there a need for both of these? How much does the prefecture include that the island does not- it's not crystal clear from the articles; which give a higher population for the Island than the Prefecture, which is obviously an effect of one number being from 2009 and the other from 2008. Bradjamesbrown ( talk) 08:40, 29 March 2010 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Black Falcon ( talk) 22:21, 5 April 2010 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ξ xplicit 06:06, 20 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Rename – there are quite a few people listed in Miyakojima, Okinawa (a city of 50,000) which appears to be part of the Prefecture but not Okinawa Island. Occuli ( talk) 16:43, 20 April 2010 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Compilations

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. — ξ xplicit 05:01, 6 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Propose renaming Category:Compilations to Category:Collections
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Most of the subcategories use the term collection rather than compilation. Cjc13 ( talk) 13:46, 5 April 2010 (UTC) reply
The rename below would make it 4 out of 6 for collections. I think collection is the more general term, as compilation suggests some rearranging of the material, i.e. a more specific form of collection. In practice, compilation seems to be used mainly for music complilations, whereas collections or anthologies seem to be used for books and other printed material. Cjc13 ( talk) 15:40, 5 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose. This functions as a collection of like named categories. Delete may well be the best choice. Collection and compilation are as expected dab pages! Vegaswikian ( talk) 19:45, 5 April 2010 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ξ xplicit 06:06, 20 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Delete there is no use in this category... compilation albums and short story collections in the same category? 70.29.208.247 ( talk) 04:09, 22 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. I agree that this largely resembles a categorization by name. The media being grouped together is so different that there is little purpose I can envisage for using such a category. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:12, 29 April 2010 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Video game compilations

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. — ξ xplicit 04:14, 20 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Propose renaming Category:Video game compilations to Category:Video game collections
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Most of the entries use the term collection rather than compilation. Cjc13 ( talk) 13:41, 5 April 2010 (UTC) reply
Weak not do - parent cat is "compilation" - also new name also suggests the possibility of "personal or museum collections of ..." rather than the "collated releases of ...." which I think is not quite intended. Shortfatlad ( talk) 15:10, 7 April 2010 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ξ xplicit 06:06, 20 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Rename to match some of the products in the category. The current name may have been used to match the now-deleted old head category "compilations". Some articles include the word "compilation" in the title, but the products themselves did not. - Fayenatic (talk) 20:04, 6 May 2010 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Student ghettos

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:50, 4 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Propose renaming Category:Student ghettos to Category:Student quarters
Nominator's rationale: Rename. To meet WP:NPOV and following the articles move for this reason. While the proposed name follows the name of the lead article, I think that Category:Student residential areas is a better name. Vegaswikian ( talk) 08:58, 5 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Rename per nom - I'm not sure that Category:Student residential areas carries the same implication of predomination. Occuli ( talk) 09:41, 5 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Rename probably as Occuli (no strong view on how). The present name is perjorative and hence POV. Peterkingiron ( talk) 11:00, 5 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Comment "Student quarters" could, imo, be mistaken as a category for individual dorm buildings rather than districts: in other words, "living quarters," rather than the "quarter" of a city. So Category:Student residential areas is a clearer and safer bet, perhaps. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 19:52, 5 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Rename per nom or per Occuli. I proposed the rename of the lead article, and was equivocal about my choice of alternative there, although I could support Student Quarter with dictionary definitions. But yes, rename somehow. - Brunnian ( talk) 20:18, 5 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Comment (leaning to delete). None of the proposed new names is adequate. Both "residential areas" and "quarters" imply some organized settlement, and/or an intentional community (like a purpose-built campus), which is not the case. NVO ( talk) 02:42, 6 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose WP:NOTCENSORED and WP:UCN is "student ghetto" further, "student quarter" was renamed to its current name without anything like consensus. I also don't see why there is a WP:NPOV problem. 65.94.253.16 ( talk) 04:16, 7 April 2010 (UTC) reply
Do nothing (or alternative name propose) I agree that the name is not contentious, and probably common use. "Student residental areas" is acceptable - but perhaps caling Duck as Duck is better and clearer here - despite the vaguely emotive name. Shortfatlad ( talk) 15:12, 7 April 2010 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ξ xplicit 06:06, 20 April 2010 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Songs with lyrics by Bobby Troup

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; seems to be a lack of interest or concern about this—in light of this, the nominator's proposal and the guidelines of WP:Songs should prevail. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:55, 4 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Propose merging Category:Songs with lyrics by Bobby Troup to Category:Songs written by Bobby Troup
Nominator's rationale: Merge. A songwriter is a person who writes either lyrics and music, Therefore the sole entry in the 'lyrics by' would fit just as snugly in the songwriter category. Richhoncho ( talk) 13:34, 21 March 2010 (UTC) reply
Please note the creator of this category was notified at the time of the initial listing at CfD. -- Richhoncho ( talk) 14:59, 5 April 2010 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Black Falcon ( talk) 06:58, 5 April 2010 (UTC) reply
Comment - 'A songwriter is a person who writes either lyrics and music' - not always the case. A person who re-writes the lyrics to an old song is not the song writer. I'm not sure if that is the case with Bobby Troup. Regards, SunCreator ( talk) 14:04, 7 April 2010 (UTC) reply
Doesn't appear to be the case this time. But this does raise points which I shall raise over at the project. -- Richhoncho ( talk) 15:19, 7 April 2010 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ξ xplicit 06:06, 20 April 2010 (UTC) reply
Additional point. WP:Songs says The songwriters should be placed in either Category:Songs by songwriter (“Category:Songs written by <songwriter>”), Category:Songs by lyricist ("Category:Songs with lyrics by <lyricist>") or Category:Songs by composer ("Category:Songs with music by <composer>"). Only one category should be created for each songwriter, so if a songwriter contributes words and/or music then the category should be in songs by songwriter only. (My italics). -- Richhoncho ( talk) 10:07, 30 April 2010 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Financial information

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Rename to Category:Financial data vendors. There is consensus to rename, albeit some discussion about the name. Since {{:financial data vendor]] appears to be the main article and the other pages are companies, Category:Financial data vendors would appear to be the best choice. If the category needs an introduction to further clarify the scope, others can add it. Vegaswikian ( talk) 20:38, 18 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Category:Financial information ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. An undefined category, which makes its meaning kind of vague. Seems to be for sources (newspapers, etc.) in which "financial information" can be found. Since financial information can be found in hundreds of thousands of sources, this probably isn't a good way to categorize. Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:26, 5 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Rename to something (Financial news services? Financial data companies? as a subcat of Category:News agencies and perhaps Category:Financial services companies) matching current content of the category. Companies that specialize in financial data (Bloomberg, Reuters) are clearly different from generalist news agencies. And you have to believe me that no, you cannot "find" their services "in hundreds of thousand of sources". The bulk of financial data never reaches public information channels. NVO ( talk) 08:26, 5 April 2010 (UTC) reply
    • You can find "financial information" in hundreds of thousands of sources, which is what I had originally stated. The current name is so vague as to be essentially meaningless. The category could be renamed to limit its scope, but then it will be something quite different to what exists currently. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:23, 5 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Rename -- the contents are (mostly at least) a coherent category, but its scope needs to be defined better. Most of the subjects are primary (or near primary) sources of stock market and related data - stock prices, credit rating for company (and government) bonds, news agencies specialising in this. Newspapers will largely be deriving datsa from these or commenting on it, and so are not quite the same: perhaps Financial data primary sources or Financial data providers or Share and bond information sources. Whatever we adopt, a headnote will be needed to define the category, so that companies providing the credit rating for individuals (such as Experian) should not be included. Peterkingiron ( talk) 11:16, 5 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • leave as is - Financial Information is indeed a category. Please see the page Financial_data_vendor for the industry which services this category. Maybe a headnote can be added to explain the category. There are indeed numerous public avenues for this data, but the vast depth of the data is of little interest to the general public. However, the fact that the data exists is important and should be included in an encyclopaedia which is as much used by experts as by Joe (and Jo) Public! Rgnewbury ( talk) 13:15, 6 April 2010 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ξ xplicit 06:06, 20 April 2010 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Steam aircraft

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:53, 4 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Propose renaming Category:Steam aircraft to Category:Steam-powered aircraft
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Rename to conform with other "________-powered aircraft" categories maintained by WP:AIR. The Bushranger ( talk) 05:39, 20 April 2010 (UTC) reply
Rename per nom. -- Richhoncho ( talk) 09:45, 20 April 2010 (UTC) reply
Rename per nom. This was originally proposed alongside the rename of Category:Nuclear aircraft to Category:Nuclear-powered aircraft.
Both seem OK, as 'nuclear aircraft' could be interpreted in multiple ways (I don't think 'steam aircraft' could in the same way?). It also matches naming conventions at Commons; however, I would oppose extending this to other 'Steam xxx' categories, as terms such as 'Steam locomotive', 'Steam car', 'Steamboat', etc, are widely recognised, and inserting '-powered' is not helpful. By comparison, steam-powered aircraft were pretty rare beasts.
-- EdJogg ( talk) 10:29, 20 April 2010 (UTC) NB -- Comment copied from 'CfD/Speedy' here. Not watching this page for responses due to high edit count reply
  • Comment is this for steam powered propeller aircraft or steam rocket propelled aircraft, or both? 70.29.208.247 ( talk) 05:06, 21 April 2010 (UTC) reply
Reply: It is intended to be for aircraft with a propeller driven by a steam engine. A steam-rocket aircraft would fall under Category:Rocket-powered aircraft. - The Bushranger ( talk) 05:07, 21 April 2010 (UTC) reply
further comment: More specifically, the category should be for aircraft powered by a steam external combustion engine. And shouldn't include the inventors the category currently does, IMHO. However, a possible Alternative would be to retain Category:Steam Aircraft and have Category:Steam-powered aircraft as a subcategory for the craft themselves, I suppose. - The Bushranger ( talk) 05:10, 21 April 2010 (UTC) reply
comment to alternative -- the thing is, with the exception of William Samuel Henson, whose plane has its own article, all of the inventor pages also describe their aircraft. If anything, I would suggest a structure of Category:Steam-powered aircraft with a subcategory Category:Steam-powered aircraft inventors, or some such, but I think the current, single-category grouping is more accurate for someone seeking information on steam aircraft.
-- EdJogg ( talk) 12:07, 21 April 2010 (UTC) -- watching asynchronously, ie not using watchlist! reply
Ah, good point. - The Bushranger ( talk) 21:00, 21 April 2010 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Grendizer series characters

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:15, 3 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Propose merging Category:Grendizer series characters to category:Mazinger series characters
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge to category:Mazinger series characters proposed as the category contains only one list article after individual articles were merged together. G.A.S talk 05:11, 20 April 2010 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Visitor attractions in Greater Orlando

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:20, 28 April 2010 (UTC) reply
Category:Visitor attractions in Greater Orlando ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete - Nominator's rationale: Duplicate of Category:Visitor attractions in Orlando, Florida. Unnecessary expansion of existing category as existing category already covers "Greater Orlando". SpikeJones ( talk) 03:57, 20 April 2010 (UTC) reply
Comment. Minor background: topic has come up previously. Please see, for example, conversation posted here User talk:74.163.223.240. SpikeJones ( talk) 03:59, 20 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Oppose. Most of the attractions are not in the actual city. They are in other places. Category:Visitor attractions in Greater Orlando is an accurate representation of this. The city may need a subcategory, but there is no guarantee that one is actually needed for the city. Merge all of the articles that are in Category:Visitor attractions in Orlando, Florida that are not located in the city to Category:Visitor attractions in Greater Orlando. Vegaswikian ( talk) 05:13, 20 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Oppose. For reasons stated by Vegaswikian. Also, all other examples I could find on all the other cities/areas coincide with this. Orlando seems to be the only exception. A category specifically called Orlando, Florida suggests they are within the city, when some of these aren't even in Orange County. Why can't Orlando follow the convention that all the others are using? What is special about Orlando that they should violate the norm? An explanation on the category page that states surrounding area is hardly sufficient, since most users will never see this explanation. Finally, could someone explain why NOT to use Greater Orlando? Is there something I'm missing here? Tampa, South Florida, etc. do this. Why can't Orlando? - Marc Averette ( talk) 15:29, 20 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Oppose per the comments above. Lots of the 'Greater Orlando' attractions are in Kissimmee, not Orlando, which is in Osceola County, not Orange.......in fact, one could make a strong case for the deletion of the mentioned Category:Visitor attractions in Orlando, Florida as a duplication of this. - The Bushranger ( talk) 18:33, 20 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Question only. Is there a place called "Greater Orlando" or is it made up name to satisfy WP categorization? The outcome of this nomination should rely entirely on the answer to the question. -- Richhoncho ( talk) 19:28, 20 April 2010 (UTC) reply
Thanks Vegas, I have now looked at Greater Orlando, looks suspiciously like our Greater London, City of London and London, which confuses most Brits. I would strike my question, but I think it is still relevant, but as for coming down for or against, I think I'll pass this time. -- Richhoncho ( talk) 19:57, 20 April 2010 (UTC) reply
A Google search turns up 189,000 hits for "Greater Orlando", most notably the Greater Orlando Aviation Authority. - The Bushranger ( talk) 21:07, 20 April 2010 (UTC) reply
Comment - a casual reader searching for Orlando-area attractions will not type in "Greater Orlando", nor would they necessarily know what that means in the first place. As there now seems to be a parallel discussion going on above regarding a CFD for the matching category, I propose that there may be a conflict that should be looked at further and discussed in more depth to ensure that all interested parties' voices are heard. SpikeJones ( talk) 04:22, 21 April 2010 (UTC) reply
Please note that there continues to be a split conversation on this topic with a similar CFD posted above. SpikeJones ( talk) 03:14, 22 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose - I give more details of my general opinion of this above, but I disagree with the OP's contention that Category:Visitor attractions in Orlando, Florida covers the Orlando metro area. In my view, city categories cover things in the city, not things outside the city. - TexasAndroid ( talk) 15:41, 22 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Strong support Category was created less than a week ago by an editor who has had issues with the Orlando category for a couple of years now and attempted to move attractions into his newly-created category without discussion with editors and after consensus had been previously reached regarding them. The original category clearly states that it includes the environs, and the individual attractions within said category list the appropriate location information within them. The average reader will say that Walt Disney World Resort is in Orlando, despite it being in Lake Buena Vista and Bay Lake, officially. Nothing is being hidden and obscured, nor has it ever been. If a split takes place, the "city limits" category will be vastly dwarfed by the "greater" category, which would, in time, probably necessitate another bit of angst over, dare I say ( dare, dare), MERGING THE CATEGORIES. -- McDoobAU93 ( talk) 23:58, 23 April 2010 (UTC) reply
Comment - Why are the supporters of this so concerned with what the tourists will think? I thought Wikipedia was an encyclopedia. Shouldn't encyclopedic articles be categorized according to facts, not according to how the "casual readers" (aka tourists) will feel about them? Also, how ignorant would a "casual reader" have to be not to know that the word 'Greater' in front of a well known area means the surrounding metropolitan area? That argument is completely idiotic. - Marc Averette ( talk) 14:23, 24 April 2010 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Association football awards

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 merge and nominated. "Award and trophies" are categorized together, and I don't believe the keep argument had much validity and strength to make this an exception. — ξ xplicit 04:14, 2 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Propose renaming Category:Association football awards to Category:Association football trophies and awards
Propose merging Category:Association football trophies to Category:Association football trophies and awards
Nominator's rationale: There is little reason, in my opinion, to separate categorization of sports trophies from other types of sports awards (see Category:Sports trophies and awards), especially when the trophies category contains only four pages. -- Black Falcon ( talk) 03:10, 20 April 2010 (UTC) reply
Oppose, although I am open to some reorganisation.
I accept that "trophies and awards" is a common combination in Wikipedia categories, approximating to "things people can win". However, in team sports, there is a useful distinction between:
  1. competitions contested by teams won on the field of play (Champion's League, European Championship, etc.)
  2. awards won by teams incidental to a competition (most entertaining team, best newcomer, etc)
  3. awards won by individuals (best player, top scorer, etc)
  4. physical objects presented as a symbol of winning any of the preceding types (Jules Rimet Trophy, Henri Delaunay Cup, etc)
At the moment, there are three categories for the four preceding types:
I don't think merging type #4 with types #2 and #3 is conceptually correct. It is true that type #4 has few articles at the moment, and may never be very large. But that's not a reason to lump it in with a larger category that's different in scope.
Of course, by metonymy, there is overlap, with many competitions having the name of their trophy (FA Cup, World Cup, etc), and the relevant article discussing both; but usually the trophy only gets a sentence at most. And in any case, that would be grounds for a merger of type #4 with type #1, not with types #2-3
The Category:Association football trophies is intended to highlight articles which have a more in-depth discussion of the physical object than a mere passing mention. I have attempted to make this clear in the preamble text on the Category pages; perhaps that explanation needs to be improved.
I must admit that subcategories named Category:Brazilian football trophies and awards etc cut against this struture. The underlying problem is that "awards" is ambiguous; in the phrase "trophies and awards" it seems to mean "physical objects similar to trophies, e.g. medals, laurel wreaths, rosettes, certificates, etc." However, in the current Category:Sports trophies and awards and most subcategories, it means the achievement being symbolised rather than the physical symbol. I think that is broken, and needs a broader fix; the present suggested merger, while consistent with the current broken convention, is a step in the wrong direction. jnestorius( talk) 09:43, 20 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • rename/merge as nominated. I'm not convinced that we need to single out association football and keep these separate. It's normal to categorize them together, and the complexity explained above is just unnecessary given the fact that the combined category can be neatly divided into subcategories as desired. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:10, 29 April 2010 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:General style guidelines

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 to take any action at this time. — ξ xplicit 04:14, 2 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Propose merging Category:General style guidelines to Category:Wikipedia style guidelines
Nominator's rationale: Merge. This category is redundant, given the existence of Category:Wikipedia style guidelines which is more precise and ten times larger. "General" is also vague, and it would be more efficient to keep it in one category. harej 02:22, 20 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • I notice that Category:General style guidelines has sort of a different purpose, that it is used in conjunction with a generated list of the most highly trafficked style guidelines. A list with a more demonstrative title (say, "Most popular style guidelines") would be better than a category, considering how clustered the Manual of Style already is. harej 04:16, 20 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • I won't take a position, that's up to others, since it's mostly my work we're talking about at WP:Update/2. Until last month, the theoretical criterion for inclusion in the category was style guidelines not targeted at any one wikiproject or one kind of page, and there were about 27 pages fitting the description for almost two years. With the recent work to merge style guidelines, it became apparent that not all these pages were crucial, so I proposed reducing it to the pages with the most hits here. - Dank ( push to talk) 04:49, 20 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Not sure what to make of the lack of any response. If there are no further developments, I'll stop doing monthly updates of these, and of course anyone else is welcome to jump in at WP:Update/2. - Dank ( push to talk) 13:03, 22 April 2010 (UTC) reply
    • Should I consider that an implied delete vote? harej 19:18, 22 April 2010 (UTC) reply
      • If you had proposed this for deletion 2 months ago, I still wouldn't be voting because I'm too close to the issue, but I would be thinking "keep". The events of the last 2 months have surprised me; I never would have guessed that style guidelines formerly relied on by a variety of people for a variety of uses would sink without even a murmur of dissent. Clearly, there's less interest than there used to be, so I'm glad you brought this to a vote, Harej, it will help us gauge whether anyone is watching. But no, I'm not voting to delete. - Dank ( push to talk) 01:32, 23 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Comment -- The style guide is undergoing a review, and the structure might change. Maurreen ( talk) 04:36, 24 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Delete While thanking Dank for there hard work here . No one seems interested Gnevin ( talk) 13:13, 8 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Retain without prejudice to deleting the cat if it's not needed after the naming structure of the style guidelines has stabilized. Apparently, MOS folks would like for me to continue the updates, just not as often, and it's still an open question which guidelines will be selected for the update. I think the fact that this CfD has hung around so long without resolution is an indication that we simply don't know yet whether the cat will continue to be useful. - Dank ( push to talk) 15:24, 30 May 2010 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

FOOian Singaporeans

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 merge as nominated. — ξ xplicit 04:14, 20 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Propose upmerging Category:Indian Singaporeans to Category:Singaporean people of Indian descent
Propose upmerging/renaming Category:Chinese Singaporeans and Category:Singaporeans of Chinese descent to Category:Singaporean people of Chinese descent
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge/merge/rename. This is another case where we seem to have categories for "FOOian people of BARian descent" for people of partial descent and then a corresponding subcategory for "BARian FOOs" when the people are of full descent. As I discussed at the nominations for the similar Canadian tree, I don't think we should attempt to make this fairly subtle distinction in categories for a number of reasons, which include concerns about original research, overcategorization, and the transitory nature of some of the statuses. In the speedy rename section there was a short discussion about this and there was some suggestion that we need to distinguish between what is a "distinct ethnic group" and what is not, but I don't agree with this approach as far as categories go: An analogy was drawn with Category:African American people, but that is not really on point because we don't have Category:African American people AND Category:American people of Black African descent—we just have one or the other. I certainly do not see any reason to have both types of categories there, and the same logic applies for these. (For the Chinese descent ones, I'm also proposing a rename to the standard category format for these types of categories.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:33, 20 April 2010 (UTC) reply
Copy of speedy discussion
For it to make sense, there needs to be certain distinctions made. We could go the route of 'no distinctions' but that would mean changing Category:African American people to Category:American people of Black African descent, and I m quite sure most contributors would object. Moreover, there are certain groups who are obvious of an ethnicity and not an ethnic descent - Kurds, Basques, certainly certain groups of Armenians, Russian-speaking citizens of Ukraine, and even Chinese first language Canadians and Americans. What we have achieved in changing 'Irish American' to 'American of Irish descent' is in emphasising that 'Irish Americans' are not an ethnicity by an ancestry (or 'ethnic descent') (as Irish Americans, as a group, fully speak American English in the exact way as Americans of other ancestries). We can t fully avoid having to make rather subtle distinctions, based on evidence, in a few cases, no matter where we draw the line. Mayumashu ( talk) 21:36, 19 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Thank you for explaining. I do see how the difference in wording could emphasize different identities (Singaporean people who happen to be of Indian descent versus Singaporean Indian people), but I share GOF's concern about the use of categories to establish or maintain distinctions as subtle, impermanent, and personal as this one. I realize that there are many categories like this one and so do not object to the proposed rename in this case, but I think most or all of these categories should be merged to their parents. Of course, that will require one more full CfDs. -- Black Falcon ( talk) 19:19, 19 April 2010 (UTC) reply
Indeed, I'm not trying to argue that these distinctions do not exist in fact. What I am saying is that the category system is probably not the way to slice these out in WP. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:50, 19 April 2010 (UTC) reply
I think the only real solution for avoiding having to make the distinction, which I agree is a maintenance nightmare, is later at some point / would be to rename Category:People by ethnic or national descent/ Category:People by ethnic or national descent/ Category:People by ethnicity to Category:People by ethnicity, ancestry, or national origin and make the sub-catting of this based upon 'nationality' meaning citizenship (Letting go, national descent, which is extremely trivial). It would yield rather lengthy names such as Category:American people of Irish ancestry or national origin (safely, I think, being able to omit ethnicity) and Category:Russian people of Tatar ethnicity or ancestry (omitting national origin) etc. It is simply wrong to describe people of an ethnicity in the true sense, not to mean ancestry, as being of ethnic descent, which means ancestry. Mayumashu ( talk) 00:51, 2 May 2010 (UTC) reply
I think that solution would be overdoing it. I don't see anything wrong with describing someone who is, say a Chinese Singaporean, as being a Singaporean person "of Chinese descent". Sure, they are still Chinese, but that doesn't eliminate the fact that they are also descendant from Chinese persons. I don't see a problem. It's only a problem if you read too much into the semantics of the word. We're just lumping in people of "true" ethnicities with those of more "distant" descent—I don't see a problem with that, and it saves everyone from having to worry about where to draw the line. And it's exactly what we did in the Canadian and American trees. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:22, 3 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Support - The distinction between active attachment to an ethnic identity and passive possession of an ethnic ancestry (i.e., descent) is a real one, but it is too subtle, too impermanent, and too personal for the category system to capture appropriately. Categorization should reflect reliable sources, and reliable sources that provide information about the ethnicity of individuals generally do not make this subtle and (usually) highly-personal distinction. Moreover, whereas an individual's ethnic descent is constant over time, his or her attachment to a particular identity may fade or intensify and is thus fluid and impermanent.
    In this context, we should default to the form of categorization which is least likely to result in miscategorization, which is to categorize by descent: someone who is of Fooian descent does not necessarily have any attachment to Fooian identity, but someone who has attachment to Fooian identity generally is of Fooian descent. -- Black Falcon ( talk) 20:24, 21 April 2010 (UTC) reply
These are good, true points that I think can only be captured by a renaming as the one I suggest in my comments just above (in answer to G.O.F.) Mayumashu ( talk) 00:51, 2 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Support for the good, true and persuasive rationales given by Good Ol'Factory and Black Falcon above. - Fayenatic (talk) 20:13, 6 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Support per long precedent. As Chinese descent is (I think) the majority ethnicity, I wonder whether the characteristic is not so prevalent as to be NN. Should there not be an equivalent category for Malays? Peterkingiron ( talk) 20:59, 10 May 2010 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Adult-oriented cartoons

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. — ξ xplicit 05:01, 6 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Category:Adult-oriented cartoons ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. I understand the idea, but I'm afraid it's too subjective for categorization. What determines that a cartoon is placed in this category? The intent of the creators?; the actual identity of the audience?; the TV rating it receives in a particular country? A subjective judgment as to whether a good parent would let their kids watch it? I like Spongebob but it's not included here, and I'm an adult. What's going on? Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:26, 20 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I agree-- as someone excessively adult I'm inclined personally to argue that there's nothing adult about. say, Beavis and Butthead. It's just too subjective. Mangoe ( talk) 02:26, 4 May 2010 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:NF-Board football teams

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 reflecting the second option in all instances. — ξ xplicit 04:14, 20 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Propose renaming
Nominator's rationale: The first change is from NF-Board to N.F.-Board, which is speedy-able per N.F.-Board. The reason I did not nominate this at WP:CFD/S is to request discussion concerning the second, optional change, which is from N.F.-Board football teams to N.F.-Board teams. In light of the fact that the N.F.-Board is a football association, it is necessary or useful to specify the type of team (i.e., "football teams") in the category titles? -- Black Falcon ( talk) 00:22, 20 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Comment – N.F.-Board is very obscure and I personally think we need to specify 'association football'. Occuli ( talk) 00:33, 20 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Rename to the second option "N.F.-Board teams". We could tackle the issue of N.F.-Board being obscure at a later date, but for now, it makes sense to rename these and there's no need to redundantly refer to football. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:08, 29 April 2010 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Patricians

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:Patricians (St Patrick's High School, Karachi). — ξ xplicit 05:01, 6 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Propose renaming Category:Patricians to Category:Former students of St Patrick's High School, Karachi or Category:Patricians (Pakistan)
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Patricians is ambiguous, and this is not the primary meaning. The name either needs to be expanded or disambiguated. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:15, 20 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Strong rename Patricians have nothing to do with some High School in Pakistan. Category:Former students of St Patrick's High School, Karachi is the clearer name. People would normally expect some ancient dead Romans to populate this category. 70.29.208.247 ( talk) 02:37, 25 April 2010 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Climate Feedbacks

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 to delete; renaming to Category:Climate feedbacks to fix caps per speedy critierion C2A. I suggest that a category definition be added and/or a new discussion be held with less technical lingo being used. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:48, 4 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Category:Climate Feedbacks ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Newly created category, with no criteria for inclusion. If there is a use for it, it should be deleted and recreated. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:13, 20 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Comment If anyone finds that the Category:Climate Feedbacks should be named differently, I would be interested in their suggestion and any supporting reasons. The value of Category:Climate Feedbacks would be in that it puts links for this subject area on one page and enables the reader to explore the various aspects of the subject. Climate forcings and feedbacks are closely related within the subject of climate change. Since Category:Climate forcing already exists it seems sensible for Category:Climate Feedbacks to exists. What say you? Id447 ( talk) 21:23, 20 April 2010 (UTC) reply
    Category:Climate forcing requires some edits, to make it clear that it refers to the general concept of climate forcing, not our article at radiative forcing. Still, there's no distinction between articles which should rationally be in Category:Climate feedback (note the correct name) and Category:Climate forcing.
  • Reply

The best definition of the differences between forcing and feedback that I've been able to find has been incorporated into Climate change feedback page.

Feedback is a process in which changing one quantity changes a second quantity, and the change in the second quantity in turn changes the first. Positive feedback amplifies the change in the first quantity while negative feedback reduces it. Feedback is important in the study of global warming because it may amplify or diminish the effect of a particular forcing. A process can be both forcing and feedback. [1]


Forcings determine the if the climate is warming or cooling. Feedbacks determine the how much and how fast the climate changes. [2]

Id447 ( talk) 22:15, 20 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Anyone who said that ([2]) is not a scientist. It makes no sense. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:18, 20 April 2010 (UTC) reply
I've removed the articles from the category which do not reflect any plausible definition of "Feedback", although Cryosphere might fit under forcing. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:44, 20 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Perhaps this hypothetical example will make sense?

The forcing might be that 100 coal fired power plants are constructed in Montana and spew out enormous amounts of CO2, heating the atmosphere and the oceans.

The feedback loop could be the following. One third of the Arctic ice cap melts increasing the amount of sunlight absorbed by the Arctic ocean and heating the Arctic ocean. The additional heat results in more of the Arctic ice cap melting which in turn increasing the amount of sunlight absorbed by the Arctic ocean and heating the Arctic ocean in a reinforcing loop.

The feedback loop also acts in reverse with global cooling.

Id447 ( talk) 19:30, 22 April 2010 (UTC) reply

So? Any part of the feedback loop might also be considered "forcing", and any forcing is likely part of some feedback loop, positive or negative.
To use your coal-fired plants in Montana example, the warming would effect weather, which would effect the demand for electricity, which would affect the use of the plants. That we can't predict whether the feedback is positive or negative doesn't make it any less a feedback loop.
I'm not saying that the article climate change feedback is necessarily bogus; only that the associated category cannot be distinguished from Category:Climate forcing. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:42, 22 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • More on feedbacks

I'm sure anything I might write about forcings and feedbacks can be found to have holes in it. About the differences between forcings and feedbacks, I suggest a Venn diagram example Venn_diagram#Example. Forcing and feedback are distinct entities however they do overlap as A and B do in the diagram. If you want to read more about feedbacks then download that chapter from the IPCC at Physical Climate Processes and Feedbacks or Chapter 7. Physical Climate Processes and Feedbacks. Perhaps you might want to notify the IPCC of your doubts concerning feedbacks?

Id447 ( talk) 22:43, 22 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Must be a bad translation from French, or a term used only in climate science. A reliable source for the definition would be helpful, but the IPCC documents seems to use "feedback(s)" to refer to a feedback system, with the individual parameters in the system still all being called "forcing agents". That does make for a usable characterization, but it is so different than what you have, or that we have anywhere on Wikipedia, that it still might be better to delete the category and start over, with the name Category:Climate feedback systems. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:08, 23 April 2010 (UTC) reply
References
  1. ^ Hansen, James: Storms Of My Grandchildren, page 67. Bloomsbury USA, 2009.
  2. ^ Hansen, James: Storms Of My Grandchildren, page 42. Bloomsbury USA, 2009.
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/?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2010_April_20&oldid=1127484618"