Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 May 1

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was merge. - TexasAndroid 18:22, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate category

• Speedy merge CalJW 00:53, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy merge per above. David Kernow 01:55, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy delete as recreation of deleted material. - EurekaLott 17:29, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Recreation of a recently deleted category. Bhoeble 16:48, 1 May 2006 (UTC).[reply]

• Speedy delete Bhoeble 16:48, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete as per nom. For reference, here is a link to the previous CfD entry. --Maelwys 17:19, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• What's your problem Bestghuran This is the the Canadian Association of Zoos and Aquariums list of members. There is a category for the American Zoos and Aquariums list of members, which is the same thing and that one is in operation how come this category can't be in existence and the other one can. 11:00 Pacific, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete I will nominate the American category. Hawkestone 18:17, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It doesn't seem to exist. There is just a list, which has only been completed up to C. Hawkestone 18:21, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I made it into a category and will create a page about CAZA, but the two above users have this our way or the highway attitude and just put this category under deletion out of spite, to show me that I am not welcomed to touch or create things, which is unclassy and unprofessional. The thing is I have actually inputted more info about this subject than they did and I even created two new pages, recently. They even do everything hypocritical like I am not allowed to put contact information on certain pages, but the African Lion Safari, which they probably created has contact information. 11:18 Pacific 1 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Not sure why I'm being grouped in as part of that group, since I don't think I've done anything hypocritical, or told you to remove contact information, or anything like that... and I certainly never intended a "[my] way or the highway" attitude either. When I came across these categories it was a major maze of crosslinks, circular links and backwards links (categories being subcategories of their own subcategories). I tried to clean it up, then found out that some of them (including this one) had already been recently CfD'd, and so were deleted. I wasn't any part of that decision, but I respect the rules enough to know that it was deleted as a result of a proper process, so can only be recreated by following another process, which you haven't yet done. You can't simply recreate a page or a category because you disagree with the CfD, or nothing would ever get deleted (because there's always one person that disagrees, or the page wouldn't be there in the first place). Follow process and see where you get doing things properly. It'll probably get you further than insulting other users attitudes. --Maelwys 18:43, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete as a recreation of deleted content. If you disagree with its deletion, Bestghuran, you should go to
  Deletion review. Don't simply recreate a deleted category, even if you think that it was a wrong decision to do so. Aecis ^{Mr. Mojo risin'} 18:33, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Well I am new at this, but at the same time when you deleted CAZA the AZA one is allowed to stand in operation and I noticed it four months ago and it is still up. Again - key word: fairness. Bestghuran 11:45 Pacific 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • And they were right in saying that articles cannot have contact information. Wikipedia is not a phone directory. Also, there is absolutely no way any of the above users can be linked to African Lion Safari, from which User:Zzuuzz btw rightly removed the contact information the day before yesterday. Aecis ^{Mr. Mojo risin'} 18:38, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fine they gave me their reasons and I agreed, but they changed the pages I changed and the African Lion Safari one was still up until yesterday, they deleted mine fast within a day, a week ago. Which leads the question to fairness and questionable decisions. Bestghuran 11:48 Pacific, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete Unfairness doesn't come into it. The question is whether it is beneficial to Wikipedia. CalJW 00:50, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename. - TexasAndroid 18:26, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Writers" is the convention in Wikipedia. Having categorised hundreds of American writers, it seems to me that quite a few Americans think "author" is almost a synomym of "novelist", much more so than British people do anyway, so it is best avoided, given that the clearer contrasting terms "writer" and "novelist" are are available. Bhoeble 16:37, 1 May 2006 (UTC).[reply]

• Rename per nom, having spotted List of occult writers. David Kernow 00:35, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Regardless of what the "Wikipedia convention" is, the term used in the occult field is and has always been "occult author" and not "occult writer."

Check google with both terms in quotes: "occult author" = 9,240 results and "occult writer" = 844 results, a ratio of almost 11-to-1 favouring "occult author" over "occult writer."

No doubt near-alliteration is at the root of this convention, but there it is: a person who writes about the occult is not an oocult writer -- he or she is an occult author.

Comment Term set usage aside, as the one who created the category, there is a lot worse going on for me than your understandable ignorance about the term "occult author" and i really don't get it.

I asked three admins on #wikipedia channel to help me get full category status for my project Category:occult authors according to the best WP guidleines, and all three told me to "just do it" with the instructions they gave. I did it EXACTLY AS TOLD, INCLUDING USING THE TERM "OCCULT AUTHORS" -- WHICH THEY APPROVED, and then my husband and i spent a total of 21 hours creating new pages for the 19 occult authors whose names appeared on the static name-list but had no Wiki pages and thus could not appear on a dynamically-generated cat page, and then we went back through the entire list of 91 authors, adding piped category entries for each author, which took us another 4 hours, and then we went to bed satisfied that we had added a viable category with 91 entries in it.

Nobody thanked us. Nobody gave us a barnstar. But we were happy that we had made something useful according to the guidelines we were given by the admins in #wikipedia.

And today i see that the category is slated for deletion.

Is this a bad joke?

Somebody needs to explain this to me quick, because i really am not getting it. Why -- when i asked for help in creating a viable category, including telling the name of the proposed cat -- was i told by three admins to "just do it" and then, after i had followed their instructions to the letter, was the cat slated for deletion?

This is not the way to treat volunteers.

I take pride in my work and can perform well under self-motivated conditions wihtout praise, but i will not work when what i create is ripped apart as soon as i make it by one set of admins opposing another set of admins.

Catherineyronwode 10:05, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, thank you for your contribution but at the bottom of every edit page it says "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it." And the proposal is to rename the category, not delete it (although I think I'll put something on the talk page about how un-newcomer-friendly it is to put proposals for renames on the Categorie for deletion page. --JeffW 13:43, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • (although I think I'll put something on the talk page about how un[]friendly it is to put proposals for renames on the Categorie for deletion page.
  • Amen to that; cf here. David Kernow 16:13, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. The relevant field is writers, not just occult authors/writers. ReeseM 01:01, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment JeffW, please don't patronize me. I did not object to having my "writing [...] edited mercilessly." I am a professional writer with 40 years experience in the publishing field and have no sensitivities on that regard. What i wrote was that i objected to having a category i was instructed to create slated for "deletion" as soon as i made it "by one set of admins opposing another set of admins" -- with the keywords here being DELETION and ADMINS OPPOSING ADMINS. I also asked "Why -- when i asked for help in creating a viable category, including telling the name of the proposed cat -- was i told by three admins to "just do it" and then, after i had followed their instructions to the letter, was the cat slated for deletion" -- with the keywords being ASKED FOR HELP, TOLD BY ADMINS, and DELETION.

Two points:

• 2) No one has addressed my central point, or even recognized it, so i shall repeat it: If a person seeks help from admins and the first three admins who are encountered approve the term "authors" and then another group of three admins insists on the term "writers", it is obvious that WP either has an admin consensus problem or admin training and education poblem. I don't know which it is -- but it needs addressing at the admin level in order to provide those seeking help from admins a chance at getting the correct answer to a simple question and not some time-wasting pseudo-answer that sends the volunteers off on a wild goose chase, wastes the time of a second set of admins who must convoke and vote to undo the erroneous work that the volunteers made under the direction of the first set of admins, creates a sense that WP is run along the lines of warring factions rather than consensing adults, and makes volunteers sick to their stomachs.
• 2) As David Kernow acknowledges, it is grossly unfriendly (and grossly inaccurate) to call renaming "deletion." That is just bad writing on your parts, as admins. Any editor could tell you that. Rewriting your templates will fix that problem, and i recommend it be done as soon as possible.

The fact that this is being treated as if i were objecting to "editing" is ridiculous. I am objecting to being jerked around -- first by admins who told me that "authors" was a viable category title when it was not, and second by a screwy WP template that says the category i created was slated for "deletion" when it was not.

These are administrative problems that can and should be remediated at the admin level, and i leave them to you. My function here is as a volunteer writer and editor only, requiring a calm atmosphere in which to work, with friendly and accurate admin help on call when i need it. And that is the last i have to say on this subject at this time.

Catherineyronwode 19:14, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. Osomec 00:55, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete (Empty). - TexasAndroid 18:32, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please see entry below, same case.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 16:32, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• MERGE ALL TO Category:Ring of Fire alternate history series, as the publisher uses Ring of Fire to indicate this series. 132.205.45.110 18:57, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on the above— The publisher (Actually author) doesn't have his marketing ducks lined up on the series and subseries names and Eric Flint is reconsidering these names in general. Baen has recently changed to Assiti Shards series, BUT! This series is but the first of the several (3 mininum) Assiti Shards series (Plural on series) in the writers pipeline. So altering terms at this time are contraindicated, though that would be my second choice after 1632verse. FrankB

The publisher is publishing books in the Assiti Shards series that are outside of the Ring-of-Fire/1632-verse, because Assiti Shards involves mutiple-universes, this does not pose a problem concering the labelling of 1632/Ring-of-Fire. IT should be noted that the characters from the books in the 1632/RoF series refer to the epochal event in the fictional universe as the Ring of Fire. 132.205.45.148 19:48, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. - EurekaLott 17:33, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I wish people wouldn't manually empty categories while there's a CFD nomination in place. I don't recall what it used to cover, but this category and the one below now only include one talk page, one user page, and an image. - EurekaLott 19:49, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• DELETE — This Should be Speedied — There is relavant 'Hot Air' on the Talk: 1632 series talk (towards the bottom, a month back), but only with respect to which name would mean more to a customer reading it; sentiment here is for shorter names which I think is silly as Cats are only one time per article text insertions, but the new 1632 series is fine. Somebody should check the equivilent Category: 1632-verse alt-hist which had been created at the same time as Category: 1632-163x alt-hist but by the longer and apparently renamed Alternative History, now Alt-hist.

At the time I was spamming names looking to keep 'the natives' happy, as

Any article 'page' contents in these three are identical as it is, as I know from having created half the articles. I've been the only one working the series this past month until Piotr stuck his category-reform oar in these waters <G>; the only other interest party might be User:Wwoods and he was mostly agreeing with Piotr on the short names. FrankB 19:10, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"alt-hist" is bad. It does not convey information to people who are "not in the know" about the series. 132.205.45.148

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete (Empty). - TexasAndroid 18:33, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. Update to this old debate, as per the result of renaming of the first proposed merge category.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 16:30, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• MERGE ALL TO Category:Ring of Fire alternate history series, as the publisher uses Ring of Fire to indicate this series. 132.205.45.110 18:57, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

* '''MERGE ALL TO''' [[:Category:Ring of Fire alternate history series]], as the publisher <s>uses ''Ring of Fire'' to indicate this series.</s> ...Pardon the correction ONCE USED on two books of '''ten''' 1632 books. (<B>[[User:Fabartus|Fra]]</B><font color="green">[[User talk:Fabartus|nkB]]</font>) [[User:132.205.45.110|132.205.45.110]] 18:57, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

• !!!REMARK!!!I object to my vote and comment being editted not by myself, but by User:Fabartus, also messing with the signatures. I did not strikeout anything. If user Fabartus wants to make a comment he should make it clearly! 132.205.45.110 20:48, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let me try to clarify this: (inserted numbered italicized notes)FrankB

1. ON STRIKEOUTS—For the below, Ring of Fire (anthology) is and has been around a long while; above, Ring of Fire was formerly used, and in fact is on 'two' of my (first edition) covers as well, but this is in flux as marketing was inconsistent— I trade email with Eric Flint about once a week— this is under revision. Bottom line, for our purposes Category:1632 series is best now. If they change series designation to 1632verse, 1632 universe, or go back to Ring of Fire universe, the time to change will be when they (Baen's or Eric) ripple whatever changes through Amazon.com and Barnes and Noble, and other publishers are all presenting these the same. When I last checked five days ago, the vendors were still in chaos with respect to the series; so this needs patience. We can adapt later if need be. FrankB 12:56, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. Below for all, Category:Assiti Shards multiverse -- is a supercategory, with respect to '1632 series', as Piotr + 132.205.45.148 says, see the main article Assiti Shards series (series is plural); there soon will be a need for 'Category:1781 series' but there may not be a sequel to the other forthcoming (shakespearian) title. One author—three Assiti shards universes. Note: 'Ring of Fire' is a descriptor applicable to each Assiti Shards event, so is also a poor choice on that basis— it doesn't seperate the different multiverses. For now, the only thing needed is a single cat for the 1632 series, since Piotr doesn't like the long names, and no one cares for the abbreviated compromise names (see below votes), the last standing should be as nominated 1632 series FrankB 12:56, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • Category:Ring of Fire would be enough, but I'd recommend waiting until Ring of Fire article is created (currently we have a disambig there [which lists the book article title Piotr! (FrankB)]). Besides, we already have Category:Assiti Shards multiverse which if I understand that piece of fiction correctly is the same thing. And finally, Category:1632 series should be a subsection of RoF/ASm categories, as it covers only a part of the larger picture.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 02:28, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • • As I understand it, the 1632-verse is exactly the same as the RoF-verse. As for there not being an article at Ring of Fire, that should not stop use from using a reasonable name. The Assiti Shards would be tne enclosing universe that 1632/RoF is a subuniverse of. 132.205.45.148 19:43, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Category:Ring of Fire would be bad, since the primary meaning of "Ring of Fire" is the ring of volcanoes around the Pacific Rim. 132.205.45.148 19:53, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. - EurekaLott 17:33, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge meaning DELETE — This Should be Speedied per notations in above section. This is a duplicated CAT. Motion to rename to Ring of Fire also address above and in somewhat more length on my talk page. FrankB 19:13, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• COMMENT It should be noted that the characters from the books in the 1632/RoF series refer to the epochal event in the fictional universe as the Ring of Fire. 132.205.45.148 19:48, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete (empty) --William Allen Simpson 03:49, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All the members of the category have been moved to Category:Royal Air Force stations where they belong. Bases are known as stations, not Bases in the RAF. Sc147 16:14, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Ian3055 15:49, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensous. - TexasAndroid 18:58, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Too long and not obvious into short and obvious.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 16:08, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Soon most books will be available as Ebooks I expect. This is a waste of time except for advertising. We don't have category:Books available in paperback. Delete
• Merge both to Category:EBooks, which will display as Category:EBooks. The category should probably be restricted to those which are primarily availible as eBooks, rather than everything with an eBook version. SeventyThree^(Talk) 17:34, 1 May 2006 (UTC). Added striking, SeventyThree^(Talk) 14:40, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge both per SeventyThree. Her Pegship 22:52, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong disagree — there is a distinction, this label applies to works available in more than one media. What are you going to use for a category for books ONLY available as eBooks? Last time I was over there WikiBooks was up to over a hundred titles that will never see print; are those or others published by university presses in the same category as Fiction??? I think not.

As for short Category names, this is lazy thinking and editor behavior (no offense intended— a temporary convienience for editors not thinking like customers) and almost certainly contrary to the guideline

WP:Btw

. I agree that building a heirarchial tree inside the category pages themselves makes sense, but the short named philosophy is handcuffing one of wikipedia's strongest features for the users sake, the purpose of categories (not us editors, we have time to get one meaningful name CORRECT once per article.)— the category feature sets Wikipedia apart and way ahead of printed encyl. IMHO. Frankly, if it weren't for cross referenced linking I have better things to do with my time. The alternative is a lot of wasted space as See also sections (which someone will come along and shorten), or F**** the customer-reader by not giving links to other related materials. Long See Also's are contra-indicated, and won't be half as strong as something which auto-lists like these. So for the customer-users, I have to champion sensible category names which communicate something about the link.

As to the advertising issue — how so? We give customers who have (newly) discovered the eBook convieniences a way to find other titled ARTICLEs they can read, as well as identifying a specific uncommon feature of those works (This subset is also available digitally). Contrary to the unsigned post saying 'Soon most books will be available as Ebooks I expect.', Who's going to pay for the republication of the millions of old titles? I hope you're volunteering. You might want to read the 'Prime Palavar' posts by the Librarian on Baen Free Library. We'll all be dead and buried before eMedia is that common.

In reading over the above, I can live with Category:eBook Fiction, corresponding to Category:eBook Text and Category:eBook reference with Category: EBook as a parent category. So I recommend the compromise Category:Books available as ebooks --->Category:eBook fiction as a better planned forward thinking choice. FrankB 19:48, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree cautiously with FrankB, although why Category:eBook reference? The counterpart to fiction is non-fiction, of which reference is a sub-set. And what exactly is "eBook Text", please? Her Pegship 20:05, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can see the nerit in Fabartus argument. I could also live with the current category, provided 1) it is clearly explained on it's page what it is for. I am a little suprised that we don't have Category:Books. Still, I think we should have different categories for 'books available only as ebooks' and 'books available in print or as ebooks'.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 20:12, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There aren't very many articles in the category as it stands, so I don't see the need for a fiction/nonfiction split yet. I would say that we only need one category for now, and once the cat gets larger it can be split into subcats such as eBook-only and eBook-and-paper-book. Category:EBooks should be the parent - not because it is a shorter name, but because it is more general. Whatever happens, the current category should be renamed to capitalise the B. SeventyThree^(Talk) 21:33, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Per Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk comment, we do have Category:Books. One of its sub-cats is Category:Books by type, which is where the eBook sub-type should go once the issue of naming it is resolved. Her Pegship 22:10, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agree on the last. The Category:books available as ebooks is newly created, but I got bogged down in an unrelated project, so only added a few as I worked on my current 'Hot Project'. I added some ole friends in there earlier tonight and will systematically attack it next week, perhaps trying out this AWB tool. I think I also properly sub-categorized it wrt to Digital libraries but someone should check me.

• re: "eBook reference"— True the converse is non-fiction, but that doesn't make a work a reference. I'm assuming, there are eReference works available on various University publishing sites, so I was essentially covering all the bases I could think of per my engineer's mind. It follows that eRefereces and eTexts are sub-cats of 'eNon-fiction' (Is there a direct way to say that which doesn't use a negation prefix?)... but that was my thought. I'm sure we can come up with a whole well designed heirarchial system if we try.

• In fact, we use them in high school too. However, combining "e-" with a word for the book category is not standard practice (as in eNon-fiction) so you don't have to wind your head around that construct. <g> We (the royal bookmonger "we") just refer to something by its title and refer to its format as "ebook". Her Pegship

• re: 'Her Pegship': And what exactly is "eBook Text", please? Now I'm getting WikiSloppy with Names! #$%*(*(*_%$$#$@$#!!! "eBook Textbook" will make more sense to the user too! Sorry. For example: One like this.
  

• Got it. Her Pegship

• On the Capitalized 'B' in 'eBook'. See
  eBook
  , so I avoided the redirect. I can go either way on that, but if we're keeping my original text string, I'd suggest letting it ride as otherwise we're creating extra work.

• Not fussy about case. Her Pegship

• On clarity: I had thought I'd typed what I thought was a nice concise and clear explanation of what the category was for, so I'm baffled as to how to improve it.
• Don't know that we need to make a distinction for 'book' works that are not ebooks — any book which is not electronic is just a book and everyone already understands what that means— the default and traditional, plus in context, the articles this will be included within are topics on the book, usually by title— the eBook technology is the new kid on the block, so is not taken for granted.

• Agreed. Her Pegship

• Apologies for not checking in here sooner.

• What you have a LIFE? Her Pegship

FrankB 06:19, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't know the normal practices herein, but the original votes still seem to be 'up' sans strike-outs, and the compromise hasn't any direct votes, but discussion abounds. So does someone reformulate this and we revote, or is the matter clear enough? It's not clear to me whether the original nomination is still under discussion or whether we swerved to a set of proposals. HELP! <G> FrankB 06:31, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

People will strike their

admin

.

On the title - all "Books available as eBooks" are "eBooks", and vice versa. They are the same concept. I still feel that there is no need to split the category until it is getting large. Once it does become large, we can discuss categorisation on the category talk page. Category:Books would probably be a good place to look for inspiration, but the manner of the split depends on which articles are in the category.

Capitalisation - the

EBook. I would've made the move myself, but it's blocked by a non-trivial edit history on the target (see talk page). If the word appears after the start of the category, it can be eBook (e.g. Category:Fictional eBooks). Renames for capitalisation happen all the time, it's not too much work. SeventyThree^(Talk) 14:40, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Gilderoy Lockhart), and we have a separate category for those! Her Pegship

True that. Although it was intended an example of capitalisation where technical restrictions don't apply. SeventyThree^(Talk) 01:54, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Meanwhile, I renew the proposal as it stands. Her Pegship 16:11, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...and let me clarify that I support the proposal provided there's a nice explanation at the category page explaining which ebooks are included - I would prefer only works available only in electronic format. As it is, within an article on a printed book there is a section to indicate the various editions, hardback, paperback, audio, etc., so imho that would be the place to list an electronic edition (i.e. variant) of a printed book. Her Pegship 21:09, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No use to anyone except publishers. ReeseM 01:05, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensous. - TexasAndroid 18:54, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename as per nomination immediately below Mayumashu 15:57, 1 May 2006 (UTC) Delete or Oppose per my comments on the nomination immediately below. Carlossuarez46 18:57, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename. - TexasAndroid 18:54, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge into renamed page as cat pages under Category:People by ethnic or national origin are named (as many national groups are also ethnic ones) Mayumashu 15:44, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or Oppose these are tricky: does national origin mean born there? or does one consider that ancestry (no matter how far back) from such place (by whoever occupies it now? or by which country occupied it then? and does that hold true for those who were not of the majority ethnicity at the time?) makes it one's national origin. One's ethnicity may have nothing to do with one's national origin -- whenever we figure out what that means. Some ethnicities are supranational (Latino, Arab, Jewish, African-American, and any number of mixed ones); some are regional without "national" (as in independent nation state) status (Scottish, Welsh, Kashmiri, Basque, Navajo, etc.); some have no "nation" but are more than regional (Kurdish, Cajun, etc.). For some people their ethicities and national origins may be conflicted:
  Kemal Atatürk could be of Greek national origin (born in Salonika which is (now) in Greece); John McCain would be Panamanian by national origin; and Jackson Browne would be German. These categories need to be defined precisely to be useful; merging them only makes them murkier. Carlossuarez46 18:53, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

true, there are inherent difficulties in clearly defining what is meant by origin and some explanation needs to provided at the head of each cat page to explain what its list is of (and perhaps therefore they should be done away with), but the nomination here is what to do with the sub-cats that are out there. keeping two seperate groups - one for "ethnic origin" and another for "national" makes for a lot of pointless duplicate linking to two separate cat pages Mayumashu 00:40, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge into new article, named as proposed. This will match what is done for other countries and end fruitless and useless debate and changes over whether to place an article in the ethnic category or the national origin category. In any case, as currently structured (I worked many hours on all this yesterday), the national origin category is a subcategory of the ethnic category and do not otherwise overlap or duplicate. The category should note that all people are included who are immigrants from a specified country or descended from immigrants from a country, though this is really controlled at the sub-category level. The underlying articles contain the data on who should be included where. The tricky part is what subcategories to have and the multi-ethnic, multi-racial, multi-origin people, in any and all combinations you can think of. I suppose they should be placed in every category that pertains, but that is really up to the editors of each article. Also the Multiracial Americans category is either misnamed or misused. It includes multi-people of various kinds, not just multiracial--unless 'racial' is treated as meaning the name thing as 'ethnic' or 'national'--but this would be even more confusing. Thanks Hmains 02:46, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename. - TexasAndroid 18:35, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Group rename of the children of Category:Mobile phone companies by country

• Category:Mobile phone companies of Brazil --> Category:Mobile phone companies of Brazil
• Category:Mobile phone companies in Canada --> Category:Mobile phone companies of Canada
• Category:Mobile phone companies of Hong Kong --> Category:Mobile phone companies of Hong Kong
• Category:Italian mobile phone companies --> Category:Mobile phone companies of Italy
• Category:Mobile phone companies of Mexico --> Category:Mobile phone companies of Mexico
• Category:Mobile phone companies of Singapore --> Category:Mobile phone companies of Singapore
• Category:Mobile phone companies of Spain --> Category:Mobile phone companies of Spain
• Category:Mobile telecommunications companies of Trinidad and Tobago --> Category:Mobile phone companies of Trinidad and Tobago
• Category:Cellular telephone companies of the United States --> Category:Mobile phone companies of the United States

I can't see a consensus in children of Category:Companies by country, so I suggest Mobile phone companies of Foo. I've listed all the categories so that they end up consistent. SeventyThree^(Talk) 15:05, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename as per nom. There is a convention that companies should be "of". The two main exceptions - aircraft companies and automobile manufacturers - are currently going through the renaming process. Bhoeble 16:40, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that was unlucky of me. Those were 2 of the few I looked at to see what the consensus was! SeventyThree^(Talk) 17:39, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. Nathcer 19:52, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Ian3055 15:50, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Cellular vs. Mobile phone in the US, if its understood its fine. perhaps the US category definition should include 'Cellular'? Ian3055 15:53, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete (empty) --William Allen Simpson 03:49, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Empty, and no inward links. Past contents consisted of categorisation and a redlink to an article which never existed. SeventyThree^(Talk) 14:43, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per nom. --Maelwys 14:52, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. David Kernow 01:55, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensous. - TexasAndroid 18:37, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The following categories need to be renamed for proper grammar:

• Category:19th century philosophy → Category:19th-century philosophy
• Category:20th century philosophy → Category:20th-century philosophy

—Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 10:06, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename as per nom. the corresponding articles already have the hyphen. Valiantis 19:40, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Query: Does the MoS specify when a hyphen should be used? I have to admit to being surprised by this choice, I would have expected that it is actually the articles that require moving?TheGrappler 21:20, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename found the explanation below and am now convinced otherwise!TheGrappler 21:22, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Category:Nineteenth-century philosophy and Category:Twentieth-century philosophy (and same for other centuries) to go the whole way... David Kernow 01:55, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. I don't support the hyphen for any of these categories. (See above under "Century and millennium hyphenation.)--Mike Selinker 20:23, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename to Category:Disability rights. - TexasAndroid 18:39, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I propose that this category be renamed in line with the terminology generally preferred by disabled activists. Talking about 'the disabled' is seen as derogatory, in the same way that talking about 'the gays', 'the blacks' or 'the jews' would be. Sjoh0050 09:53, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Alternative rename to
  compulsory sterilisation - certainly not a "right of disabled people" but rather an article that touches on the theme of disability rights. Valiantis 19:48, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• I would be happy with 'Disability Rights'. I can't see any equivalents for rights against race or sex discrimination at present, so am I right in thinking there aren't any issues of consistency in category naming here? Sjoh0050 08:58, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I think these are mainly covered by Category:Women's rights, Category:Men's rights (!) and Category:Minority rights. Also the higher level cat Category:Civil rights seems to be being used for rights to do with "race". Valiantis 17:20, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per alternative suggestion of Valiantis. David | Talk 10:41, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per the alternative; as someone that qualifies for such, this seems relatively inoffensive, whereas the first had me eyebrows rising. Add the notation {{main|Disability rights movement}} to the category page. (
  Disability rights redirects to Disability rights movement) That should help clarify the scope and keep it straight hereafter. FrankB 20:09, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• UK/US usage difference, I think. 'Disabled person' is often seen in UK as respecting the Social Model of disability (that is, that people are disabled by their environment, rather than lack something in themselves). If 'disability rights' is more widely acceptable, I would be very happy to agree. Sjoh0050 00:04, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Disability rights per above. David Kernow 01:55, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Disability rights ReeseM 01:08, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename. - TexasAndroid 18:40, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

to better distinguish from the category for municipalities of the Spanish province, also called León (ie, Category:Municipalities in León, Spain). Consistent with other similarly ambiguously-named provinces/depts, such as Category:Municipalities in Granada, Nicaragua, etc. cjllw | TALK 08:08, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

agree ; anything that helps clarity is good. Thanks. Hmains 02:49, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep. - TexasAndroid 18:47, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I propose we delete all of that as per npov. It is not for us to decide who qualifies as terrorist, much less hold a navigation list like this. --Cat out 08:45, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. There is an entire sequence of articles on terrorism, and the categorization of people as terrorists is supported by many external references where governments and other official entities classify individuals as terrorists. —Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 10:00, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  So we can declare Al-quida as terrorist? I probably can find Al-jazera reports declaring Bush as a terrorist... I am sorry, I do not find that to be an adequate explanation. --Cat out 15:53, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  I wasn't including news organizations in governments and other official entities. —Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 18:50, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This has been nominated before. I am happy with the definition used. Bhoeble 16:41, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. this is a rehash of a previous debate. Carlossuarez46 18:55, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. No reason to delete it. --Asterion ^{talk to me} 00:25, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep none of these categories have been tagged. Tim! 19:12, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensous. - TexasAndroid 18:41, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The following categories need to be renamed for proper grammar:

• Category:2nd century philosophers → Category:2nd-century philosophers
• Category:5th century philosophers → Category:5th-century philosophers
• Category:9th century philosophers → Category:9th-century philosophers
• Category:10th century philosophers → Category:10th-century philosophers
• Category:12th century philosophers → Category:12th-century philosophers
• Category:13th century philosophers → Category:13th-century philosophers
• Category:14th century philosophers → Category:14th-century philosophers
• Category:15th century philosophers → Category:15th-century philosophers
• Category:16th century philosophers → Category:16th-century philosophers
• Category:17th century philosophers → Category:17th-century philosophers
• Category:18th century philosophers → Category:18th-century philosophers
• Category:19th century philosophers → Category:19th-century philosophers
• Category:20th century philosophers → Category:20th-century philosophers
• Category:21st century philosophers → Category:21st-century philosophers

—Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 07:16, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CommentBut this is inconsistent with our century articles which do not use hyphens.

The hyphen is needed when "2nd century" becomes an adjective. "2nd century" where '2nd' is the adjective and 'century' is the noun needs no hyphen. —Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 09:54, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename all. The hyphen is indeed required when a compound phrase modifies a noun. Valiantis 19:56, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• As above, anyone fancy spelling out them ordinals?  Regards, David Kernow 01:55, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• As the higher level cats are called
  Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers). Valiantis 14:19, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Oppose. I don't support the hyphen for any of these categories. (See above under "Century and millennium hyphenation" above, which probably should be processed before this is closed.)--Mike Selinker 20:24, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose In line with the similar vote on this matter under a different day where there is a strong majority against the hyphen. ReeseM 01:07, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep the first two, delete the third. - TexasAndroid 18:02, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why we have to have two different category lists for zoos and aquaria in Canada. There is already a category list for Zoos, Aquariums and Insectoriums of Canada. Anyways does it really matter if it is listed differently? It all deals with seeing animals in Canada through tanks and cages. Besides there are zoos who have aquarium elements in their business and vice versa with aquariums. So having both of these categories being listed differently does not make since. For example

• Keep Category:Zoos in Canada and Category:Aquaria in Canada - You can't really say "Category:Zoos, Aquariums and Insectoriums of Canada already exists" when you JUST created it, in response to the fact that Category:Zoos and Aquariums of Canada had been deleted by CfD, and then was deleted 4 more times after you continuously tried to recreate it. The standard is to have seperate categories for Zoos and Aquaria, lets just leave it that way. --Maelwys 11:36, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Category:Zoos, Aquariums and Insectoriums of Canada, since it just got added --Maelwys 17:16, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep both. Delete Category:Zoos, Aquariums and Insectoriums of Canada, which I have tagged. Bhoeble 16:43, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• You should delete categories Zoos in Canada and Aquaria in Canada You have two zoos/aquariums under both categories, just make it simple and put it under one category so that people can find both subjects. Putting aquariums and zoos in the same category is not like putting war and peace together, they both have the same functions at looking at animals. Also let me remind you that I have created two pages for zoos and aquariums, so I had some input and I was going to finish the stubs under the categories printed above. So in my opinion I put more input in these categories than the both of you did, lately, who have this your way or no way attitude, which is very unclassy and unprofessional. Bestghuran 11:00 Pacific, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

• 3 things. 1/ The standard used in every other country is to keep these seperate, so why should we group them together? Go with the standard, keep things nice and uniform. 2/ You're telling people off for wanting to keep Zoos and Aquaria as seperate categories when you claim they're the same thing, yet you want to create both "Zoos and Aquaria in Canada" and "CAZA" categories... which are essentially the same thing. 3/ I don't feel you have any right to say "[we] have this your way or no way attitude, which is very unclassy and unprofessional", after you've spent the past few days in a delete war over a page that was successfully CfD'd, but you continued to insist on recreating without even any discussion. Pot, meet Kettle. --Maelwys 18:34, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• By the way CAZA and knowing what zoos are in Canada is two different subjects, you want to keep the same uniform, how come there is a list of AZA members, why can't you have CAZA if the AZA is allowed to continue -- Bestghuran 11:33 Pacific, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I would like to add that you two users have this our way or the highway attitude and just put this category under deletion out of spite, to show me that I am not welcomed to touch or create things, which I will add is unclassy and unprofessional. The thing is I have actually inputted more info about this subject than the both of you did and I even created two new pages, recently. You have done stuff hypocritical like I am not allowed to put contact information on certain pages, but the

• As I said above, they were right in saying that articles cannot have contact information. Wikipedia is not a phone directory. African Lion Safari was created by an anonymous IP. Mshe (talk · contribs) added the contact information, which was rightly removed by Zzuuzz (talk · contribs) the day before yesterday. Aecis ^{Mr. Mojo risin'} 18:45, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• As noted above, AZA isn't a category, it's a list. Feel free to create a similar CAZA list as a page, just not a category. So there's nothing hypocritical here, you just happen to be comparing apples to oranges. Also, whether or not we can comprehend putting two things in the same category is entirely irrelevent. I can certainly grasp the idea of it. I just feel that it's much better to stick with the standard, to keep things looking uniform and clean. If some parks happen to have enough fish and other animals to qualify as both a Zoo and an Aquarium, then so be it. I don't think Marineland qualifies for that, it's just an Aquarium, so I already removed it from the Zoo category yesterday after you pointed it out the first time. Finally, repeating the same points and insults won't get you anywhere, I suggest you come up with some new arguments, and I'd appreciate it if you stop the personal insults completely. Nobody is out to get you, ruin your life, or make you feel unwelcome. We all get a say in these things, and you just happen to be on the smaller side of these debates. --Maelwys 18:55, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't usually insult people and I am actually a nice guy, but when this is going on for couple of weeks it is frustrating and this is the first time that I am involved in something like this at Wikipedia. But when changes are made from my actions are fast and from others slow you question it and the AZA thing I thought was a category page, but neither of you pointed it till now, so if you want delete Category:CAZA Members, but about the uniform maybe me and you should discuss if we want to reorganize it to the one I created for Category:Zoos, Aquariums and Insectoriums of Canada, also do you really want to add Montreal Insectarium to zoos it deals with insects. Bestghuran 12:00 Pacific, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes, at the moment Insectorium's are listed under Zoos, as there generally aren't enough of them in an area to warrant their own category. See
    Monsanto insectarium as an example. --Maelwys 19:26, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Delete Category:Zoos, Aquariums and Insectoriums of Canada, which is miscapitalised in any case. Keep the others. It is best to have separate aquaria categories because there are less of them but they should be identifiable at a global level. CalJW 00:55, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the first two. Delete Category:Zoos, Aquariums and Insectoriums of Canada. -- TheMightyQuill 07:49, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the first two. Delete Category:Zoos, Aquariums and Insectoriums of Canada. Choalbaton 23:36, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - TexasAndroid 18:04, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensous. - TexasAndroid 18:45, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is logical to rename this as a follow up to the recent merging of the monument and memorial categories. CalJW 02:16, 1 May 2006 (UTC).[reply]

• Rename CalJW 02:16, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

? I am not familiar with this subject, but wouldn't it be 'Types of monuments and memorials' (plurals, not singulars) thanks Hmains 02:53, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename Category:Types of monument and memorial. I'm not sure what the grammatical rules involved are, but to choose a simpler example, category:Types of dog sounds better than category:Types of dogs. Hawkestone 15:20, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Category:Monument and memorial types...?  Regards, David Kernow 01:59, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.