Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 February 8

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. Kbdank71 14:18, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:PKP people to Category:Polskie Koleje Państwowe people

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Expansion of potentially ambiguous abbreviation. Parent cat is already expanded as Category:Polskie Koleje Państwowe. Caerwine Caer’s whines 22:08, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. Johnbod (talk) 23:52, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Abbreviation unnecessary. Sting au Buzz Me... 04:21, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nomination. No reason for abbreviation. Doczilla (talk) 07:07, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom to expand relatively uncommon abbreviation.
  Snocrates 20:57, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Rename per all above. --BelovedFreak 20:41, 12 February 2008 (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.

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 combine. Kbdank71 14:19, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:PKP chairmen to Category:Polskie Koleje Państwowe people

Nominator's rationale: Merge, At minimum it needs a rename as per the above nomination for Category:PKP people, but with only one member I can't see the justification for being so hyper specific just yet. Caerwine Caer’s whines 22:08, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. Johnbod (talk) 23:52, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - shouldn't this be a rename? Sting au Buzz Me... 04:27, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - If it weren't for the rename of PKP people above, I'd have brought this here to merge into that. A simple rename of this would be a rename to Category:Polskie Koleje Państwowe chairman. Caerwine Caer’s whines 04:41, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well I was a little confused because you're wanting to merge an existing cat into one that doesn't exist. A rename should fix it. Sting au Buzz Me... 04:50, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Category:Polskie Koleje Państwowe people. Sting au Buzz Me... 04:50, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename–"Merge" per nom.
  Snocrates 20:58, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Merge to Category:Polskie Koleje Państwowe people, assuming it gets created. Otherwise merge to Category:PKP people.--BelovedFreak 20:45, 12 February 2008 (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.

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. Kbdank71 14:20, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:British football broadcasters to Category:British association football commentators

Propose renaming Category:Scottish football broadcasters to Category:Scottish association football commentators

Nominator's rationale: Rename. For consistency with the proposed rename of Category:Football (soccer) announcers; using association football per the name of the article, and using "commentators", rather than "broadcasters", which could mean the tv & radio stations rather than the people. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:05, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. Johnbod (talk) 23:52, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Sting au Buzz Me... 04:29, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename for consistency. Doczilla (talk) 07:06, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. --BelovedFreak 20:46, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to "...football (soccer) commentators" to make the nature of the sport clear to all audiences. — CharlotteWebb 17:13, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - This category is for pundits as well as commentators, hence why Richard Keys, Gabby Logan and Gary Lineker are included, and not one of them has ever been a commentator. –
  Jay 11:49, 14 February 2008 (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.

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. Kbdank71 14:26, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Football (soccer) announcers to Category:Association football commentators

Nominator's rationale: Rename. As the category itself states, the term "announcer" is very much a North American term. The term "commentator" is much more common, not just in Britain, but all over the English-speaking world. –

Jay 13:49, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

• This discussion has been included in
  Jay 14:00, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Should be Category:Association football commentators per the main article on the subject. пﮟოьεԻ 57 14:02, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I thought that discussion determined that categories and things like that should carry on using "football (soccer)". –
    Jay 14:04, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • Only one person actually said that, and it seems a bit silly to me; Football (soccer) is quite an ugly bastardisation. пﮟოьεԻ 57 14:15, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Okie dokie. I've changed the nomination. –
        Jay 14:42, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
        ]
• Rename to match the page. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:01, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per (changed) nom. Sting au Buzz Me... 05:00, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per (both) nom. Sebisthlm (talk) 17:26, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to the article name. John Hayes^talk 17:37, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename for consistency with main article. --BelovedFreak 21:00, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to "...football (soccer) commentators" to make the nature of the sport clear to all audiences. — CharlotteWebb 17:13, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply - "Association football" isn't clear enough for you?! –
    Jay 18:04, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • Nor to the majority of readers in the United States. — CharlotteWebb 19:41, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • What's so special about the United States? –
        Jay 11:43, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
        ]
        • Nothing... I don't know about you, though, but I don't see people walking around talking about "association football" (while you regularly see people talk about "American football" or "Australian football" or "Gaelic football") - the most common name throughout the world is "football", then "soccer". Since we obviously need some way to disambiguate "football", why not use a name that is actually commonly used throughout the world? Should we rename articles like "John Smith (footballer)" to "John Smith (association football player)"? ugen64 (talk) 17:48, 14 February 2008 (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.

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. Kbdank71 14:57, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Jimmy Buffett (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Eponymous category for a rather famous singer; not allowed per

WP:OCAT. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 20:43, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete per nom & ample precedent. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:55, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Seems to have plenty of valid sub-cats and articles; enough to justify this.Changed to Delete - neither above mentioned the screenfull of Jimmy Buffet template, which does give a reason to delete, unlike the nom (or ample precedent). This provides perfectly well for navigation. Sorry Johntex! - he refers to my first comments of course. Johnbod (talk) 23:50, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Johnbod. The nominator points to
  WP:OCAT, which is a guideline (not policy) to avoid over-categorization. However, I agree with Johnbod think that the large number of pages grouped into this category is a valid argument that this category is needed and that it is not an example of over-categorization. Johntex\^talk 03:14, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

I see Johnbod changed his mind. It is an interesting idea that the navigation template could take the place of the category. However, I am going to stay with my "Keep" recommendation for now. For one thing, the template wouldn't naturally reside in parent categories like the Jimmy Buffet category can. Johntex\^talk 06:15, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Johnbod (second version). Sting au Buzz Me... 04:38, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete eponymous category. Doczilla (talk) 07:06, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - eponymous overcategorization, which although it is a guideline rather than a policy still applies. Everything here is extensively interlinked through the gi-normous template and through text links.
  talk) 15:45, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete as overcategorisation. Although there are many articles in the category, which may have swayed me, the template really renders it unnecessary. --BelovedFreak 20:50, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Johntex. This is an atypical "musician category" in that it contains considerably more than a main article and subcats for albums and songs. — CharlotteWebb 17:13, 13 February 2008 (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.

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 and redirect. Kbdank71 15:16, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Kalamazoo Wings (1974-1995) players to Category:Kalamazoo Wings (1974-2000) players

Suggest merging Category:Michigan K-Wings players to Category:Kalamazoo Wings (1974-2000) players

Rationale:Both categories are redundant with the (1974-2000) category. It was the same franchise the entire time, it just shifted names for a while. Note that Category:Kalamazoo Wings (2000-) players represents a unique and separate franchise, so should remain separate. Resolute 18:43, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I do agree that atleast one needs to be merged. But I feel the it should be Category:Kalamazoo Wings (1974-2000) players to Category:Kalamazoo Wings (1974-1995) players and leave the Category:Michigan K-Wings players alone. When franchises change names we usually create a new category for it. See Category:Anaheim Ducks players and Category:Mighty Ducks of Anaheim players for examples. -Djsasso (talk) 18:45, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can't say I agree with that though. I don't think that a simple name change should warrant a new category. This may merit some greater discussion at
    WT:HOCKEY. Resolute 18:59, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • But you have to think someone who is looking for a player who only played for the team when they were called the
      Michigan K-Wings would not think to look in a category named for the Kalamazoo Wings. I could see the point with the Anaheim Ducks perhaps as thats an obvious derivative, but I don't know that in this case its so obvious. Other examples of course are Category:Detroit Red Wings players, Category:Detroit Falcons players and Category:Detroit Cougars players -Djsasso (talk) 19:01, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      • Fair enough, though that could be handled via redirects. Resolute 19:05, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I have no problem with redirects. I would be ok with that just always forget you can redirect cats. Merge and Redirect old cats to new one. -Djsasso (talk) 19:06, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Considering the categories can be redirected (I actually had no idea that was possible), I agree with the Merge and Redirect solution. Skudrafan1 (talk) 05:57, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • It is possible in the way articles are redirected, but can be problematic. I'd be slapping a {{Category redirect}} template on the redirected categories. Its basically a soft redirect that will point users to the right cat. Resolute 06:10, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge & redirect Michigan K-Wings cat since they are the same franchise in the same city. I believe that this should happen for the Ducks & Red Wings examples given for the same reason. -- JamesTeterenko (talk) 21:59, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Do not merge at least K-Wings category. If the team name actually changed, we shouldn't categorize a player under a team they didn't play for.--Mike Selinker (talk) 16:06, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Except that they did. It was the same team. Resolute 22:30, 13 February 2008 (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.

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. Kbdank71 14:27, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Hockey in Calgary to Category:Ice hockey in Calgary

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Disambiguate Ice hockey, consistency in naming with parent categories. Resolute 17:29, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per Resolute for consistancy. -Djsasso (talk) 17:42, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:56, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. more descriptive. Sting au Buzz Me... 04:40, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom for consistency/clarity. Zoporific 04:48, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom.
  Snocrates 20:58, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Rename for disambiguation. --BelovedFreak 20:53, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom and previous precedent. --JD554 (talk) 08:28, 14 February 2008 (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.

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 all. Kbdank71 14:28, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:British ice hockey teams to Category:Ice hockey teams in Great Britain Category:Ice hockey teams in the United Kingdom

Nominator's rationale: Rename. A continuation of

WP:NCCAT, as well as the parent categories Category:Ice hockey in the United States and Category:Ice hockey teams by country

. Also nominating the following:

Category:English ice hockey teams to Category:Ice hockey teams in England

Category:Scottish ice hockey teams to Category:Ice hockey teams in Scotland

Category:Czech ice hockey teams to Category:Ice hockey teams in the Czech Republic

Category:Danish ice hockey teams to Category:Ice hockey teams in Denmark

Category:Finnish ice hockey teams to Category:Ice hockey teams in Finland

Category:French ice hockey teams to Category:Ice hockey teams in France

Category:German ice hockey teams to Category:Ice hockey teams in Germany

Category:Italian ice hockey teams to Category:Ice hockey teams in Italy

Category:Japanese ice hockey teams to Category:Ice hockey teams in Japan

Category:Latvian ice hockey teams to Category:Ice hockey teams in Latvia

Category:Lithuanian ice hockey teams to Category:Ice hockey teams in Lithuania

Category:Norwegian ice hockey teams to Category:Ice hockey teams in Norway

Category:Polish ice hockey teams to Category:Ice hockey teams in Poland

Category:Russian ice hockey teams to Category:Ice hockey teams in Russia

Category:Slovak ice hockey teams to Category:Ice hockey teams in Slovakia

Category:Swedish ice hockey teams to Category:Ice hockey teams in Sweden

Category:Swiss ice hockey teams to Category:Ice hockey teams in Switzerland

Resolute 16:56, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per Resolute. Just plain makes sense. -Djsasso (talk) 17:43, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Should be United Kingdom rather than Great Britain as it contains Belfast Giants. Tim! (talk) 18:06, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Excellent point. Changed to reflect this. Resolute 19:07, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:57, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom for consistency. Sting au Buzz Me... 04:53, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename for consistency. Doczilla (talk) 07:07, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per
  WP:NCCAT and clarity/consistency. Neier (talk) 12:22, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Rename for consistency. --BelovedFreak 20:54, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom and previous precedent cited. --JD554 (talk) 08:30, 14 February 2008 (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.

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 per rough consensus and reliable sourcing concerns. Kbdank71 15:12, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Tribal societies that have practiced headhunting to Category:Societies that have practiced headhunting

Nominator's rationale: "Tribe" has specific connotations and a particular meaning within anthropology. Not all of the societies included in this category can or should be described as "tribal". Robotforaday (talk) 16:36, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename. I agree 100%.--Woland (talk) 17:17, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to something. As I said last time "Former headhunting societies" is shorter. Johnbod (talk) 22:31, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Category:Historic headhunting societies? Vegaswikian (talk) 01:29, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What would Dr S say? Johnbod (talk) 03:18, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We should not necessarily make the assumption that headhunting is a phenomenon restricted to the past. Robotforaday (talk) 13:38, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly Rename, though perhaps Peoples' with Headhunting Traditions or more simple Headhunting Traditions might better suit - given the uncertain and variable scale of the named groups of people listed?? Bruceanthro (talk) 13:29, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment .. having randomly sampled a few of the named groups listed, and knowing the often contested, unreliable nature of 'headhunting' and 'cannibal' type reputations and claims about others .. it is of some concern that some of these groups should be so readily identified/described/and listed on Wikipedia as headhunters, most often without citations or relevant Wikipedia standard verification!! Perhaps, in addition to renaming the category and associated list, it should be tagged as unverfied and in need of verfication? Bruceanthro (talk) 13:29, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I do not see how headhunting is a defining aspect of a society, and if it is, let's also include "societies that have practiced bayoneting of infants", "societies that blow their enemies up with bombs", and "societies that send agents to assassinate or kidnap foreign leaders". Moreover, since the practice varies, it seems much more appropriate to simply discuss peoples that practice headhunting, as appropriate and as sourced, in the headhunting article(s). --Lquilter (talk) 17:21, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not defining for the society - many peoples do things that others think odd or distinctive but these are so numerous to make nearly every cultural aspect a category and hence not defining: think of cannibalism, slavery, nudity, intolerance of nudity, polygymy, shunning, taboo, adoption, eating meat, not eating meat, pedophilia, incest, animal sacrifice, human sacrifice, celibacy, circumcision, scarification, foot binding, head flattening, neck elongation, and thousands of others... Carlossuarez46 (talk) 02:23, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kbdank71 14:14, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per above. Non-defining characteristic. Resolute 19:09, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. not defining for the society. Sting au Buzz Me... 04:56, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename - headhunting has resulted in several invasions over history - e.g. 1880s punitive expeditions in the Chin-Lushai Hills, very defining events for those people. Ephebi (talk) 15:24, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep/rename Though this article should be renamed, headhunting is a relatively significant and unique attribute of a society and is certainly notable enough to have this article.--Woland (talk) 16:31, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• This is a category, not an article. The practice of headhunting is certainly notable and worthy of an article (which it
  talk) 18:53, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Whoa, hang on! We have many categories classifying things that need reliable sourcing (what doesn't that is not provided by the category itself, but in the individual articles. See Category:Murderers etc. Johnbod (talk) 19:50, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Surely reliable sourcing is (or should be) provided within a given article, and then based on the reliably sourced material in the article, it can be placed in particular categories? To be honest, everything on wikipedia ought to be reliably sourced... Hence your objection ought to apply equally to all categories. Robotforaday (talk) 21:02, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Lquilter. Not defining for a society, but the article on the subject is entirely appropriate.
  Snocrates 21:09, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete as non-defining per Lquilter. --BelovedFreak 20:57, 12 February 2008 (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.

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. Kbdank71 15:13, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:American Jews to Category:Jewish Americans

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Should be consistent with the vast majority of other American people by ethnic or national origin. Maher-shalal-hashbaz (talk) 13:45, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• rename per nom to match other similar cats. Hmains (talk) 17:05, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Hmains: But this categ is also part of the big Category:Jews by country. Have you checked that out? IZAK (talk) 10:28, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per the White House's Jewish American Heritage Month. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 21:08, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unnecessary racial/ethnic/religion category. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:58, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • If so, delete all ethnic categories. See Category:Jews by country. IZAK (talk) 10:28, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Carlossuarez46. unnecessary. Sting au Buzz Me... 04:59, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Carlos and
  WP:OC. Doczilla (talk) 07:05, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Renameas it follows convention (in regards to deletion: Jewish Americans have a significant difference in culture and history to warrant their own article).--Woland (talk) 16:35, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• comment and by 'article I mean category of course.--Woland (talk) 16:43, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Question/comment Religion categories use "American Foo", where Foo is the religion. Has there been some sort of consensus decision to recast this and other "Jews" category as an ethnic category as opposed to a religious one? Far from all American Jews are of a "Jewish" ethnicity. I'm always a bit nervous in recasting Jewishness as an ethnicity rather than a religion, b/c of the whole Nazi strategy of doing the same, etc.
  Snocrates 21:13, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Hi Snocrates: Being Jewish means being part of both a religion and an ethinicity, something that no other group has. See the
    Jew and Judaism articles to explain this. IZAK (talk) 10:28, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• rename per nom. Our article on
  Jews as both an ethnicity and a religion. The rules per ethnicity apply. Dimadick (talk) 21:15, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Oppose rename. Current name is consistent with Category:Jews by country and main article American Jews. We've been through this before, but I can't find the link right now. LeSnail (talk) 22:59, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strongly opposed to renaming -- glad I noticed this before discussion was closed (I've been away from Wikipedia for a while). This category's name should remain as is. As Lesnail has correctly pointed out,
  List of Jewish American athletes, List of Jewish American economists, etc), but I've since changed my mind (mostly owing to the naming standardization found in Category:Jews by country). As the nominator points out, Category:American people by ethnic or national origin uses the "Category:[Foo] Americans" scheme most of time, but it is not universal there and varies quite a bit. So, please let us not be Americentric and mess up the workable category scheme found in Category:Jews by country. Also, please ignore the ridiculous POV opinions of the rabidly irrational deletionists above, since this category was nominated for renaming and not deletion. Finally, in an effort to prevent data loss should this category be renamed and the recat bot 'mysteriously' screw up halfway through recategoriztion, Category:American Jews currently contains about 2,200 names, NOT including all of the names in its subcategories -- just stating this fact to get it on the record since there is still a movement underfoot here on Wikipedia to delete nearly all categories or lists dealing with Jews. --Wassermann (talk) 03:21, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Oppose per LeSnail. I still don't understand the rationale behind why the conventions of ethnicity categories should trump the conventions of
  Snocrates 03:48, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Oppose per User:Wasserman. This debate goes on and on over the years on Wikipedia. Please note User:Wasserman's observations. In the past I have also stated: MEDIATE because this is a subcategory of BOTH Category:Jews by country AND Category:American people by ethnic or national origin which uses the present naming convention. But I think that Category:Jews by country should be the "parent category" in this case. IZAK (talk) 10:28, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. IZAK (talk) 10:28, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support renaming - I've always felt this should be Category:Jewish Americans, which strikes me as a broader and more inclusive term that better encompasses both religious and non-religious individuals, as well as reflecting the ethnic component of the term. Consistency is important, but sometimes other considerations are more important. Cgingold (talk) 12:45, 14 February 2008 (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.

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. Kbdank71 14:32, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus to Category:Northern Cyprus

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Main article is at Northern Cyprus. We generally use the common name for states and pseudo-states. We have Category:East Germany, not Category:German Democratic Republic; Category:South Vietnam, not Category:Republic of Vietnam; Category:Libya, not Category:Great Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya; etc. The common name for this largely unrecognized state is Northern Cyprus. (There are also some subcategories which use the full name; if this rename is successful I will also nominate them. I think it may be better and simpler to do them separately when this one concludes as there are some other problems with the subcategories that will need to be discussed that are distinct from this naming issue.) Zoporific 11:18, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:10, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - this is not a recognized state? At least not by the United Nations. The U.N. recognizes only Cyprus. Sting au Buzz Me... 05:06, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, only Turkey recognizes the "state". The UN and many other countries regard Turkey's occupation there as a violation of intl law. Zoporific 05:22, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • And why does that have a bearing on what our category is called? We have categories on lots of places not recognized as a state by the UN - Category:Roman Empire, Category:Gaza Strip, Category:Hong Kong, Category:Taiwan, Category:Puerto Rico, Category:Kurdistan, so your point is? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:38, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Were you talking to Sting or to me? I don't think it really plays any role at all in what name is chosen. Zoporific 08:05, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think he was talking to me. Just pointing out that it was not recognized? I guess I thought that might have had some bearing on the eventual name of the category. The defacto government calls it TRNC and Northern Cyprus is stated on the article page as the "common" name. I would have thought we would be sticking to official names here? But whatever floats your boat. I've lost interest in it now. I'm still trying to get my head around Roman Empire, Hong Kong etc. If you want to drop me a line on my talk page about it then go for it. Sting au Buzz Me... 12:53, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to match article (which does not use the name I would have chosen, but there we go). Johnbod (talk) 14:17, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename; use of common names is best per nom. Plenty of subcategories there that should also be renamed per nom.
  Snocrates 21:00, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Rename Rename to match the article title. Dimadick (talk) 21:16, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename for consistency with main article. --BelovedFreak 21:10, 12 February 2008 (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.

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 all. Kbdank71 14:33, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Society of Bosnia and Herzegovina to Category:Bosnia and Herzegovina society

Category:Culture of Bosnia and Herzegovina to Category:Bosnia and Herzegovina culture

Category:Law of Bosnia and Herzegovina to Category:Bosnia and Herzegovina law

Category:Media of Bosnia and Herzegovina to Category:Bosnia and Herzegovina media

Category:Music of Bosnia and Herzegovina to Category:Bosnia and Herzegovina music

Category:Musical groups from Bosnia and Herzegovina to Category:Bosnia and Herzegovina musical groups

Category:Bosnian architecture to Category:Bosnia and Herzegovina architecture

Category:Bosnian films to Category:Bosnia and Herzegovina films

Category:Bosnian cuisine to Category:Bosnia and Herzegovina cuisine

Category:Bosnian cheeses to Category:Bosnia and Herzegovina cheeses

Category:Bosnian orchestras to Category:Bosnia and Herzegovina orchestras

Category:Bosnian mobsters to Category:Bosnia and Herzegovina mobsters

Category:Bosnian classical guitarists to Category:Bosnia and Herzegovina classical guitarists

Category:Bosnian university teachers to Category:Bosnia and Herzegovina university teachers

Category:Bosnian pianists to Category:Bosnia and Herzegovina pianists

Category:Bosnian classical pianists to Category:Bosnia and Herzegovina classical pianists

Category:Bosnian classical musicians to Category:Bosnia and Herzegovina classical musicians

Category:Bosnian classical musicians by instrument to Category:Bosnia and Herzegovina classical musicians by instrument

Category:Bosnian extrajudicial prisoners of the United States to Category:Bosnia and Herzegovina extrajudicial prisoners of the United States

Category:Bosnian people by occupation to Category:Bosnia and Herzegovina people by occupation

Category:Bosnian and Herzegovinian artists to Category:Bosnia and Herzegovina artists

Category:Bosnian and Herzegovinan hip hop to Category:Bosnia and Herzegovina hip hop

Category:Bosnian and Herzegovinan hip hop musicians to Category:Bosnia and Herzegovina hip hop musicians

Category:Bosnian and Herzegovinian film directors to Category:Bosnia and Herzegovina film directors

Category:Bosnian and Herzegovinan rappers to Category:Bosnia and Herzegovina rappers

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Many of the Bosnia and Herzegovina people categories were recently renamed to the standard "Fooian Foo" format, using "Fooian=Bosnia and Herzegovina". These other categories which are phrased using nationality should also be renamed for consistency. There are also a few people categories that were not nominated last time. Currently, the category consistency is a bit of a mess, and the ones for nationality use any of "Bosnia and Herzegovina Foo", "Foo of Bosnia and Herzegovina", "Bosnian Foo" "Bosnian and Herzegovinian Foo" and "Bosnia and Herzegovinan Foo". "Bosnian" should not be used when it is meant to apply to the people of the entire country, which it does, more often than not. "Bosnian and Herzegovinian" is not commonly used. "Bosnian and Herzegovinan" is just plain wrong. This proposal, if accepted, will bring all the Bosnia and Herzegovina nationality categories in line with each other and the overall by nationality category schemes. Zoporific 08:41, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Category:Bosnian and Herzegovinian foo. Why is this "just plain wrong?" when the main article states this demonym? Lugnuts (talk) 12:15, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I said "Bosnia and Herzegovinan" is wrong. Check the spelling. I said "Bosnian and Herzegovinian" is not commonly used, and right now there are only 2 of the above categories that use it. The main article does not give "Bosnian and Herzegovinian" as the demonym: it gives "Bosnian" and "Herzegovinian" separately. This is because "Bosnian" is common; "Herzegovinian" is semi-common; but "Bosnian and Herzegovinian" is almost never used. Zoporific 12:18, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to
  Jay 14:07, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • "Bosno-Herzegovinan" — sounds like a neologism to me. Perhaps I did get that backwards in my above comments, though — "Herzegovinan" is correct; "Herzegovinian" is just wrong. In any case, I don't support either, so what I think about them doesn't much matter. ... Zoporific 00:32, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom to avoid the difficulties exhibited above in finding an adjective.
  -- roundhouse0 (talk) 17:18, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Rename per nom & per Roundhouse. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:12, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom and Roundhouse. Sting au Buzz Me... 05:21, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nomination and for adjective problems. Doczilla (talk) 07:08, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nominator to "Bosnia and Herzegovina Foo". I think "Herzegonvinian" or "Herzegovinan" are both technically acceptable, but nom is right that this word is not typically used in combination with "Bosnian" to describe a person from the country. "Bosnian" and "Herzegovin(i)an" are used almost exclusively as ethnic group identifiers. For this reason, simply using "Bosnia and Herzegovina" seems the simplest solution that is least likely to be misunderstood.
  Snocrates 21:04, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Rename per nom and per precedent of Bosnia discussion of Dec 31. (Category:Bosnian university teachers should be Category:Faculty by university or college in Bosnia and Herzegovina, though.)--Mike Selinker (talk) 16:13, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom and precedent. --BelovedFreak 21:14, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]