Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 January 8

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
<
Log
< January 7 January 9 >

January 8

Category:Period piece TV series

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the discussion was relisted on jan 17. Kbdank71 15:32, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Period piece TV series to Category:Period television series
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Expand the abbreviation, and the word "piece" is unnecessary.
talk) 23:54, 8 January 2008 (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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:People killed by loyalist paramilitaries

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the discussion was relisted on jan 17. Kbdank71 15:30, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:People killed by loyalist paramilitaries to Category:People killed by loyalist paramilitaries during the Troubles in Northern Ireland
Nominator's rationale: Rename. For clarity. (Could drop "in Northern Ireland" depending on the outcome of the CFD below.)
Snocrates 23:55, 8 January 2008 (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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:People killed by security forces

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the discussion was relisted on jan 17. Kbdank71 15:30, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:People killed by security forces to Category:People killed by British security forces during the Troubles in Northern Ireland
Nominator's rationale: Rename. For clarity. (Could drop the "in Northern Ireland" depending on outcome of CFD immediately below.)
Snocrates 23:53, 8 January 2008 (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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:People killed during the Troubles

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the discussion was relisted on jan 17. Kbdank71 15:30, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:People killed during the Troubles to Category:People killed during the Troubles in Northern Ireland
Nominator's rationale: Rename. For clarity. Although the main article is at
Snocrates 23:51, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
Comment Is "during" intended to indicate a causal relationship? Or just a time-relationship? Because if the former, I'm not sure it's strong enough -- wouldn't it include random car accidents? I note that there is no "people killed..." parent category; it should probably be Category:War-related deaths, and the format there is "People killed in ...", as in Category:People killed in World War I or Category:People killed in the Spanish Civil War. That would lead to "Category:People killed in the Irish Troubles" (which is clear but I do note that "The Troubles" is specific enough -- the term is used only in reference to n.ireland AFAIK). --Lquilter (talk) 19:28, 15 January 2008 (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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Official IRA members

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the discussion was rename all. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:38, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Official IRA members to Category:Official Irish Republican Army members
Category:Real IRA actions to Category:Real Irish Republican Army actions
Category:Provisional IRA actions to Category:Provisional Irish Republican Army actions
Category:People killed by the Provisional IRA to Category:People killed by the Provisional Irish Republican Army
Category:People killed by the Official IRA to Category:People killed by the Official Irish Republican Army
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Expand abbreviation per
Snocrates 23:41, 8 January 2008 (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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Administrators of the EPA

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the discussion was rename Category:Administrators of the EPA to Category:Administrators of the United States Environmental Protection Agency. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:39, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Administrators of the EPA to Category:Administrators of the Environmental Protection Agency
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Expand abbreviation per
Snocrates 23:23, 8 January 2008 (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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Films set in Washington state

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the discussion was rename one, merge one per nomination. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:40, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Films set in Washington state to Category:Films set in Washington
Propose merging Category:Washington (state) actors to Category:Washington actors
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Only categories that I'm seeing that use by-state disambiguation; to match the lead
talk) 22:50, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Which should have its own categories under the structures and currently doesn't.
    talk) 23:56, 8 January 2008 (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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Radio stations in Jamestown / Valley City

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the discussion was delete. Kbdank71 16:37, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Radio stations in Jamestown / Valley City (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete This category is currently populated by five articles (one station licensed to Valley City, three stations licensed to Jamestown, and one station in the surrounding area) and a single template. The category is completely unnecessary, as Category:Radio stations in North Dakota works just fine and that the template mentioned does a much better job grouping everything together. If the result is not to delete, the category needs to be renamed to a category that better fits the MOS (i.e. adds the state of North Dakota to the name and removes the slash). Additionally, it needs to be determined the most common name for this geographic area, as I can find no parent geographic categories specific enough and no references to (another clue that it should be deleted). JPG-GR (talk) 21:40, 8 January 2008 (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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Turkish Navy ship classes

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the discussion was relisted on jan 17. Kbdank71 15:26, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Turkish Navy ship classes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Per
WP:SHIPS categorization guidelines, ship classes are not categorized this way; instead, the class categories (for example, Category:Essex class aircraft carriers) are categorized under the country category (for example, Category:Aircraft carriers of the United States). TomTheHand (talk) 21:28, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
Comment - Mainly for convenience within Category:Turkish Navy - I will remove from Category:Ship classes. Neddyseagoon - talk 23:24, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Gotcha. In the future, ideally (according to WP:SHIPS guidelines) Category:Turkish Navy ships would have subcategories for each class, which would contain the class article and articles for all of the individual ships; however, I understand that that's difficult to at this point because for most of these classes we don't have articles on the individual members. TomTheHand (talk) 00:01, 9 January 2008 (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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wuppertaler SV Borussia players

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the discussion was merge. Kbdank71 16:30, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Wuppertaler SV Borussia players to Category:Wuppertaler SV players
Nominator's rationale: Merge, Duplicate category. The name 'Wuppertaler SV' covers the club's history since 1954, whereas the Borussia suffix restricts it to post-2004. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 21:07, 8 January 2008 (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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Minnesota films

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the discussion was merge. Kbdank71 16:30, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Minnesota films to Category:Films set in Minnesota
Nominator's rationale: Merge, The naming standard at Category:Films set in the United States by state is to list them as "Films set in state". I'm not sure how Category:Minnesota films escaped this convention, but these two categories should be merged for consistency. Elkman (Elkspeak) 20:22, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to standard - agree per nom.--Appraiser (talk) 20:33, 8 January 2008 (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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Mass Effect characters

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the discussion was delete. Kbdank71 16:37, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Mass Effect characters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Contains only a list. Category is too narrow to be useful. Pagrashtak 18:20, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. Too broad to be any good. RobJ1981 (talk) 21:53, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - very unlikely to be further populated and current article covered by other cats. Sting_au Talk 22:18, 9 January 2008 (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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Online Trading Card Games

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the discussion was rename. Kbdank71 16:30, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Online Trading Card Games to Category:Online collectible card games
Nominator's rationale: Parent categories are Category:Online games and Category:Collectible card games.--Mike Selinker (talk) 16:48, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per non - better matches parent cats.Sting_au Talk 21:53, 9 January 2008 (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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:German-born Americans

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the discussion was delete. Kbdank71 16:36, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:German-born Americans to Category:German immigrants to the United States
Nominator's rationale: Duplicate. LeSnail (talk) 16:22, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that
-- roundhouse0 (talk) 22:36, 8 January 2008 (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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Independence Movements

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the discussion was merge both into Category:Independence movements. Kbdank71 15:21, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Independence Movements to Category:Sovereignty movements
Nominator's rationale: Merge, Not really a difference between the two. Only article of independence category is
Snocrates 09:25, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kbdank71 16:22, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My initial reaction is there is probably a significant difference, though it probably hasn't been abided by too strictly. I don't think the movements of the Québécois or the Scots for independence would be classified as "national liberation movements", and
Snocrates 04:24, 15 January 2008 (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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Skateboarding events

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the discussion was rename. Kbdank71 16:29, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Skateboarding events to Category:Skateboarding competitions
Nominator's rationale: I created this article a little while ago but changed my mind. "Competitions" would be better since it would include series as well as single events, and I wanted the category to be for contests not just things that happen that have to do with skating. Recury (talk) 15:09, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're the creator and only editor of this category, so you can just create the better cat, move the articles, and put a {{
db-author}} tag on the old category. --Lquilter (talk) 15:16, 8 January 2008 (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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Basingstoke Bison (BNL) players

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the discussion was relisted on jan 17. Kbdank71 15:19, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging
Nominator's rationale: Merge, The team player categories listed have been split into "the team (league) players". I believe this to be over-categorization to categories that are very small with a low potential for growth. The number of articles in each sub category is small and the parent categories suggested would not be overly cluttered. I believe the defining item is the team the player played for and not the league the team was playing for at a particular time. This has also led to a number of players having multiple categories for the same team. JD554 (talk) 13:43, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I agree with User:JamesTeterenko that the way it was was misleading, having players linked to leagues that have never played in. Although I am sympathetic with the nominator's sentiment that naming by league as well is unnecessary, ice hockey is heavily North Amer. biased in the way its leagues are structured even in Europe (and likely for longer in the UK), moving away from a promotion/relegation system, so I think listing by league is necessary. finally, there is no precedent for not having category pages because they are thinly populated. as User:Mike Selinker, what is important here is accuracy Mayumashu (talk) 05:18, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: One of the main problems I see is that the top level league in, particularly the UK, has changed a number of times over the years. In fact there are reasonably strong rumours of another change in the UK structure in the near future. This could mean that a player who has played for one club could have three (or more if you count second level) categories for the team they've played for eg. team (ISL) player, team (EIHL) player, team (whatever next) player etc. To me, that simply causes clutter at the bottom of the article while not really helping to inform. In my opinion the league part of the current categories seems more relevant to the team than the player.--JD554 (talk) 08:01, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment:I wouldn t be against seeing players listed by league and club separately with no interlinking between the two for clubs in Europe, so long as User:JamesTeterenko's concern is addressed Mayumashu (talk) 01:53, 15 January 2008 (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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Intellectually impaired people

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the discussion was rename. Kbdank71 16:29, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Intellectually impaired people to Category:People with intellectual impairment
Nominator's rationale: Rename. This one was only renamed recently but some wanted to relist to gain better consensus. The closing admin suggested I relist it here. My reasoning is that "People" first is the generally accepted way to describe people with disabilities rather than focusing on the disability first. I work in this area so feel very strongly about how these categorys should read. Parent category is Category:People with disabilities so renaming fits better with that format. Sting_au Talk 10:59, 8 January 2008 (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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Lists of J-pop artists

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the discussion was delete. Kbdank71 16:35, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Lists of J-pop artists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete as a obsolete category. It has no links in it after a merger that was performed (discussion
229 09:15, 8 January 2008 (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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Grand Prix motorcycle races by year

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the discussion was relisted on jan 16. Kbdank71 17:05, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Grand Prix motorcycle races by year to Category:Grand Prix motorcycle racing seasons
Nominator's rationale: For consistency with other subcategories of Category:Motorsport by year. An alternative name would be Category:Grand Prix motorcycle racing by year. DH85868993 (talk) 07:48, 8 January 2008 (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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Open Society

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the discussion was delete. Kbdank71 16:35, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Open Society (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary eponymous category and/or vague. Contains three articles:
Open Society Institute (a foundation), George Soros (overcat basd on his starting the OSI), and Open society (a social sciences term invented prior to the OSI). If kept, rename to fix spelling and clarify; perhaps to Category:Open society organizations. Lquilter (talk) 04:22, 8 January 2008 (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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Diego Grez songs

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: speedy deleted by User:Ryulong. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:46, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Diego Grez songs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Hoax. JuJube (talk) 03:39, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy close as it doesn't exist anymore. LeSnail (talk) 15:08, 8 January 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.

Category:Global NGOs

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the discussion was merge. Kbdank71 16:28, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Global NGOs to Category:International non-governmental organizations
Nominator's rationale: Merge, Preexisting spelled-out category name is preferred to the abbreviation. This is a continuation of the NGOs category fixes that I was doing a couple of weeks ago; the category creator was notified about them. Lquilter (talk) 03:11, 8 January 2008 (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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Musical Artists who have performed at The First Cathedral

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the discussion was delete. Kbdank71 16:34, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Musical Artists who have performed at The First Cathedral (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete performer by performance or by venue, OCAT and non-defining. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 03:07, 8 January 2008 (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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Unions

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the discussion was delete. Kbdank71 16:33, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Unions (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Basically a type of categorization by name. I suggest that Category:Unions be redirected to Category:Trade unions. This category currently has three subcategories and zero articles: Category:Trade unions (what most people think of when they think of "unions"), Category:Students' unions (a mix of student government associations, buildings, and organizations that are often known by other names, some of which occasionally have negotiating powers somewhat akin to trade unions), and Category:Monetary unions, which has nothing at all in common with trade or student unions, that I can see. Each of these three categories is perfectly well categorized under a variety of other parent categories. Lquilter (talk) 02:33, 8 January 2008 (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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Christian companies

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the discussion was delete. Kbdank71 17:04, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Christian companies to ???
Nominator's rationale: Rename to Category:Companies producing Christian goods and services, or Category:Companies relating to Christian goods and services or Category:Companies marketing to Christians or something; any other proposals? "Companies" can't be "Christian"; Christianity is a religious belief. As pointed out by another editor on Category talk:Christian companies, this category needs to be restricted to those marketing to Christians. -- Lquilter (talk) 01:47, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Category:Companies marketing to Christians would create a category of companies-by-target-customer, which makes sense only if we are gong to create a new Category:Companies by marketing strategy, which would be a very bad idea, because there are so many permutations of marketing strategy that it would generate massive category clutter
  2. Category:Companies relating to Christian goods and services or Category:Companies producing Christian goods and services are better, but again make sense only if there is going be a wider categorisation of companies producing religious goods. I don't think that such a category is workable, because most companies in that line of business also produce secular goods — there was a lot of church-building in Ireland in the 1970s and 1980s, but the builders also constructed secular projects. Looking at the current membership of Category:Christian companies, only a minority of articles would qualify for this category: I think that only Family Christian Stores, and LifeWay Christian Resources would fit, and that even Christian Real Estate Network doesn't qualify. None of those three companies are clearly notable.
Most of the companies in the current category are merely companies where the owners are christian. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:20, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I note that "Christian media retailers" has the same potential confusion regarding the adjective -- I'm sure it's meant to apply to media not retailers, but "Retailers of Christian media" would be clearer. --Lquilter (talk) 18:28, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fine by me, Fayenatic (talk) 20:55, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • mini-comment - I think "Vendors" would be better than "Retailers" as it would also include wholesalers. Cgingold (talk) 23:18, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • But there are also distributors and manufacturers; there's a whole "Christian economy". "Companies" is nicely generic because it incorporates everything. --Lquilter (talk) 16:22, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suppose that producers, distributors, retailers, wholesalers, and broadcasters of "Christian media" can all go into the same category. --Lquilter (talk) 21:14, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, agreed: no new sub-cat is required. I have down-categorised the three articles I mentioned. - Fayenatic (talk) 21:54, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete companies cannot be Christian. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:44, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- It does seem that "religion-related goods and services" (however described) is a potentially useful category that could include, for instance, halal & kosher food producers / certifiers / catering companies; religious media producers (of which there is an entire christian alternative economy, at least here in the states); retailers of faith-based goods & services (in the states there are a lot of jewish & christian retail stores). Would a generic category, Category:Religion-related companies, work? That could be a better parent category for Category:Christian media companies and any other relevant categories that are needed & developed over time. --Lquilter (talk) 21:14, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply - There exists Category:Kosher restaurants but I'm not sure that a new head category would be useful. Practically all the food companies in the Muslim world would go into it, not that I can find articles on any. There are the likes of Qibla Cola, but I'm not sure that has a better claim to be a religion-related company than say Chick-fil-A or Alaska Airlines in the cat nominated here. - Fayenatic (talk) 21:46, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The whole structure of Category:Christian organizations is a mess. The category itself contains some churches as well as a grab bag of practically any other kind of organization, corporate or not, which has some vague connection to Christianity, up to and including the Ku Klux Klan. Then we have Category:Christian media companies, which contains a bunch of religious goods sellers, and Category:Christian publishing companies, which overlaps with media companies so much that people can't figure out which to use, and so sometimes use both. There's also a denominational hierarchy problem because there are denominational "organization" cats, but then there are other cats by kind (e.g. "religious orders") which then break down by denomination. There's something to be said for a category meaning "companies whose operation is affected by Christian precepts", but given the current chaos, that categorization is a footnote to the main problem. Mangoe (talk) 19:17, 15 January 2008 (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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:KPMG

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the discussion was delete. Kbdank71 16:32, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:KPMG (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete category; Unnecessary eponymous category for a company. The category contains 13 articles.
1, 2) about KPMG activities that could legitimately be categorized in this category if it existed, but could also be linked from the main KPMG article. Lquilter (talk) 02:21, 8 January 2008 (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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the discussion was delete. Kbdank71 16:32, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary eponymous category for a firm. Contains 6 articles, one on the firm, three on its founders, and two on awards/league tables maintained by the firm. - Fayenatic (talk) 08:55, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The article on
the firm already links to all the others. - Fayenatic (talk) 20:53, 8 January 2008 (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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:CBC Radio 3 programs

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the discussion was keep/withdrawn. Kbdank71 17:02, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural nomination because there was an out-of-process speedy on this. The backstory is that User:Breno personally emptied this category yesterday, and then immediately tagged it as a CSD C1 ("empty for four days or more") even though it had been empty for closer to four minutes, and so it promptly got speedied. I can find no evidence of any actual discussion to build a consensus for deleting this — and the original rationale behind its creation was that because CBC Radio consists of three separate radio networks (six if we actually had any articles on the French networks' programs!), it wasn't helpful to jumble all of the different networks' individual programs into the single Category:Canadian Broadcasting Corporation radio programs parent.

My personal preference would be to keep, since it serves to diffuse a parent category on the very criterion which differentiates the category entries in real life. However, even if CFD consensus decides to delete it, the process that was originally followed here was not acceptable. Bearcat (talk) 02:06, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm for Keep, too, but I'm still unclear as to why User:Breno emptied the cat and then tagged it for deletion. I see your request for his (or her) rationale on Breno's talk page, but no reply, either on his or yours. Was there one?
    talk) 04:45, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep per the above opinions. Weird.
    Snocrates 04:52, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep. Valid category. Thanks for the clean-up, Bearcat. Skeezix1000 (talk) 12:54, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Definately should be kept the fact that it is on CBC Radio 3 is a defining characteristic compared to the other two networks being that Radio 3 is internet and satelite radio only and not conventional radio like the other two. -Djsasso (talk) 16:56, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I now realise my merge into the broader category was done so without concensus so I do appreciate the nominator running the correct process for me. Further notes on my talk page. I'm now up to date on the CFD process, and all article changes relating to this cat have been reverted. My intention was that with such small category for this particular station, with four articles, they could be merged into the broader category. I also noticed a lot of duplication across station categories, for example Fuse article is listed in Category:CBC Radio One programs, Category:CBC Radio 2 programs, and Category:CBC Radio 3 programs which seems a little redundant. Hopefully I've explained my reasoning clearly for discussion to continue. --Breno talk 07:29, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A few of the shows (a small minority of the total) do air contemporaneously on more than one of the CBC's networks. With those rare exceptions, however, the networks are sufficiently different (Radio One = primarily news and talk, Radio Two = primarily music, Radio 3 = satellite-only indie rock) that their programming really does need to be sorted into separate categories. Bearcat (talk) 21:30, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to withdraw this procedural deletion nomination. --Breno talk 01:04, 15 January 2008 (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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Non-article Ireland articles

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the discussion was nomination withdrawn. Kbdank71 17:00, 16 January 2008 (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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Aboriginal goddesses

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the discussion was no consensus. Kbdank71 16:57, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Aboriginal goddesses to Category:Australian Aboriginal goddesses
Category:Aboriginal gods to Category:Australian Aboriginal gods
Nominator's rationale: Rename. For clarity and per parents
Snocrates 00:34, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
Fair enough. I would class all of these cases as overcategorisation and borderline sexist (can you be sexist about mythological beings?). I would rename the Gods and Goddesses categories, Male deities and Female deities if there is an insistence on maintaining separate cats but this is not the forum so I will modify by suggestion above and leave it at that. -- Mattinbgn\talk 01:45, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Australian Aboriginal deities (or ... mythology) per Snocrates' regarding clarification of Australian and Bduke's gender-fix in conformity with current patterns. - We don't need to segregate fictional religious beings by gender. --Lquilter (talk) 02:35, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • But Snocrates is suggesting segregating fictional religious beings by gender. --Bduke (talk) 03:14, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not suggesting a start to the segregation — it already exists. I'm just suggesting we add "Australian" to the pre-existing names. Jeez! My proposal has suggested no change to the status quo beyond that.
Snocrates 03:32, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
Sorry. I should have said you were suggesting continuing with segregating fictional religious beings by gender. Nevertheless I believe a change to the status quo is required. See below. These names are not correct. --Bduke (talk) 03:56, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey that's OK. You're of course welcome to propose any changes; I just don't want to be associated with the pre-existing segregation at this time because I'm not positive what my position on it is apart from knowing the erasure of it was recently rejected in Oct 2007.
Snocrates 04:19, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
Oops - sorry, I just saw the notes posted by Bduke and thought they were part of Snocrates' original comment. Clarified my recommendation in italics. --Lquilter (talk) 04:30, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. On further reflection I am not sure that the term "god" or "goddess" means the same in Aboriginal culture as in other cultures. The terms "god" and "goddess" for example are not mentioned in
    Australian Aboriginal mythology. I note too that not all the entries in the two categories describe the subject of the article as a "god" or "goddess". As in many things trying to bring Aboriginal culture into the same framework as other cultures may be unhelpful and misleading. Many of the articles in these categories are poor as they talk of a general Aboriginal culture and do not link the being they are writing about to land and place. I think we should merge all the articles, including the three in Category:Australian Aboriginal deities, into Category:Australian Aboriginal mythology and stop trying to make distinctions that might be wrong. This modifies my response above. --Bduke (talk) 03:14, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Further comment. See discussion at Category talk:Aboriginal gods which goes back some while and suggests that the names may be offensive to Australian Aboriginals. Category:Australian Aboriginal Dreaming Spirits is suggested as a better name. --Bduke (talk) 03:52, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose and comment Deities, Gods and Goddesses are inappropriate terms for use in Australian Aboriginal dreamtime and appear to have been introduced solely for consistency with categories from other places. I'd prefer to keep the Category:Australian Aboriginal mythology as a catchall and remove the three subcats.Moondyne 04:29, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for more thoughtful/careful care, discussion and agreement here: My reasons for this position are given here, and I also refer you to discussion here Bruceanthro (talk) 06:52, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What exactly are you opposing?—it's not clear from the comments you linked to. Are you opposing the nomination, which is to add the word "Australian" to the categories, or are you opposing the use of "gods/goddesses", or are you opposing the very existence of the categories, or what? With so many varying comments and opinions above it's important that subsequent commenters make it clear what they are opposing and why. I'd like to see votes on the nomination itself and then optionally voting/comments on other proposals.
Snocrates 07:09, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
OK .. apologies if the above comments were not sufficiently clear and to the point. In casting my vote, I am opposed to any proposal to recategorise the lists of Aboriginal gods, goddesses and/or dieties until a little more thought, editing care and editing attention is actually given to upgrading the articles listed (making the content of the lists being discussed more meaningful.
I oppose the proposal, in favour instead of having further, more detailed, careful, thoughtful and possibly respectful discussion on the new
Wikipedia:WikiProject Indigenous Australians
discussion page, as part of a possible project collaboration to begin the necessary work of contextualising and upgrading current small plethora of listed stubs and expanding from there across the whole of the approx. 400 (or more) distinct Australian Aboriginal groups of Australia, including some of their more significant (notable?) mythic characters/ancestoral beings?!
Perhaps yourself and others may be agreeable to supporting the later proposal ie holding off further categorisation or recategorisation of Aboriginal mythic characters, ancestoral beings etc .. until more detailed etc discussions can be held on
Wikipedia:WikiProject Indigenous Australians as part of a project collaboration to begin properly tackling the articles currently proposed to be listed as Australian Aboriginal gods and godesses. Bruceanthro (talk) 12:38, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
  • The point at issue is that Aboriginal mythology is not in any way comparable to Greek and Roman. --Bduke (talk) 22:44, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Further Comment - if Aboriginal mythic characters or ancestoral beings are to be universally divided into male and female (ie GODS & GODDESS), then what is to be done with that most prevalent, pan-Australian Aboriginal creator being, the
Wikipedia:WikiProject Indigenous Australians for those who're interested!! Bruceanthro (talk) 13:16, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
The
-- roundhouse0 (talk) 13:35, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
-- roundhouse0 (talk) 01:39, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
Then those categories are also wrong. We cannot use Wikipedia as a source for itself.--Gazzster (talk) 03:14, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
-- roundhouse0 (talk) 09:53, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
No need to point out again, I suppose, that all the articles referred to are unauthenticated stub articles:
i. completely removed from context(who told of these 'goddesses' to whom, in what langauge, and where),
ii. wholly detached from their source language's and 'believers' (recall, again, the more than 400 Aboriginal 'tribes' or nations across the Australian continent),
iii. severed from their source
landscapes
;
iv. absent from any description or article on the religious beliefs and practices that have, presumably, raised them to their goodess status?!
It is highly unlikely
Wikipedia:WikiProject Indigenous Australians (where there are the very beginnings of a possible discussion?! Bruceanthro (talk) 13:12, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Indeed. The onus is clearly to prove that the term god/goddess is appropriate for Aboriginal and other Indigenous cultures. I am an Australian. I can tell you that the indigenous nations and non-indigenous academics hold the usage incorrect. I do not expect you to believe me on that. Let people go and do their research before contributing to Wikipedia.--Gazzster (talk) 08:19, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete outright, there are no gods or goddesses in indigenous culture, there are beings and people within events during the dreamtime. Even mythology is borderline but IMHO ok as a descriptive such that the general reader can understand the context. Gnangarra 12:46, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete - It looks like a straw clutching issue here - it looks like that in this discussion there is limited understanding of australian aboriginal culture or australian aboriginal anthropology or anywhere a single reasonable citation to backup their points. Delete - and - move on the whole thing is as useful as calling australian railways - railroads. Support Gnangarra and Moondyne on this issue - but what a waste of time trying to adjust - just accept it the category is a no goer
    Suro 13:29, 13 January 2008 (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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Characters in Arabian Nights

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the discussion was rename to Category:One Thousand and One Nights characters. Kbdank71 16:28, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Characters in Arabian Nights to Category:Characters in One Thousand and One Nights
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Per parent
Snocrates 00:19, 8 January 2008 (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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_January_8&oldid=1138857476"