Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 January 8: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 22:57, 9 January 2008

< January 7	January 9 >

January 8

Category:Period piece TV series

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. Otto4711 (talk) 23:54, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I created the category and this renaming is fine with me. SnappingTurtle (talk) 16:31, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this is not defining for tv series which are often fiction which obviously has ahistoric events usually from the past to give them context. And how far in the past must it be to be "period" - 60 Minutes is mostly about past events, as are most newsy shows - I am waiting for a financial channel who'll be giving me the closing stock prices for a future date. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:40, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Period Piece Television implies a piece set in a period but made outside it, while Period Television suggests a piece of a period. That said, neither really "works" for me. However, as the only alternative I can think of is "costume drama" I can't suggest something else.

Duggy 1138 (talk) 20:20, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People killed by loyalist paramilitaries

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]

Rename to something as the current title is very POV. I was thinking this was about Central America... 132.205.44.5 (talk) 22:56, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People killed by security forces

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]

Rename to something as the current title is very POV. I was thinking this was about Israel... 132.205.44.5 (talk) 22:57, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People killed during the Troubles

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 The Troubles, the parent category is Category:The Troubles in Northern Ireland, and I think the addition to the category name is helpful. Snocrates 23:51, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose renaming to that name. The category and sub-categories include people who were killed in the Republic of Ireland, so it would be factually inaccurate. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 10:29, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Official IRA members

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 WP:NCCAT. Other IRA-related categories and articles use the full name. Rename for consistency. Snocrates 23:41, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Administrators of the EPA

Propose renaming Category:Administrators of the EPA to Category:Administrators of the Environmental Protection Agency

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Expand abbreviation per WP:NCCAT and per main article Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency. Snocrates 23:23, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Actually, both the category and the main article probably should be renamed specifying that they are for the United States, to distinguish them from all of the other Environmental Protection Agencies. Cgingold (talk) 10:31, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom - I don't think it's necessary to specify "USA" as the parent cat is already Category:United States Environmental Protection Agency. Sting_au Talk 21:41, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Films set in Washington state

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 Category:Washington. Otto4711 (talk) 22:50, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Only problem I see with this, is that it could start being confused with Washington DC. -Djsasso (talk) 22:52, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which should have its own categories under the structures and currently doesn't. Otto4711 (talk) 23:56, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure it does: Category:Films set in Washington, D.C. and Category:Washington, D.C. actors. Rename and merge, but put a note on the ones from Washington state saying that DC-related ones go in their respective categories.--Mike Selinker (talk) 00:37, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:42, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Radio stations in Jamestown / Valley City

Category:Radio stations in Jamestown / Valley City - Template:Lc1

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]

Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:55, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Unnecessary cat. Sting_au Talk 21:47, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Turkish Navy ship classes

Category:Turkish Navy ship classes - Template:Lc1

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) 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]

Category:Wuppertaler SV Borussia players

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]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related page moves. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 21:11, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Minnesota films

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]

Merge per nom. Sting_au Talk 21:49, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Mass Effect characters

Category:Mass Effect characters - Template:Lc1

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]

Category:Online Trading Card Games

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]

Category:German-born Americans

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]

Merge (or delete) - this is a newly created category with 1 member, Robert F. Wagner, already in the longer-established and well-populated Category:German immigrants to the United States via Category:German-born United States political figures. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 20:39, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Before you merge or delete, keep in mind that there are German-born Americans who are not immigrants, many (though not all) of them military brats. An especially notable example is John McEnroe, born in Wiesbaden (his father was stationed at Wiesbaden Air Base at the time). — Dale Arnett (talk) 21:43, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Dale Arnett's comment, but rename as Category:Americans born in Germany or similar. --Bob (talk) 21:49, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that John McEnroe is in Category:German-born Americans and not in Category:German immigrants to the United States (and not in Category:German-Americans) - but do we need this category at all? -- roundhouse0 (talk) 22:36, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - overcategorization, part of the mania for breaking down race, nationality, ethnicity, etc. to ever more absurd degrees of specificity. Otto4711 (talk) 22:54, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was only commenting that you can't necessarily conflate German-born Americans with German immigrants to the US. With all the comments in mind, I now officially vote to delete. — Dale Arnett (talk) 15:53, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Otto4711 overcat. Sting_au Talk 22:00, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Independence Movements

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 Puerto Rico independence movement and it's already in the sovereignty movement category. Snocrates 09:25, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Given the subcats and article names in the target category, why not reverse merge? Vegaswikian (talk) 19:56, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- True — yes, either could work and the subs tend to use "independence" more commonly than "sovereignty". I only chose the merge the way I did b/c "sovereignty" had the majority of categories and "independence" only had one article. Whatever others think should be fine either way. Snocrates 07:34, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
reverse merge so the end result will be just Category:Independence Movements which is the more commonly used term I expect. Hmains (talk) 20:41, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reverse Merge per Hmains. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:53, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (nominator) on reverse merge : if reversed merged, the target category should be changed to Category:Independence movements (caps change). Snocrates 09:03, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes! Vegaswikian (talk) 06:52, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reverge merge, with lower-case 'm' in 'movements'. --Soman (talk) 11:49, 7 January 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 16:22, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note, the consensus appears to be merge both into Category:Independence movements, but as Category:Sovereignty movements wasn't tagged for renaming, I've relisted this. --Kbdank71 16:22, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge both to Category:Independence movements for the reasons above. - Fayenatic (talk) 20:58, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge both to Category:Independence movements as best descriptor of the concept. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:50, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Skateboarding events

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]

Support Fits better with other the other subcategories of . Rigadoun (talk) 18:18, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Basingstoke Bison (BNL) players

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]

Merge Splitting these categories up in the first place was ridiculous and should have been discussed prior to doing so. The defining characteristic is most definitely the team and not the league it was playing for at the time. The categories are small and unlikely to grow much past what they are. And players who have played for the team through the different league changes would have significant category clutter. -Djsasso (talk)
Keep. Right now, all of these categories are subcategories of Category:Ice hockey players by league. Removing these categories will not make it cleaner. I believe it will add clutter because players will be in the team categories and the league categories instead of just the team/league categories. (e.g. Paul Adey is a member of Category:Nottingham Panthers (BHL) players, Category:Nottingham Panthers (EIHL) players, & Category:Nottingham Panthers (ISL) players. If this merge proceeds, he will then become a member of Category:Nottingham Panthers players, Category:Ice Hockey Superleague players, Category:Elite Ice Hockey League players, Category:British Hockey League players. With this example, this player is in more categories, and they are less defining than before.) -- JamesTeterenko (talk) 00:05, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment No it wouldn't because you would put the Category:Nottingham Panthers players in each of those league categories like it was before the creator went on his spree causing havoc with hockey categories. So to use your example the player would only now be in one category instead of three. -Djsasso (talk) 01:05, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: As Djsasso says the Category:Nottingham Panthers players would be a sub category of Category:British Hockey League players, Category:Ice Hockey Superleague players etc. so those categories wouldn't be used for the player. Which is how they used to be before they were all changed. --JD554 (talk) 08:19, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. So, if you do that, you will get players categorized into leagues that they have never played in. e.g. K. C. Timmons has never played in the BNL, but would end up being in a subcategory of the BNL players because he played for Coventry Blaze in the EIHL. Should we rename the category to be Category:Players of teams that at one time were in the British Hockey League? That is what the definition of the category would become if you make such a change. -- JamesTeterenko (talk) 15:56, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'd rather have it clear what team/league each player played for.--Mike Selinker (talk) 00:39, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: It should already be clear in the player stats section or, if there isn't one, by following the external link to either Hockeydb, Eurohockey or Legendsofhockey. Even the most basic of stubs needs to be referenced. --JD554 (talk) 08:19, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and remove all the league categories (per UK football, cricket, rugby, ...). -- roundhouse0 (talk) 02:31, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Intellectually impaired people

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]

Strong rename per nom. The proposed new name is much better, and follows the convention of Category:People with disabilities. Well done to Sting_au for persisting. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:57, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom, convention, and WP:CGRS. LeSnail (talk) 15:11, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom - also clearer. --Lquilter (talk) 15:20, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom for consistency. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:48, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom for consistency within the parent cat. Maralia (talk) 18:17, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Lists of J-pop artists

Category:Lists of J-pop artists - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: Delete as a obsolete category. It has no links in it after a merger that was performed (discussion Talk:List_of_J-pop_artists#Merger). The 26 articles that were in it (and the main article) were merged into one again and the category is now completely useless. — Save_Us_229 09:15, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as empty. Sting_au Talk 11:06, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Grand Prix motorcycle races by year

Propose renaming Category:Grand Prix motorcycle races by year to Category:Grand Prix motorcycle racing by year or Category:Grand Prix motorcycle racing seasons

Nominator's rationale: For consistency with other subcategories of Category:Motorsport by year. DH85868993 (talk) 07:48, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Open Society

Category:Open Society - Template:Lc1

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]

Delete per nom. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 18:02, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:46, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Diego Grez songs

You have called {{Contentious topics}}. You probably meant to call one of these templates instead:

Alerting users

{{alert/first}} ({{Contentious topics/alert/first}}) is used, on a user's talk page, to "alert", or draw a user's attention, to the contentious topics system if they have never received such an alert before. In this case, this template must be used for the notification.
{{alert}} ({{Contentious topics/alert}}) is used, on a user's talk page, to "alert", or draw a user's attention, to the fact that a specific topic is a contentious topic. It may only be used if the user has previously received any contentious topic alert, and it can be replaced by a custom message that conveys the contentious topic designation.
{{alert/DS}} ({{Contentious topics/alert/DS}}) is used to inform editors that the old "discretionary sanctions" system has been replaced by the contentious topics system, and that a specific topic is a contentious topic.
{{Contentious topics/aware}} is used to register oneself as already aware that a specific topic is a contentious topic.

Editnotices

{{Contentious topics/editnotice}} is used to inform editors that a page is covered by the contentious topics system using an editnotice. Use the one below if the page has restrictions placed on the page.
{{Contentious topics/page restriction editnotice}} is used to inform editors that the page they are editing is subject to contentious topics restrictions using an editnotice. Use the above if there are no restrictions placed on the page.

Talk page notices

{{Contentious topics/talk notice}} is used to provide additional communication, using a talk page messagebox (tmbox), to editors that they are editing a page that is covered by the contentious topics system. The template standardises the format and wording of such notices. Use the below if there are restrictions placed on the page.
{{Contentious topics/page restriction talk notice}} is used to inform editors that page restrictions are active on the page using a talk page messagebox (tmbox). Use the above if there are no restrictions placed on the page.
If a user who has been alerted goes on to disruptively edit the affected topic area, they can be reported to the arbitration enforcement (AE) noticeboard, where an administrator will investigate their conduct and issue a sanction if appropriate. {{AE sanction}} is used by administrators to inform a user that they have been sanctioned.

Miscellaneous

{{Contentious topics/list}} and {{Contentious topics/table}} show which topics are currently designated as contentious topics. They are used by a number of templates and pages on Wikipedia. speedy deleted by User:Ryulong. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:46, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Diego Grez songs - Template:Lc1

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]

^{[citation needed]}

Category:Global NGOs

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]

Rename per nom. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:55, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:45, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Musical Artists who have performed at The First Cathedral

Category:Musical Artists who have performed at The First Cathedral - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: Delete performer by performance or by venue, OCAT and non-defining. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 03:07, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete overcategorization. –Pomte 12:45, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not defining. LeSnail (talk) 15:07, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 02:20, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as performer by performance. Maralia (talk) 18:18, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Unions

Category:Unions - Template:Lc1

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]

redirect per well argued nom Hmains (talk) 03:19, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per the above. Sting_au Talk 11:03, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt. The nominator is quite right that this is categorisation by name, but I think that a redirect is a bad idea: if editors place a student union or a mothers union in Category:Unions, the bots will then recategorise it under Category:Trade unions, which woukd be wrong. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:30, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt. Changed my opinion once reading BrownHairedGirl's reasons. Sting_au Talk 12:06, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt per BHG. LeSnail (talk) 15:06, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
D&S is fine with me -- I didn't realize bots always trawled the cat redirects! --Lquilter (talk) 15:10, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- They don't seem to trawl very frequently, but in theory they are on the job. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:43, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt per BHG. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:45, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt per BHG. — Dale Arnett (talk) 21:45, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Christian companies

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]

Comment. Seems like the same question here. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:18, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Rename to Category:Christian goods or services providers. To be perfectly frank, I think this category is absurd. It seems like it was created solely for the sake of Christian cheerleading/scorekeeping. As stated though, I suppose it could serve some purpose if it categorizes providers of Christian goods or services, since there is something unique about that. - CheshireKatz (talk) 03:45, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no clear boundary of what should be included. There is no corresponding category for any other faith. ~~Upmerge~~ Make its subcat Category:Christian media companies a sub-cat of its parent, category:Christian organizations. - Fayenatic (talk) 09:05, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The proposed renames are well-intended, but are all problematic:

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
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]

comment - BHG is right about the contents of the cat & I should have summarized them in my nom. Delete is fine with me, too. The category as presently named is not workable. --Lquilter (talk) 15:12, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose replacing with Category:Christian media retailers or similar as a new sub-cat of Category:Christian media companies. Initial members from this category would be Berean, Family & Lifeway. - Fayenatic (talk) 18:14, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. —Fayenatic (talk) 18:14, 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]

Delete companies cannot be Christian. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:44, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:KPMG

Category:KPMG - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: Delete category; Unnecessary eponymous category for a company. The category contains 13 articles. KPMG; 5 articles on people associated with KPMG (overcat); two stubs about companies that merged into KPMG (these should probably merge into the KPMG article); an article about a football club that may or may not be about KPMG the company; an article about a building that KPMG rents 7 floors on (overcat); an article about a company that spun-off from KPMG (overcat IMO, but it's a judgment call; at any rate, it can be linked from the KPMG article if needed); two 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]

Delete, implement suggestions of the nominator. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 18:01, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I've redirected one merged firm, William Barclay Peat & Co. (no additional info to merge), and PRODded one of the bios. Everything necessary is already linked from KPMG. The football team's logo indicates that it is clearly sponsored by KPMG, but it's not material info in the context of the KPMG article. - Fayenatic (talk) 20:50, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:41, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. — Dale Arnett (talk) 21:46, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu

Category:Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu - Template:Lc1

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]

Delete per nom. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 17:59, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:42, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. — Dale Arnett (talk) 21:47, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:CBC Radio 3 programs

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? Shawn in Montreal (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]

Category:Non-article Ireland articles

Rename Category:Non-article Ireland articles to Category:Non-article Ireland pages per nonsense about current name of category. Georgia guy (talk) 00:37, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak rename This is a maintenance category used by WikiProject Ireland, and populated by the project banner template {{WikiProject_Ireland}}. The proposed rename probably makes more sense, but if it is renamed, the template will need to be amended.
The category text clearly says
This category contains non-article pages within the scope of Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland. Articles are automatically added to this category by assigning the 'class=NA' parameter as part of the {{WikiProject Ireland}} banner.
…so it is a great pity that the nominator did not have the courtesy to notify the either the category creator or WikiProject Ireland of the proposed renaming of a project maintenance template. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:49, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PS project now notified. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:54, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are some similarly named categories in Category:NA-Class articles; these are mostly named NA-Class X articles, or Non-article X pages, or Non-article X articles. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 18:53, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Aboriginal goddesses

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 Category:Australian Aboriginal deities and Category:Australian Aboriginal mythology. Snocrates 00:34, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename although this might be over categorization ~~and they could both be merged into Category:Australian Aboriginal deities~~ (see below). --Bduke (talk) 00:57, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom ~~along the lines of Bduke's suggestion. Definitely overcategorisation, Category:Australian Aboriginal deities is all that is needed.~~ See below. Mattinbgn\^talk 01:45, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (nominator) The reason I didn't suggest an upmerge is subclassifying by "gods" and "goddesses" is done for every other subcategory of Category:Deities by culture where gods and goddesses exist. Thus, it seems to be part of an overall system of categorization per WP:NCCAT#SMALL. Upmerging the categories will remove the information from the parent categories Category:Goddesses by culture and Category:Gods by culture. This shouldn't be done unless Category:Goddesses is merged with Category:Gods, which is a proposal that has been recently rejected. Snocrates 01:28, 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]

Support rename - the rename doesn't prejudice any further discussion (on which I have no views) but adds the essential info that the aboriginals in question are australian ones. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 19:04, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom; note that the comparable Greek & Roman categories are divided by sex. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:39, 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]

Comment. This discussion has become rather unclear. Let me try to clarify matters. Editors who appear to know about Aboriginal mythology (not including me although I have lived in areas with many Aboriginal people and worked with them) have argued strongly that Aboriginal mythology does not have the concept of gods or goddesses. Several editors have proposed that Category:Aboriginal gods, Category:Aboriginal goddesses and Category:Australian Aboriginal deities be all merged into Category:Australian Aboriginal mythology. I suggest that this be the substantial proposal. If everything here is too unclear, it could be closed and a new CfD proposal started. Alternatively it could be closed as no consensus or even the rename to just add "Australian" and left to the Wikipedia:WikiProject Indigenous Australians to sort out. --Bduke (talk) 22:44, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (nominator) No, I am not withdrawing my nomination or asking that it be closed (if that's what you were suggesting)—I stand by the suggestions I have made. If there is a desire for further change after this CFD, another could be started, but I see no reason why consensus can't be gained on whether or not to make the change I suggested or to immediately make the more dramatic change you have proposed. Snocrates 22:51, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Qualified Rename, to enable consensus, acknowledging that 'Australian Aboriginal gods/godesses' is not much different (and no worse) than "Aboriginal gods/godesses" .. I have withdrawn opposition expressed above ..although I agree with Bduke (talk)clarification above, and would urge all/any interested contibutors/editors to later revisit the categorisation, the associated listing plus the articles listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Indigenous Australians Bruceanthro (talk) 01:11, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, if Aboriginal mythic characters or ancestoral beings are to be classed as gods and goddesses, then, if we look here, Captain Cook might/could/would qualify as a GOD and a DEITY, described perhaps as "an Australian Aboriginal harbinger of English colonialism, sometimes a giver of unwanted English gifts, most often a villian bringing about dramatic and violent change to the pre-existing social order". Captain Cook clearly qualifies, but might look a bit odd to some/many if identified/listed as either an Aboriginal God, or an Australian Aboriginal God (the real James Cook is not even Australian!!)!! Bruceanthro (talk) 12:32, 9 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 Rainbow Serpent, which may sometimes, in someplaces be male, and other times in other places be female .. or be not quite either/or both?!! Plenty to talk about at Wikipedia:WikiProject Indigenous Australians for those who're interested!! Bruceanthro (talk) 13:16, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Rainbow Serpent would go in Category:Australian Aboriginal deities and those of discernible gender in the 2 subcats. These categories all exist already. (It should perhaps be Deities of the Indigenous Australians, etc.) -- roundhouse0 (talk) 13:35, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Characters in Arabian Nights

Propose renaming Category:Characters in Arabian Nights to Category:Characters in One Thousand and One Nights

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Per parent Category:One Thousand and One Nights and main article List of characters within One Thousand and One Nights. "Arabian Nights" redirects to One Thousand and One Nights. Snocrates 00:19, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:One Thousand and One Nights characters. This naming format has the edge in the parent category Category:Characters in written fiction and is the clear standard in other similar categories housed in the various subcats of Category:Fictional characters by medium. Otto4711 (talk) 01:45, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per Otto4711. --Philip Stevens (talk) 06:59, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per Otto. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:37, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 25: / Line 25: @@
 :'''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:''' {{{3|'''Rename'''. For clarity. (Could drop the "in Northern Ireland" depending on outcome of CFD immediately below.) [[User:Snocrates|Snocrates]] 23:53, 8 January 2008 (UTC)}}}
+*'''Rename to something''' as the current title is very POV. I was thinking this was about Israel... [[Special:Contributions/132.205.44.5|132.205.44.5]] ([[User talk:132.205.44.5|talk]]) 22:57, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 ==== Category:People killed during the Troubles ====