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

The result of the debate was Rename to Category:Cinema of Catalonia. Rick Block (talk) 01:48, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like this has been up for rename before with no consensus. But there's not really any excuse for an illiterate title like this. It should be Category:Cinema of Catalonia, or if there are problems with a rename, just delete the thing. There's only one article in it, and as far as I know we don't normally have sub-national categories for films like this. The lone article can always be moved into Category:Cinema of Spain. JW 23:29, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename category:Cinema of Catalonia. Catalonia is not a normal subnational entity. It has its own language and is generally recognised as a nation. It is more like Scotland than say Buckinghamshire. CalJW 00:12, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• That's what I meant, there's no Category:Cinema of Scotland either. JW 19:43, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename Category:Cinema of Catalonia. I agree with CalJW. Or to category:Catalan films. --Joan sense nick 12:13, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename Category:Cinema of Catalonia. --MacRusgail 17:28, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Merge into Category:Buildings and monuments honoring American Presidents. Rick Block (talk) 01:48, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The suggested title uses American spelling, which is preferable for a topic related to American presidents, and is also clearer than the existing title. NatusRoma 20:12, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Category:Buildings built in honor of Presidents of the United States to correspond with Category:Presidents of the United States. -The Tom 21:06, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, better idea, Category:Buildings honoring Presidents of the United States -The Tom 22:16, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• This is a duplicate category. Merge into Category:Buildings and monuments honoring American Presidents which has been through two nominations in the last few weeks itself. CalJW 23:09, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per CalJW. Christopher Parham (talk) 23:36, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per CalJW. siafu 20:41, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per CalJW. - TexasAndroid 14:37, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Merge into Category:French armoured fighting vehicles and keep as categoryredirect Rick Block (talk) 01:48, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This empty category duplicates Category:French armoured fighting vehicles. NatusRoma 19:55, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. clearly a duplicate --Sylvain Mielot 21:28, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as above. JW 23:11, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• It's mispelt so delete. ant_ie 07:33, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - most (10 out of 11) of the other members of Category:Armored fighting vehicles by nationality use the American spelling "armor" (including Category:British armored fighting vehicles). I'm not sure there's a reason to choose "armour" rather than "armor" for the French category. Perhaps this is a case where Categoryredirect should be used. -- Rick Block (talk) 14:58, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• KEEP as a categoryredirect. We should also rename the British category to proper English usage of Britain. 132.205.45.110 20:46, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and make Category:French armoured fighting vehicles a Categoryredirect , as this is more consistent with the other categories in Category:Armored fighting vehicles by nationality --Gurch 13:38, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment, I think the other way is better (with the u) as it's more European (and in French this would be armure (or blindé)) 132.205.45.148 17:41, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus (no change) --Kbdank71 16:05, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to more naturally accomodate entries like chain saw, string trimmer, and maybe wood chipper or snow blower. Alternately, a separate category could be created to distinguish between hand tools and power tools, but the individual categories would probably be small. --Interiot 17:28, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - A lawn is part of a garden, so a rename isn't really necessary. JW 23:12, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment if you think that adding "Lawn" to the category name will make it accommodate chain saw more effectively, your garden must be in an even worse state than mine! :) Grutness...wha? 00:12, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per JW CalJW 00:14, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename. Lawns exist without gardens, and gardens without lawns, so IMO the rename is appropriate (not to say that it makes Chain saw, wood chipper, or snow blower more appropriate). siafu 20:46, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the most numerous case, lawns are not inside gardens, right? Also, I was going more for something like "things you keep in your garage or shed", as otherwise I don't know where snow blower or chainsaw really belongs (chainsaw almost certainly doesn't belong in woodworking). But "garage stuff" isn't very encyclopedic. --Interiot 20:29, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Rick Block (talk) 01:48, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I originally thought this was just plain vandalism, so I emptied it. However, there does seem to be a related article, which itself hardly seems encyclopaedic, even though it includes well-known people. A lot of the entries were one-liners for programmers (!!! - should I nominate myself? Some of my projects are keeping the country afloat!)—some of which I've tagged. If it is deemed that it should exist, then it should be 'People named as Benevolent Dictator for Life', or some such. Noisy | Talk 16:52, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but rename

There are people who are in fact, as the article about benvolent dictators for life, known as this, for instance, Hans Reiser who's listed there now, and Linux Torvalds and Andrew Tridgell... -- Drange net 22:30, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Only one article, and I'm hard pressed to see how it would be encyclopedic to categorize Linus Torvalds and Andrew Tridgell here, as the article (Benevolent Dictator for Life) indicates that that this is anything but official (or completely verifiable). The extant list seems much more appropriate. siafu 20:51, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, there used to be more than ten articles, so if that's one of your arguments, I fail to see how your statement shall count.
• Delete I think the category is unneeded, the article is more than enough for such a minor thing. Janizary 20:43, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Rick Block (talk) 01:48, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Empty, and incorrectly capitalised anyway. Extraordinary Machine 10:35, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No argument. siafu 22:27, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Rename to Category:Film genres. Rick Block (talk) 01:48, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Film genres. -Sean Curtin 06:34, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. More neutral. // Fred-Chess 16:31, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename for consistency. JW 23:11, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename. No argument. siafu 20:34, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment this has been here several times before. for any interested, this discussion page contains some of the discussions. «»Who?¿?^meta 23:04, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The opposed-result in that vote seem to have been based on nominator. //Fred-Chess 18:08, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename for consistency. *drew 03:06, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Rename to Category:Film sountracks. Rick Block (talk) 01:48, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Film soundtracks. -Sean Curtin 06:34, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename as above. JW 23:11, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename. No argument. siafu 20:35, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename. *drew 03:03, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Rename to Category:Films about chess. Rick Block (talk) 01:48, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Chess filmsCategory:Films about chess (although it a fairly trivial category, and I could see someone wanting to delete it). -Sean Curtin 06:21, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename but to Category:Films about chess. The "Films about X" formula seems to have a slight lead in Category:Films by topic of which this is a subcat. "Chess films" strikes me as inelegant English. Valiantis 14:31, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and listify. Strikes me as being of the same caliber as List of films featuring mental illness and List of punk movies. siafu 22:28, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Films about chess as per Valiantis - TexasAndroid 14:40, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Rename to Category:Film awards. Rick Block (talk) 01:48, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Film awards. -Sean Curtin 06:21, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename for consistency. JW 23:11, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Rename to Category:Film sound production. Rick Block (talk) 01:48, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Film sound production. -Sean Curtin 06:21, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename. No argument. siafu 20:41, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus (no change) --Kbdank71 16:31, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

First of a bunch of bulk cleanups I'm going to stagger out over the coming days. As it's a "by country" rather than "by nationality" grouping, these should go to Position of foo. (These are untagged at present, I'll get them in a day or so.)

• Category:Afghan heads of state → Category:Heads of state of Afghanistan
• Category:Brazilian heads of state → Category:Heads of state of Brazil
• Category:Bulgarian heads of state → Category:Heads of state of Bulgaria
• Category:Canadian Governors General → Category:Governors General of Canada
• Category:Chilean heads of state → Category:Heads of state of Chile
• Category:Egyptian heads of state → Category:Heads of state of Egypt
• Category:French heads of state → Category:Heads of state of France
• Category:Greek heads of state → Category:Heads of state of Greece
• Category:Iranian heads of state → Category:Heads of state of Iran
• Category:Iraqi heads of state → Category:Heads of state of Iraq
• Category:Italian heads of state → Category:Heads of state of Italy
• Category:Korean rulers → Category:Heads of state of Korea
• Category:Nigerian heads of state → Category:Heads of state of Nigeria
• Category:Polish heads of state → Category:Heads of state of Poland
• Category:Portuguese heads of state → Category:Heads of state of Portugal
• Category:Captains Regent → Category:Captains Regent of San Marino
• Category:South African heads of state → Category:Heads of state of South Africa
• Category:Spanish heads of state → Category:Heads of state of Spain

I'll leave monarchs for a separate debate. -The Tom 05:03, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Yup, I support the rename. encephalon 07:00, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree with the rename as well. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 14:32, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Object. There is an important difference between the two. The Kings of Leon can rightly be considered Spanish heads of state, but calling them Heads of State of Spain is both incorrect and confusing. The same goes for the Category:Timurid Monarchs they are Iranian, but not heads of Iran. Also aren't these occupation categories, where the adjectival form is standard? - SimonP 14:38, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Second point first—country-level offices aren't occupations in the same way "writer," "doctor" etc. are. John Turner shouldn't be cross-categorized as a British prime minister and a Canadian prime minister, he's a Prime Minister of Canada. Alberto Fujimori shouldn't be cross-categorized as a Japanese president and Peruvian president, he's a President of Peru. The country is an integral element of the office. The first point is thornier, though. I personally see no reason "of Spain" needs to be interpreted to mean "of the unified Kingdom of Spain from 1717 to date", and there are presumably plenty of pre-1717 based articles in "Foo of Spain" categories already. But if the presence of the Kings of Leon is established to disqualify any category containing them from being called "of Spain," then Leon should be entitled to root-level country status, no? -The Tom 15:24, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mostly no. There can be a Leon category, but it shouldn't be at the same level as category:Spain. The category system is a navigation tool and all monarchs of Spain and its predecessor kingdoms should be in the Spanish menu so the people can find them or happen across them without having to know about the predecessor kingdom. CalJW 23:23, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep "Category:Captains Regent" as is. The addition of the country name is superfluous. -- User:Docu
  • Sure it is, but it adds needed clarification. -The Tom 22:26, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I recognize and support the intention of standardizing the categories as per the "History of foo", "Economics of foo" etc. model. However, the multiple "of"s don't sound good to me; I'm not sure what an alternative might be on that note, but Heads of state of foo just sounds weird, especially if the country name should happen to have "state(s)" or "of" in its name. Secondly, with whatever change might be decided upon, I think The Tom has a good point - that the sub-categories need to be disambiguated by time period. Kings of Aragon are not Heads of State of Spain so much as they are Spanish kings or Spanish leaders. The term implies leadership/control of the entire country. LordAmeth 20:19, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Object to changing Category:Canadian Governors General → Category:Governors General of Canada. --File:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 21:45, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, we know. -The Tom 22:26, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I get the sense this is another one of those things where enough broader questions about category naming have been raised to merit a separate discussion. To put a pompous spin on it, the collision of the temporal with spatial renders "by country" categories worthy of additional consideration. I'm going to withdraw the head of state ones at this time in the hopes we can get renames on just Canada/San Marino, and start a discussion over at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories) about the whole "when did Spain begin" debate. -The Tom 22:26, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Qualified support I support the general notion. As well, can both Heads of state of Canada (for consistency with others) and (the proposed category of) Governors General of Canada co-exist, the latter as part of the former? The two are not synonymous. (And while not as prevalent (not incorrect), Governor Generals of Canada should also be considered). E Pluribus Anthony 22:33, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Surely Governors General are not heads of state, but representatives of heads of state. CalJW 23:18, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are de jure heads of state (monarch: QE2) and de facto ones (GG); that's why a distinction, particularly for Commonwealth realms, is important. E Pluribus Anthony 23:23, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • RE: maclean25 - Yes; that's partially why I believe Heads of state of Canada, Governors General of Canada, et al. should and can co-exist. E Pluribus Anthony 23:33, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Object to any attempt to establish a rigid rule in this area. Any policy should state that exceptions are allowed where the standard form excludes people who need to be included to make it possible to categorise all heads of state into the categories for the present countries, eg Spain, the UK. CalJW 23:18, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Most of those categorized as Canadian Governors General were in fact British. However, there are also Category:Governors General of the Province of Canada and Category:Governors of British North America. They may all fit under Category:Heads of state of Canada or Category:Those appointed by the monarchy of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to act as the Head of State for governments in North America with ties to the crown. Either way I'm neutral. --maclean25 23:26, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. There already is a Category:Canadian viceroys for Category:Those appointed by the monarchy of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of France to act as the Head of State for governments in North America with ties to the crown. Note that until the 1950s none of them were Canadian except for Vaudreuil. Luigizanasi 15:49, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Interesting; thanks! I'd imagine, then, this could either supplant or be replaced by Category:Heads of state of Canada or Category:Viceroys of Canada (probably more accurate, but the Queen isn't a viceroy (is she?) - Canada and provinces can and do have viceroys, but can a province have a head of state?), with Governors General of Canada as a subcategory? E Pluribus Anthony 16:05, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Still neutral. In Category:Canadian viceroys only Category:Canadian Governors General and Category:Manitoba Lieutenant-Governors are named Foo Position while the other thirteen subcategories are named Position of Foo. I also see the categories have incomplete contents wherein the subjects are either not yet created, not yet categorized, or are inbetween (linked to the wrong guy). Still, I don't care if there is a subcategory for GGs who were born in Canada. I say that assuming they were all given Canadian citizenship for being the GG. --maclean25 19:37, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • The scattered state of these articles merely points to the need for more consistency/clarity, I think, not that it (or all of 'em) shouldn't be Position of Foo. E Pluribus Anthony 19:48, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Shouldn't it be "Governors-General" (with a hyphen) anyway? Or is Canada the odd one out of Commonwealth countries by not using one? Grutness...wha? 11:53, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes: official Canadian use is solely Governor General, etc. (no hyphen). E Pluribus Anthony 12:09, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

but... typically Lieutenant-Governor (with hyphen, since Governor is the main noun in both terms), according to the Secretary of State style guide The Canadian Style, though many provinicial websites do not use a hyphen and it commonly appears unhyphenated. E Pluribus Anthony 19:59, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Canada is the odd one out. I object to any renaming proposed. --File:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 18:31, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 16:15, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• This category is so broad as to make it functionally useless. The article Jewish diaspora is enough. It surely includes almost everything in Category:Jews and Judaism (especially Category:Jewish history), and even lots about Category:Israel and Zionism. IZAK 04:11, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. IZAK 04:11, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Too broad, serves no specific purpose, large-scale overlap with other categories that are more specific. JFW | T@lk 04:38, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Agree, it is too broad. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 04:40, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Many categories are broad. That simply means that they need subcategories. Category:Jews is even broader, but no one is suggesting eliminating that! -- Jmabel | Talk 04:59, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Joe, Category:Jews is a logical broad category. The problem is that Category:Jewish diaspora could even encompass Category:Jews (since Jews have spent the bulk of their history in the diaspora, and that would make no sense.) You have to draw the line somewhere, don't you think? IZAK 05:42, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • So if this is deleted and someone starts from Category:Diasporas, how do they get to the Jews? -- Jmabel | Talk 00:31, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. The problem is the content of this category, which should really be articles about Jews in different countries, like Jewish American. Unfortunately, most of this content has been subsumed in the commendable but somewhat overreaching History of the Jews in... articles adapted from the Jewish Encyclopedia, when a fair amount of it properly belongs in Fooish Jews/Jewish Foos type articles.--Pharos 06:53, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Del per JF. encephalon 07:01, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, looks like a pretty good category to me, and actually quite narrow, unless we take the requirement for inclusion to be nothing more than a vague and indirect connection to the subject. But by that standard every category is broad. Perhaps could be better aligned within the broad categorization of Jewish articles. Christopher Parham (talk) 07:57, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Christopher: It may "look" like a "pretty good category", but the question remains what would not go into it? IZAK 23:54, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, anything that isn't especially connected to the Jewish diaspora. Most Jews would not fit into it, any more than most African-Americans would fit into Category:Slave trade. Same with most events in Jewish history, etc. Christopher Parham (talk) 03:13, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Christopher: Wrong! All Jews are, or have been historically, part of the Jewish diaspora in a very serious way. It is nothing but the "meat and potatos" of Jewish history, but that does not mean we should dump the normative name of "Jewish history" in favor of "Jewish diaspora". IZAK 03:37, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Obviously, we'll have to agree to disagree. The category Jewish diaspora doesn't need to inlcude all Jews any more than Category:African diaspora needs to include all blacks, Category:Irish diaspora needs to include all Irish, etc. Lord Ameth says it well below: this should include articles about things or people "central to the creation and evolution of the Disapora." Christopher Parham (talk) 05:12, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. — Instantnood 09:09, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, though I think there is something to be said for a category that describes Jewish history and culture in the diaspora. This obviously isn't it. --Leifern 13:33, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I know what it means. I would use it to search. Joaquin Murietta 17:11, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Joaquin, of course we all know what the topic means, that's why it is good as an article, but as a category it becomes a vague cloud because almost anything relating to the Jews and Judaism could fit into. It may as well be called Category:Jewish existence or Category:Jewish influence, all "knowable" but not suitable as Wikipedia category headings. IZAK 23:54, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Too broad and vague. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:27, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I think it's perfectly useful to have a category about the Diaspora, and as we can see, there are a number of articles contained within it, as well as the "Jews by country" list article. I see two possibilities: (1) delete this cat and reorganize all the articles into the sub-cats of Jewish history by country, or (2) keep this category, make it a sub-cat of Jewish history, and re-categorize it to have all those 'jewish history by country' and 'jews by country' sub-cats within it. There may not be a huge number of articles that are particularly central to the creation & evolution of the Diaspora, but those few, such as the Babylonian captivity, the Alhambra decree, the SS St. Louis and Aliyah deserve to be categorized together, I think. LordAmeth 00:50, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • LordAmeth: My point is exactly that because Category:Jewish history already exists as a very comprehensive entity and it can, and has, absorbed any and all sub-categories, and that by having Category:Jewish diaspora all it will do is to create a harmful massive potential digression and forks of confusion. Your second suggestion would also create the mis-conception that Jewish history throughout all the centuries is just a "sub-category" of the Jewish diaspora which it is NOT, because the history of the Jews in whatever country they find themselves also stands on its own and is a unique and inherent independent part of both that country's history as well as of Jewish history. Note: There is is no academic field as such known as "Jewish diaspora", but no one can deny that Jewish history is a standard, accepted scholaraly subject of study. So let's not confuse things by adding vague categories, and let's try to stick to the more conventional route/s. IZAK 02:51, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep only if clarified. I really don't feel very strongly about this category: whether it stays or goes, I'll sleep fine tonight. That said, if it ends up being kept, its scope [whatever that may end up being... I agree, as it stands, this is a pretty wide open cat...] should be carefully and succinctly outlined in the category text itself. Tomer ^TALK 20:18, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This is a very very important category. A category should be made at the higher level called diaspora. Other diasporas can be imcluded, such as Indian diaspora, etc. Wallie 07:32, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This category already exists. Christopher Parham (talk) 18:39, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The only real use I could see for this cat is as a parent for subcats of Jews by country, which is already well covered by Category:Jews by country, given its breadth. Otherwise, it looks to be redundant with Category:Jewish history. siafu 21:05, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete too broad to be functional, as stated above at top -Mayumashu 04:23, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not meaningful as a category, for all the reasons above. --AnotherBDA 06:47, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename as nominated --Kbdank71 16:13, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The more usual word is "Madrilenes". Anyway I doubt most people will know any of the words. "People from Madrid is simpler". --Error 02:45, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Madrilenes OPPOSE Firstly, Natives of Foo has been the precedent thus far, so if we're going generic we should go there. That said I'm mildly suspect of this "choose the most blatantly obvious name" school of thinking (this applies to the "Viennese" debate below). Surely educating our readership to know how the world out there is, complexities and all, is Wikipedia's mission here. If MadrilenesMadrilenians (and Viennese or Haligonians or Liverpudlians...) is what these people are called, then lets use said names, and let people learn a thing or two We wouldn't replace a category of "Walloons" with "Natives of the southern half of Belgium" just because Joe Bloggs hasn't heard of a Walloon and suspects it may be some kind of diving bird. Stick a clarifying note on the category page, and assume that whatever editor is filing categories of Spaniards knows enough to figure it out. -The Tom 04:33, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clarification: Changed vote to Oppose—I had assumed "Error" was correct, but further research shows "Madrilenes" would be tomato consomme soups, while "Madrilenians" is the accepted term. Indeed, there are [1] 9,000+ google hits for it, as well as page here on Wikipedia explaining it. We're all better-informed for this debate, and I think it illustrates why dumbing-down category names just means we learn less. I see no reason why we'd replace the most correct term with the simplest term -The Tom 19:49, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• FWIW, we have a Category:Seattleites that is not specific to natives, it includes non-natives who have settled there. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:03, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• We've had this discussion before about names for people from cities and countries - so many of the names are unguessable to the general public 0- and the majority of wiki editors - that it's not worth it. "People from Foo" is far easier - like "People from Wallonia", in the example The Tom mentions. Otherwise we get back to the problem of (Nigerian/Nigerien, Dominican/Dominican, Congolese/Congolese) and the problem of "what do we call people from Kiribati/Sri Lanka/Invercargill?" (Gilbertese, Sinhalese, and Invercargillonian, BTW). Grutness...wha? 08:01, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I-Kiribati, Sri Lankan (Sinhalese is an ethnicity, and would be rather non-kosher in certain circles) and Invercargillonian, actually. And I'd like think people could figure those out just by looking at them. -The Tom 19:49, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Let's figure out the most commonly used variant, use that as the title, and make all other variants ((categoryredirect)). — Instantnood 09:12, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename as per nom - this term is not commonly used in English. If anything "Madridians" is the only term I can think of. --MacRusgail 20:09, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename. Current name is not at all common usage in English. siafu 21:12, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - as The Tom says, it gives the 9000 hits in a google search (some which are duplicate, but still several thousand) - that s the basis i used for naming the cat when i started it up - the idea is too be correct with the information, is it not? this name is by far the most common adjectival form of the noun Madrid and as The Tom says, let s be informative. as for people who may not know that Madrilenians refers to natives of Madrid, do as someone above suggests and make People from Madrid and Natives of Madrid redirects. -Mayumashu 04:41, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is currently no such thing as a category redirect, only "soft" redirects - a category whose description directs the user to a new category. The problem with doing this, and the reason that this needs to be used sparingly, is that this category does not show up as a red link when used in an article, so redirects need to be "monitored" to keep them from becoming mistakenly populated. In this case, it's not likely that any of these terms would be searched for directly (intuitively I would say that people looking for this cat would get there through Madrid or Category:Madrid), so I don't think making redirects would be a good idea. siafu 16:13, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename will make this infinitely easier to use. I might point out that this is one good reason to avoid nationalities in category titles. When it gets obscure, you have to have unnecessary exceptions. -Splash^talk 02:05, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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