< July 5	July 7 >

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding 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:Kentucky colonels. Conscious 13:24, 15 July 2006 (UTC) Delete - breaking down military personnel by rank is problematic for several reasons. Rank is generally temporary, due to promotion, demotion, etc. In addition, since this category doesn't distinguish by nationality or branch of service, the title colonel is almost pointless. Each military has different criteria for promotion, different levels of responsibility, etc etc. Some people, such as Colonel Khadafy (incidentally not in this category) are self-appointed colonels. Most countries' militaries have well-maintained categories like "XXX Army officers" which makes this category redundant. And finally, since it doesn't include criteria, I would imagine even Colonel Sanders or Colonel Tom Parker could be included in this category.Nobunaga24 00:14, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• That idea isn't too far fetched. Rescope to Category:Kentucky colonels and begin to populate it with the the people mentioned in the article Kentucky colonel, which would include both Colonels Parker and Sanders. Caerwine Caerwhine 00:36, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Osomec 02:18, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, create Category:Kentucky colonels as a subcat. The vast majority of the present articles in this category are about military colonels, not Kentucky colonels.--M@rēino 13:49, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

comment - Kentucky colonels aren't colonels though. It's just an honorary title, like Nebraska admiral. It wouldn't belong as a subcat of colonels anymore than Nebraska admiral would belong to Category:United States Navy admirals. A category for Kentucky colonels would belong under honorary titles. The category colonels as it stands now is pointless. A Kentucky colonel category makes sense, just not here. --Nobunaga24 14:02, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll accept that as true; I am not knowledgeable about Kentucky colonels.--M@rēino 14:54, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding 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. Conscious 10:01, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename As the parentage and category text indicate, this category is for historians who study Southeast Asia, whereas the current name would be used for historians who are from Southeast Asia. Caerwine Caerwhine 00:01, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. Osomec 02:19, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename - and do the same to this one Category:Japanese historians--Nobunaga24 10:38, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've just now separated out the Japanese historians from the Historians of Japan. Caerwine Caerwhine 17:04, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment that would be bad, if the Historians are Japanese but study Egypt... etc. 132.205.45.148 00:21, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename this one, but not any others at present. Each case needs to be looked at individually. Sumahoy 01:02, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. David Kernow 20:14, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Keep --William Allen Simpson 04:02, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• By the way, what do people think about the category Philosophy by language (either in place of or in addition to Philosophers by language). This suggestion, by the way, is not innovative. Take a look at the category tree under "literature," where you'll also find literature sorted by language as well as by nationality and region. Cheers, Universitytruth 19:44, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:German-language philosophers[edit]

These were created just the other day and are barely populated. The existing categories by country, by era, by subject are and by tradition are perfectly adequate, generating a large number of cateogories in some cases, especially when one takes into account that some philosophers are quite a few non-philosophy categories as well, so these ones are category clutter. The justifications put forward in defence of them are just as marginal as the case for classifying people by language as a general practice. Chicheley 23:53, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete both Chicheley 23:53, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both per nom. While it makes sense to also subdivide by language in the case of writers (including songwriters) and orators (including singers) I can't see where it would make sense for other professions such as philosophers. Caerwine Caerwhine 00:07, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both per nom. Osomec 02:19, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. See following discussion, copied from Category Talk: German Philosophers:

The Jews on this list should be removed... They are not considered Germans

    * Says you! They, most likely, considered themselves Germans.

Yikes. This does bring up one question I've had, namely: who is a "German" "philosopher"? Wouldn't it be easier, more pragmatic, and more inclusive to have a list (or category) of people who wrote German-language philosophy? For example, Salomon Maimon wrote very important German-language philosophy around 1800. (Kant said he was one of the only people who understood him.) But Maimon would by no means have identified himself as German: he was a Lithouanian Jew, and German was not his first language. But according to the title of this category (German philosophers), one would have to exclude this important German-language philosopher on ethnic grounds. I will hereby call for discussion on this, but I move that the category be renamed. I might actually suggest the following, as less cumbersome than "Writers of German-language philosophy"... How about "German-language philosophers"? I think that would be useful for categorizing, but also not exclusionary in unsavory ways. Universitytruth 20:23, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Another rather significant test case is Immanuel Kant. If you define German philosopher as 'a philosopher from Germany,' then you have to exclude Kant. Who in their right mind would want to do that? The town where he was born, then called Koenigsberg, was part of East Prussia, which was part of the Holy Roman Empire. It was not part of Germany then. Today, the city is called Kaliningrad and is part of Russia. So is Kant a Russian philosopher? No. One could call him a Prussian philosopher, but that doesn't help either. You see? My point is that the most pragmatic thing to do is to sort German philosophy by the language in which it was written. Then there is no problem including Kant. There is also then no problem including Salomon Maimon, a Lithuanian Jew who was not ethnically German, not a German citizen, but wrote important philosophy in the German language.

It seems to me that what most people care about is important philosophy written in German, as opposed to written by philosophers with German blood or with a German passport. Since Germany has only existed since 1871, and has only existed with its current borders since 1991, sorting according to nation will *create* category problems. That's what I'm trying to avoid. I'd be interested in hearing responses from Chicheley, Caerwine, and Osomec. If anyone has alternate suggestions that can deal with the concerns I raise, I'm open to discussing them. Thanks! Universitytruth 13:53, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • There is of course the problem with what to do with changing borders over time. Actually for Kant, it would be easy to say that he was a German philosopher had he lived in the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation, but East Prussia which remained outside the of borders of the Holy Roman Empire, tho it had gained independence from Poland by then. In the absence of a Prussian philosopher category, German is the best fit, tho truly I do think we need the whole series of Prussian categories. On the other hand, Salomon Maimon is not a problem since he did his philosophizing in Berlin, so he clearly falls under the moniker of German. Caerwine Caerwhine 16:11, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think it is simpler to follow English usage and consider the state of Brandenburg/Prussia always part of Germany, as it began, and unquestionably became again in 1815. The thought of categorizing Heine in Category:Prussian poets is just wrong. Septentrionalis 17:19, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Resignation (in the stoic sense). I see my suggestion is not popular, and am willing to concede this point. I would like to ask, though, if it would be appopriate to add a sentence or two to the page of the Category:German philosophers clarifying that geography plus language, rather than passport-holding, is the sorting mechanism? (By the way, Voltaire was in Berlin for a while himself. Not a German philosopher, though.) Cheers, Universitytruth 23:14, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's what the statements on cat pages are for; I'd support this. Septentrionalis 00:49, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It really isn't necessary because I am convinced that almost everyone takes it for granted. There is no such statement on Category:German people itself. Universitytruth just has an unusual mindset. Sumahoy 01:10, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both per nom. Wikipedia uses a pragmatic approach, and we should stick with it. Universitytruth focuses on academic niceties but the purpose of the category system is to provide easy navigability. Sumahoy 01:04, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep both The category is not German philosophers, but German-language philosophers. I see nothing wrong with categorizing philosophers by the languages in which they wrote. This seems more useful than categorizing them by their nationality. -- Samuel Wantman 09:31, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Although I have already conceded the point (a day before Sumahoy felt it necessary to speculate on my mindset), I would like to thank Septentrionalis for seconding the suggestion to make a short statement on the cat page, which I have since done. I am actually profoundly interested in the pragmatics of searching and categorizing. It seems to me that most people wanting to learn about philosophy would want to know whether something is written in Latin, French, or German, rather than what sort of blood coursed through the veins of Baumgarten or Leibniz. That is, in the case of philosophers, there is I think at least as much interest in the texts they wrote as there is in their persons. I was trying to make a positive suggestion to help people sort through texts. Meanwhile, I think that a qualifying statement on the cat page for German philosophers can address the concerns I raised. Thanks to all for substantive discussion on this point. Cheers, Universitytruth 17:07, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep both - per SamuelWantman. I do not believe Universitytruth is making too fine technical distinction here. German-language philosophers probably influenced other German-language philosophers more than they have influenced French-speaking ones, for instance. Similarly, philosophers from colonial situations or from nations generally considered "provincial" often did not write in their native language. Tran Duc Thao is an excellent example - who would have heard of him in the West if he had written in Vietnamese? Is it any surprise that he had currency in France (whose language he wrote in) more than in Germany or England? The Finnish-Swede Georg Henrik von Wright published in four different languages, reflecting his academic tenure (England), nationality (Finnish), native tongue (Swedish) and philosophical tradition (German - he was an expert in Wittgenstein). I think Tran Duc Thao clearly demonstrates a need for these language categories, while von Wright illustrates a potential problem (loads of categories for a handful of philosophers) but still demonstrates their potential usefulness (there clearly are traditions that "stay in the language" more than in the nationality). TheGrappler 21:15, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I think both sides make a fairly good argument and both solutions presented are reasonnable provided they are handled correctly. In particular I find it very important to note that a creation of a German-language category should not be used as the perfect excuse for removing Jewish philosophers from the German philosopher category! Pascal.Tesson 21:43, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • Comment I quite agree. But the fact that a dual categorization system might encourage abuse of another categorization system shouldn't really be deciding factor in deciding whether this system stands or falls on its own merits. TheGrappler 02:08, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • Comment I agree as well. My interest in creating the language-based category was to be as inclusive as possible, though I recognize that Alexander Baumgarten would not be in the German-language philosophers category, though he would be in the German philosophers category. But that's fine, I think. Obviously, many philosophers would exist in both categories. But since language and nationality don't always overlap, I think the existence of this second category will help wikipedia to be more inclusive, and to do so rationally. I can also assure you that I'll keep my eye on the German philosophers category... (Have retracted my retraction based on recent comments by Samuel Wantman, TheGrappler, and Pascal.Tesson.) Universitytruth 04:49, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• New Comment. One advantage to keeping this new cat is that we could have the Austrian, German, and Swiss philosophers listed in the same category! Universitytruth 05:07, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• This just in from the German wikipedia. Note that the article German literature redirects to German-language literature, which begins with this sentence: "Der Begriff deutschsprachige Literatur, aus geschichtlichen Gründen manchmal auch deutsche Literatur, bezeichnet alle literarischen Werke, die in deutscher Sprache verfasst wurden." Translation: "The concept of German-language literature, for historical reasons sometimes also German literature, refers to all literary works composed in the German language." If this is how the German wikipedia site regards things, why wouldn't we attempt to learn from them? Any thoughts on this? Best, Universitytruth 19:20, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Sorry, I'm conflating discussions about literature and philosophy. Still, I think the point could be well taken. Will investigate German wikipedia now to see what it does with German vs. German-language philosophers/philosophy. Universitytruth 19:47, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok. It's a semi-confused state on the German wikipedia page. The lists there do include "German-language philosophers" and "English-language philosophers," but then other lists are happily nationalistic with their "French philosophers" and so forth. And the list of "German-language philosophers" includes Leibniz and Baumgarten, who may have been German language speakers when they bought bread at the baker's, but who wrote philosophy only in French and Latin. I am more and more convinced that by having separate categories (nationality, region, language) to sort, we can create categories and lists that let people find what they are actually looking for. So if someone is looking for influential Germans in philosophy, one list (and category) can take them to Leibniz (languages of his philosophical works: French and Latin), Baumgarten (language of his philosophical works: Latin) and Kant (languages of his philosophical works: Latin and German). But if someone is looking to read influential philosophy written in German, then a different list (and category) can take them to Maimon (nationality: Lithuanian), Kant (nationality: East Prussian), and Wittgenstein (nationality: Austrian), all of whom wrote in German. Universitytruth 19:57, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keepish, there is a relevant difference between German ethnic identification and German language, obviously. I posit that both are relevant to this encyclopedia. German (ethnic) philosophers have written in French as well because it was often seen as a more important language for philosophy. I do see the point from the German Wikipedia that German philosophy does tend to also refer to the language... So, I'm not particular about the nomenclature of our categorization. If German philosophy is a linguistic distinction then we can do Ethnic German philosophers for philosophers who are typically considered to be ethnically German. Either way... but it is a valuable distinction and one that should be made explicit. It's also more important for contemporary philosophy than it was for modern philosophy because many Germans write in English. gren グレン 18:20, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, the ethnic identifications of philosophers obviously would be foolish to use as categorization when there are philosophers who existed before there was such an ethnic ID or national identity. Homagetocatalonia 14:24, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding 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 (already empty) --William Allen Simpson 04:02, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both as categories duplicate Category:Fairy opera - Kleinzach 22:55, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. There's general support for this deletion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Opera too. Fireplace 23:26, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Puraliz/se and convert to category redirects?  David Kernow 10:10, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would recommend deletion rather than redirect as the other related cat Category:Fairy opera is also problematic and the consensus at the Opera Project is that that should be deleted as well. To give a bit of background to these superfluous opera cats: they were all created over a year ago and appear to be translations of specific Italian, French and German opera genres. Unfortunately after being translated they lost their specificity (they weren't backed up with articles) and ended up being used haphazardly. They are now fairly useless. - Kleinzach 11:30, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Understood; thanks for the insight!  David 18:14, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Ssilvers 13:23, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding 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 (already empty) --William Allen Simpson 04:02, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This category has no entrants, as all stations on this line are in Category:IRT Broadway-Seventh Avenue Line stations. Marc Shepherd 21:09, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Support; per above. Pacific Coast Highway ^{(blah • lol, internet)} 21:22, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Alphachimp ^talk 22:31, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Usgnus 22:57, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Obviously created by accident, when someone forgot to add "Line". --Larry V (talk | contribs) 02:50, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding 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. Conscious 10:02, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As British overseas territories notes, "colonies" haven't been known as "colonies" since 1981; they should be referred to as category:British Overseas Territories and Crown Dependencies. — Dunc|☺ 19:55, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to category:British Overseas Territories and Crown Dependencies per nom. Nathcer 22:53, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Category:British Overseas Territories and Crown Dependencies per above. David Kernow 10:12, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge as per above... pejorative and the number of current colonies is pretty subject since some claim the world is an economic colony of America.... keep it simple... let articles make arguments. gren グレン 18:26, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding 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. Conscious 10:03, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian spelling and consistency with sibling categories. Usgnus 18:35, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support as nom. --Usgnus 18:44, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. Local articles in local dialects. Luna Santin 19:37, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. ProveIt ^(talk) 20:26, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Nathcer 22:54, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. Cloachland 15:37, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - I have changed the original category and updated links. --Exodio 16:09, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding 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 --William Allen Simpson 04:02, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge both into their joint parent Category:Archaeological sites in Sri Lanka. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 16:51, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose The articles aren't very clear, but it seems that a good number of these are still in use. However, the ones I looked at have other cateogories, so delete these. The name is ungainly - it should be Category:Ancient buildings and structures in Sri Lanka if anything, but that is vague so we would probably be better off without it. Osomec 02:21, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Osomec. Chicheley 07:30, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding 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. Conscious 10:04, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename At a minimum "Entrpreneurs" needs to be decapitalized, but it also needs a change of modifier from "Young" to "Child" to match the other subcats of Category:Children. Caerwine Caerwhine 14:22, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Only one crux I see: are we categorizing entrepeneurs who are currently children? Or those who did notable work as children? The former criteria would wipe out most or all of the category, looking at the articles. Luna Santin 19:41, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would assume the latter as I believe is the case with other subcats of Children. Caerwine Caerwhine 00:09, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fair enough; rename to Category:Child entrepreneurs per nom. I'll go ahead and make a note of that criteria, if that's alright. Luna Santin 05:35, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding 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 (already empty) --William Allen Simpson 04:02, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Categories for defunct New York City Subway services[edit]

• Category:Defunct BMT services
• Category:Defunct BMT-IND services
• Category:Defunct IRT services
• Delete all. Same situation as at #Categories for defunct New York City Subway lines. Categories replaced with Category:Defunct New York City Subway services. --Larry V (talk | contribs) 16:09, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete/merge to Category:Defunct New York City Subway services per nom. David Kernow 10:13, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Categories for defunct New York City Subway lines[edit]

• Category:Defunct BMT lines
• Category:Defunct IND lines
• Category:Defunct IRT lines
• Delete all. These categories were formerly used to categorize defunct New York City Subway lines. The three categories simply segregated the three divisions (BMT, IND, and IRT); each had no more than four articles. I have recategorized all member articles into Category:Defunct New York City Subway lines; and thus these now-useless categories should be deleted. --Larry V (talk | contribs) 13:58, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all per Larry V. Alphachimp ^talk 14:15, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all. Marc Shepherd 14:57, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all. The larger category is more useful since the article titles have BMT, IND and IRT in them. --Usgnus 06:42, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all per above. David Kernow 10:17, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding 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. Conscious 10:05, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's no need for the "(role-playing game)" - even the main article is Exalted, not Exalted (role-playing game). Percy Snoodle 13:30, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. We don't disambiguate unless/until we need to. ProveIt ^(talk) 14:54, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. --Usgnus 18:46, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. David Kernow 10:19, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding 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 unanimous support, so I think I may close it without making someone unhappy. Conscious 10:06, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

After Football World Cup was moved to FIFA World Cup, almost all categories were brought to this new format, except these two. Conscious 12:09, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename both to match. ×Meegs 20:45, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename both. BoojiBoy 22:43, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename both. Housekeeping. --Usgnus 22:47, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename both, reluctantly. Osomec 02:26, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename both per nom. David Kernow 10:19, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Please do! Ian Manka Talk to me! 08:59, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding 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. Conscious 10:07, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An "area" is a 2-dimensional concept, space is 3-D, so this should not be called area. "zone", "region", or "volume" would be better. I also think using "of" instead of "in" would be better. 70.51.9.28 11:47, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename. I created this, and I'm fine with it.--Mike Selinker 18:54, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename. --Usgnus 18:56, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. I like it. ×Meegs 20:32, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom and above. David Kernow 10:20, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. ♥ Her Pegship♥ 02:41, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. - LA @ 17:55, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding 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 (already empty) --William Allen Simpson 04:02, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as Category:Tragédies en musique already exists and is unambiguous in its French form. (It's a 17th/18th century genre of opera associated with Lully and Rameau). - Kleinzach 10:20, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Fireplace 23:28, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom. "Lyric tragedy" is highly ambiguous - after all, "Zoom" by Fat Larry's Band is a lyric tragedy. Grutness...wha? 01:46, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Sumahoy 01:11, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. David Kernow 20:16, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding 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 Category Redirect --William Allen Simpson 04:02, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As with "Truck", this category was created on 2006-06-24 despite there already being a suitable existing cat. I've recategorised all affected pages so now this category is empty. DeLarge 09:53, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. --Usgnus 18:47, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Osomec 02:27, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep unless nom. explains what the "suitable existing cat" is.--M@rēino 13:51, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Category:Buses Vegaswikian 07:28, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Category currently empty with redirect. David Kernow 20:17, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding 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. Conscious 10:08, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Film is synonymous with cinema. Geopgeop 10:08, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Category:Film; it contains far more articles and subcats and dates back over a year. The Cinema article is a disambig page pointing to either film or cinematography. I'm not sure, but there doesn't seem to be a pressing need unless I missed something. Luna Santin 19:51, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per all of the above. ♥ Her Pegship♥ 20:33, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Category:Film, Category:Cinematography or Category:Cinemas and movie theaters as appropriate (there's only 4 articles). --Usgnus 22:54, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Category:Film. They can then filter through to finer categories in the usual way. Osomec 02:30, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per above. - LA @ 06:48, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding 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. Conscious 10:09, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as Category:Romantic opera already exists. - Kleinzach 09:50, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: submission was accidentally blanked by another editor, I'm replacing it now. The two are clearly redundant and should be merged, but I do have one question: some categories in Category:Operas by genre appear to be listed in singular form (ie: Category:Chamber opera), but others are listed in plural form (ie: Category:Nationalist operas. Is there a good reason for that, or should we consider a mass-rename to achieve naming consistency? Luna Santin 10:02, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. The categories should indeed all be plural, however many of them are redundant, so perhaps it is better to do them one by one? - Kleinzach 10:11, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We could go through all the ones you're planning on nominating for deletion/merging/etc, and then pluralize whatever names remain en masse? If I understand your plans right, I think that might work out. Luna Santin 19:46, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, indeed. Thanks. - Kleinzach 23:18, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding 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 (already empty) --William Allen Simpson 04:02, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as this is not a meaningful opera category. - Kleinzach 09:45, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per advice from the folks at Wikiproject Opera. Luna Santin 19:34, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding 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 Category Redirect --William Allen Simpson 04:02, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Created on 2006-06-24, although the category "Trucks" already existed. I recategorised all relevant articles so now the cat is empty DeLarge 09:42, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. --Usgnus 18:47, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Chicheley 07:33, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep... in so far as I think many categories keep the category redirect template there so that if anyone stumbles on it they can fix any bad categories that happen to be populated... I mean, no articles should be in the directory but I'm not sure deleting it will help. gren グレン 18:22, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Retain category redirect per gren; perhaps make hard redirect?  David Kernow 20:20, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding 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. Conscious 10:10, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Acronyms are a no-no, right? --Howard the Duck 05:52, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. Nathcer 08:57, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Osomec 02:27, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding 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. Conscious 10:11, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is supposed to be for both Japanese people in Japan (lots of them) and other people in Japan, but it is barely used. It is confusing and other countries don't have a matching category so Merge into Category:Japanese people. Nathcer 08:57, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge. Category:Japanese people is clearly preferred, by both editor attention and naming consistency in Category:People by nationality. Luna Santin 10:06, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge - But maybe a new category should be set up along the lines of Foreigners in Japan or Expats in Japan. The "other people" in the nomination shouldn't be included in the Japanese people category - they aren't Japanese--Nobunaga24 00:17, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Category:Foreigners in Japan already exists. Osomec 02:26, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. Osomec 02:26, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, nothing to merge! This cat should have at least 2 members: Category:Foreigners in Japan and and Category:Japanese people. It is also the logical host for any People of CITY X, Japan categories, which as I think the above discussion shows, are not appropriately placed under Category:Japanese people because some foreign people live in every major Japanese city. --M@rēino 13:55, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Clarify is Category:XXX people meant to signify native born? ethnicity? current resident? or all of the above. The answer to that affects what we should do with this category. gren グレン 18:28, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding 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 per nom. Conscious 10:13, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The current name is ungrammatical. This category is about the Japanese style of gardening, both inside and outside Japan. "Japanese style of gardening" is perhaps the best option. Nathcer 08:36, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename as nom. Nathcer 08:36, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename of some sort is in order, to pluralize if nothing else. Is Category:Japanese gardening sufficient, or is there something important I'm missing? There's not too much to be consistent with, but I did find Wildlife gardening and Urban gardening... and Category:Gardening in the United Kingdom, but I believe the distinction here is more cultural than geographic? Luna Santin 09:27, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Japanese gardening. Category contains Category:Gardens in Japan. --Usgnus 18:51, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it is potentially misleading to call Japanese style gardening carried out by non-Japanese people "Japanese gardening". Nathcer 22:57, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename Category:Japanese style of gardening per nom. Osomec 02:25, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename Category:Japanese style of gardening per nom. Chicheley 07:31, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Japanese gardens. Given the we have Category:Japanese-style gardens and that the main article is Japanese garden I think renaming this one to Category:Japanese gardens might be better. The contents seem to be items associated with Japanese gardens. Vegaswikian 00:16, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename Category:Japanese style of gardening per nom. The articles are not just about individual gardens. Merchbow 11:12, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • What's wrong this keeping the gardens in Category:Japanese gardens and then having a subcat for the other topics? This would seem to be the most logical. Having Category:Japanese gardens as a subcat for Category:Japanese style of gardening seems rather odd when you look at it. Vegaswikian 18:48, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Category:Gardens in Japanese style...?  David Kernow 22:26, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding 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. Conscious 10:15, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have a feeling this will not exactly generated heated discussion... I think the categories should be merged. Currently, Monoid theory is a subcategory of semigroup theory. That's not an absurd idea in principle but in fact a lot of pages (for instance "aperiodic monoid") are very much relevant to semigroup theory and are in some sense hidden to the main page of the category. Given that both categories are scarcely populated there is not much advantage, at least for now, to distinguish the two categories. A unified category makes it easier to navigate the current content. Pascal.Tesson 03:09, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak merge Merge to Category:Semigroup theory. Scientifically speaking, I haven't got the foggiest, but if the theories are more or less compatible (which seems likely, since one is a subcat of the other), then it comes down to an issue of congestion. In this case, the parent has 15 articles, the subcat has 4; I'm not sure if that's enough articles to warrant a subcat, unless there's a more pressing reason. Luna Santin 09:30, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment maybe I can explain this issue for non-mathematicians. A monoid is a special type of semigroup but the two are similar enough that most of the tools and theorems of these theories are the same. Of course, I don't know every algebraist in the world but I don't think that there are many people who identify themselves as working in "monoid theory" (which incidentally gets very few Ghits). The term "semigroup theory" is generally understood to cover both aspects and, as far as I know, there isn't a single textbook dealing exclusively with monoid theory. Pascal.Tesson 13:10, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am intimidated but convinced. ;) Thanks. Luna Santin 19:55, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge, sounds like overcategorization to me. Recury 14:16, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there is a second appropriate parent for Category:Monoid theory? Keep if there is one; if not then merge as I can't see the need for a single parent subcat given the low article count in both it and its parent. Caerwine Caerwhine 00:25, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment there is no other parent currently. The only categories that would make sense are the parent categories of the semigroup theory category. Pascal.Tesson 13:59, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge The first looks more like Category:Monoids anyway. When merged, the monoids should be piped so they alphabetize under M (i.e. labelled [[Category:Semigroup theory|Monoids, aperiodic]]) Septentrionalis 00:56, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding 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:Radio frequency antennas. Conscious 13:22, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Based both on the "main" article for this category and on the population of articles already categorized in it, this category isn't really about terminology. It's about the entire subject of antennas in general. Terminology articles would focus on the origin and usage of terms, perhaps analyze their linguistic structure, etc. whereas the articles here have almost none of that and are instead chock full of information about how antennas work. (As a side note, I checked the American Heritage Dictionary via Answers.com and the proper plural here is indeed "antennas" rather than "antennae".[1]) Bryan 03:03, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment er... there are other sorts of antennas besides RF antennas. 70.51.10.123 04:57, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Radio frequency antenna terminology. This seems the most correct based on the main article for the category. The parent of this and the other antenna cats should be Category:Antennas. Vegaswikian 05:56, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe, but please still get rid of the "terminology" bit. Whatever else the category may be called, the articles it contains are not focused on the subject of terminology - that's the whole reason I brought this CFR. Category:Radio frequency antennas would be fine. Bryan 15:58, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Either choice would be fine. In the end, the current name needs to be changed. Vegaswikian 19:15, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding 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. Conscious 13:23, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal is to apply the "based in X" naming convention of organizations by country categories (Ex Category:Organizations based in India) to organizations by city categories. This will ensure consistency, clarity of wording, and will align nicely with the names of Category:Companies by city, which are sub-cats of the following, such as Category:Companies based in Philadelphia.

• Category:Dublin organisations to Category:Organisations based in Dublin
• Category:Helsinki organisations to Category:Organisations based in Helsinki
• Category:Hyderabad, India organisations to Category:Organisations based in Hyderabad, India
• Category:Kolkata organisations to Category:Organisations based in Kolkata
• Category:Melbourne organisations to Category:Organisations based in Melbourne
• Category:Mumbai organisations to Category:Organisations based in Mumbai
• Category:Philadelphia organizations to Category:Organizations based in Philadelphia
• Category:Seoul organisations to Category:Organisations based in Seoul
• Category:Sydney organisations to Category:Organisations based in Sydney

--Kurieeto 02:23, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename all. I'd imagine pretty much all the same arguments apply; what do we do when the orgs expand outside of their home cities? And all that fun stuff. This way's more clear. Plus, consistency. I like it. Luna Santin 19:59, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all per nom Alphachimp ^talk 22:32, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all per nom. David Kernow 10:23, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all gren グレン 18:31, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding 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 --William Allen Simpson 04:02, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Blatino" is urban slang often used to refer to "a sexy ass" or to label "young urban gay men of color" [2]. Not only is the category horribly misapplied, but it has no place in an encyclopedia that hopes to gain the respect of academia. -- WGee 02:12, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I couldn't give a stuff about academia, but I don't think it is suitable for an encyclopedia that hopes to gain the respect of intelligent members of the general public. Chicheley 02:18, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Sandy 02:19, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete; unencyclopedic slang term, POV as applied. --MCB 02:26, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• keep why not change the name? Latinos with African Ancestry or Afrolatinos or Black Latinos??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qrc2006 (talk • contribs)
• Delete there is Afro-Latin American--Zleitzen 03:41, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per insightful and well written nom Alphachimp ^talk 22:40, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• The category description states that it's for "Latinos of African Descent"; I'd vote to keep and rename it, possibly to "Latinos of African descent" or something similar Anirvan 21:43, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep blatino isn't just gay Antares33712 02:07, 12 July 2006 (UTC). The cat does need renaming to something more mainstream however.[reply]
• Rename Category:Latinos of African descent per Anirvan.--M@rēino 13:56, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I get the feeling that there is some notable concept here... maybe Black Latinos is the proper category? I'm really not sure... but, I don't think it's a completely made up unacademic category. I mean, we have Category:Afro-Mexicans isn't this about the same concept? gren グレン 19:02, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding 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 --William Allen Simpson 04:02, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Poorly named, unclear inclusion criteria. However, no prejudice agains some sort of unprofitable films category. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 00:17, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Just give a few examples in an article. Chicheley 02:18, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• keep just change to unprofitable films or maybe box office failures? Qrc2006 03:17, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Box Office Disapointments / Box Office Failures / Unprofitable Films / Films that did not earn back their investment — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qrc2006 (talk • contribs)
• Delete, POV no matter what it's renamed to. --musicpvm 04:38, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The name is POV, but even if we changed it, the cat would cover too many films. We have List of films generating losses for the curious. ♥ Her Pegship♥ 20:36, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Determining object criteria for film failure is notoriously problematic. This is better covered in articles and lists like List of films: U.S. box office bombs and List of films generating losses. ×Meegs 20:44, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Even a smash hit can technically generate a loss if its production costs were sufficiently high; a movie with low production costs can generate a profit even if only a few thousand people ever see it. And sometimes movies popularly labelled as "bombs" technically made more money than some smaller indie flicks that are considered "hits" because of their smaller scale. POV classification; delete. Bearcat 01:53, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete In most cases it is not possible to tell from publicly available information whether a film made a profit or a loss, taking into account all formats in all countries. There is a tendency to judge films on North American box office alone, which may be good enough for American tabloids, but won't do here. Osomec 02:29, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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