< September 11	September 13 >

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Keep. The nominator got confused between two terms and regrettably deemed that they are synonyms. However, the parallel existence of two distinctive articles Mass murderer and Serial killer are much more than just clarification. @pple complain 17:51, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:American mass murderers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: overlaps with Category:American serial killers; indeed, almost all members of this cat are in that one. What constitutes "mass murder" as opposed to mere serial killings? Orange Mike 21:59, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Johnbod 22:20, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep and clarify definitions : They are not the same thing, and the categories may not have been managed properly or defined as they should be. In criminology, a serial killer is a person who kills multiple people at different times—they do it "serially". A mass-murderer is a person who kills multiple people all at the same time or in a very short period of time, as in a shooting spree, for example. For more detail, see articles for Mass murder and Serial killer, which clearly set out the difference. Both categories should be clearly defined and exist independent of each other. Rich Uncle Skeleton ^(talk) 22:47, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Rich Uncle Skeleton. Moreover, if I'm not mistaken, "mass murder" has a specific definition in the USA: the murder of 4 or more people in one location at one time. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 23:11, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. There are clear differences between mass murderers and serial killers as above. -- Necrothesp 01:10, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. per Skeleton. Mukadderat 01:14, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment - Then somebody is gonna have to: 1) make that distinction on the category pages; 2) purge the heck out of this category, because it's full of serial killers; and 3) monitor the category to keep them creeping back in. The only killer I monitor is Dahmer, and that's because he's a local boy (I think I may have eaten at the same Taco Bell with him a few times, years back). --Orange Mike 02:13, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I understand Orange Mike's position but on balance I think that most people can detect a difference between mass murderers and serial killers. Carlossuarez46 02:29, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (second comment; suggested speedy keep above) : what about merging the two into Category:American serial killers and mass murderers or Category:Americans who killed more than three people? I think that's a more awkward solution, but if we're scared about the clean-up involved, the category should at least be renamed so as not to give the impression that they are all serial killers. Rich Uncle Skeleton ^(talk) 04:20, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not sure we need another level of category here to group just these two subcats: and then the picking of 3 seems arbitrary - particularly, mass murderers and serial killers by number of victims seems a bad precedent to set. Carlossuarez46 19:47, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• speedy keep and cleanup the categories are different and have different meanings, the nominator is obviously mistaken. --Buridan 13:29, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment - I will only repeat, since the consensus is clearly against me here, that those supporting the retention of this category will have to do the cleanup, since last time I looked, the articles in this category were almost every one of them serial killers, not mass murderers. --Orange Mike 13:40, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. In that case there must have been a major cleanup effort since then, as that's certainly not the case now. -- Necrothesp 14:34, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • comment - Excellent! Perhaps somebody should close this one, then. --Orange Mike 16:09, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment please note that nomination for deletion / merging is not an appropriate way to mark for cleanup. if cleanup of this category is a sufficient solution, nominating it for deletion or merging was a wrong action and you have wasted time and effort. please use wp:cleanup for things that you want cleaned up. --Buridan 13:31, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Comment. In all fairness to Orange Mike, I don't think that's why he nominated this category. I don't agree with the rationale for the nomination, but I think it was made in good faith. You may want to read his nomination again. -- Necrothesp 13:42, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • comment - Thanks, Necro. You are correct; I saw no distinction here worthy of a separate cat, and therefore made the CfD nomination in good faith. --Orange Mike 18:26, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • comment I agree you did it in good faith, i don't think i said it wasn't. what i said was that if you wanted cleaned up categories, you don't nominate for delete, you said you wanted deleted categories and settled for cleaned up categories, that to me seems like using delete for cleanup, which is an ongoing wikipedia problem. to me, it darn clear that these are two different categories, so deletion makes no sense, but you saw them as clear overlaps, which is fine. --Buridan 22:03, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename. Kbdank71 20:49, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Xena: Warrior Princess to Category:Xena: Warrior Princess characters

Nominator's rationale: Rename - because everything in it is a character or character list so the name should reflect that. Otto4711 21:53, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• rename per nom Johnbod 01:55, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename. Kbdank71 20:49, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Twin Peaks places to Category:Twin Peaks locations

Nominator's rationale: Rename - in line with the majority of the subcats and the parent cat Category:Fictional locations. Otto4711 19:34, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom Johnbod 01:56, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was upmerge to Category:Islam by country then delete. Sam Blacketer 09:39, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What next Islam in capitalist states, Islam in socialist states, Islam in democracies and then Christianity in Capitalist states and so on .

• Delete as the nominator.Shyamsunder 06:07, 13 September 2007 (UTC)))}[reply]
• NOTE This should perhaps be joined with the fairly newly opened discussion on the old name at:[1]. Keep anyway - a notable topic. Johnbod 18:37, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete to Category:Islam by country. First of all, Category:Islam in China covers approximately 18.5 centuries, of which only .5 were under communist rule, which illustrates one problem with this categorisation scheme: regime types change; for some countries, they change every few years. A similar problems exists with Category:Islam in the Soviet Union, which consists mostly of articles about the countries that used to be the 15 republics. As with China, the scope of the "Islam in ..." articles is not limited solely to the communist period. Second, I think this constitutes overcategorisation in the form of "religion by [regime type]". Categorisation by country is far less ambiguous. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 23:22, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Category:Islam in China may be a mistake of categorization (but this may be disputable: for understanding of Islam in PRC the previous 18 centuries is good to know). But the issue of religion in communist states is quite special one and certainly deserves a category. Nominator's jokular tone is not valid argument. Each topic must be considered in its own merits. For example, I would see nothing strange in the topic "Christianity in Musim world", which is quite comparable with the topic "islam in communist states" in terms of contraposition. But if there is nothng special to write about Christianity in Capitalist states, this has no relation to the discussed topic. Mukadderat 01:11, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The PRC has been in existence for a little over half a century. Grouping articles about Islam in pre-CPC China with those about Islam in the PRC may indeed be useful, but that purpose is served by templates, not an "Islam in communist states" category. Also, though the nominator's tone may not be appropriate, his/her point about the general validity of a class of categories (religion by regime type) is certainly valid. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 03:39, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge to Category:Islam by country per Black Falcon. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:46, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge: dominance of communist parties was much shorter than the existence of Islam in these countries. Pavel Vozenilek 18:45, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename. Kbdank71 20:50, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Roman Catholic Church in England & Wales to Category:Roman Catholic Church in England and Wales

Nominator's rationale: Rename to match the article Roman Catholic Church in England and Wales which does not use an ampersand in its title. Tim! 17:07, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. Johnbod 15:28, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename. Kbdank71 20:50, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Royal Marine individuals to Category:Royal Marines personnel

Nominator's rationale: Rename, Consistency with similar categories (Category:Royal Navy personnel, Category:British Army personnel, Category:Royal Air Force personnel). -- Necrothesp 17:07, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. Johnbod 15:29, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:13, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename. Kbdank71 20:51, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Hate crimes against LGBT people to Category:Victims of anti-LGBT hate crimes

Nominator's rationale: Rename - category is being used for people and so should reflect that. Otto4711 15:55, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. Carlossuarez46 02:30, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Johnbod 15:30, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. Kbdank71 20:51, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Roughrider Award recipients (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete - an award presented to prominent North Dakotans appears to be overcategorization by award or honor. A list exists at Rough Rider Award. If retained, this should be renamed to Category:Rough Rider Award recipients to match the article. Otto4711 14:47, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Johnbod 15:30, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was merge with Category:Marvel Comics storylines. Kbdank71 14:13, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Marvel Crossovers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Rename to Category:Marvel crossovers, or Delete, note this was a wanted category. -- Prove It ^(talk) 13:32, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Category:Marvel Comics storylines. Otto4711 13:58, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Category:Marvel Comics storylines. Wryspy 05:11, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename to Category:Works by Garrison Keillor. Kbdank71 14:22, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Books by Garrison Keillor (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete, not needed, contains only Category:Novels by Garrison Keillor, already parented by Category:Novels by author. -- Prove It ^(talk) 13:23, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• NB: a second, pre-existing short story cat has now been been reunited with its parent. Johnbod 17:47, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - agreed. This is not needed and the parent would more naturally be "Works by" anyway. That is unless the author wrote non novel books. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 13:33, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He did (& does) - see below. Johnbod 18:29, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge novels to books - all novels are books and there is no need to maintain a separate novels and books categorization structure. "Books" is broader so it should remain. Otto4711 13:41, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No they are not! "box" being confussed with the "content", being the usual container does not make the content the box. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 15:12, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I do not understand what this comment means. As far as I know, all novels are books, but all books are not novels. If the choice is between Novels by and Books by then the category that provides for the broader and more useful categorization should remain. Otto4711 16:26, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A Novel is a literary form of writing often thought of in terms of a high quality of writing but more normally used of nearly all longer pieces of fiction narrative prose. Thus "novels" are writing! Books are the physical things you can pick up and open containing writing. The term is used very loosely, but the basic meaning remains. And as you quite rightly mention not all books contain or are "novels". A companion term to "novel" would "short story" which is very akin to a novel but few mistake that these are synonymous with the term "book". Also broad is not always the most useful especially when the element of categorisation varies so widely. Work is clearly the broadest term of literary work, "writing". It would include a writing form poetry, drama, verse, novel novella, shot story etc. All book does is use a description of the package. It say nothing about the "type" of content. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 08:21, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Your definition of "book" is at odds with common usage. Otto4711 12:07, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Remind me, Otto, are plays books? Johnbod 12:13, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• No. Plays are "works." Otto4711 12:57, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Novels are books, but plays are works? Johnbod 13:12, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Books are also works. Works by should be the parent and the various types of works (books, plays, screenplays, sculptures, paintings, whatever) should be the children. There is IMHO no navigational utility in categorizing novels separately from books because all novels are books. This is an instance where a navtemplate would be superior to a category, because the navtemplate can be constructed to group the books by type. Otto4711 13:22, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• As I've pointed out before (see link below), Category:Works by author is entirely for written works. There is no "by author/artist/creator" category type that links written and non-written works (a job for eponymous categories, sometimes). Johnbod 13:30, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Works by author is and should be a subcat of Category:Works by artist. Otto4711 14:18, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Only at the supercategory level, not by the individual. Johnbod 14:23, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not sure what you mean. Works by artist should serve as the supercategory for all artistic works by creator categories. So to get to Lake Wobegon Days through the Works by artist pathway it should be Works by artist to Works by author to Books by author to Books by Garrison Keillor. There should also be a list of Keillor's works in his article and a navtemplate on each of the works articles, divided by type of work. Otto4711 15:06, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• That is certainly not how the system works at present, in the great majority of cases. It may have been the original intention, though there is nothing to say so in the relevant category descriptions. Few authors have both Works and Books categories, and most stop at novels or plays etc level. Shakespeare for example has neither a books nor works category. See the examples in my proposal. Johnbod 15:15, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Clearly the system needs a major overhaul and I've commented on the proposal at your link already. For this particual CFD, though, I still believe that the more broadly-based "Books" category is the one to keep. Otto4711 17:15, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Firstly Lake Wobegon Days is surely misclassified as a novel - it is a short-story collection (with the odd shared character I think) for which there is another category. The way the "books by ..." categories are supposed to work is very unclear to me, and I have started a proposal for discussion at User:Johnbod/Books v Works which anyone is welcome to comment on. At the moment both "books by author" and "works by author" categories contain very many sub-categories like this, that only contain another category. I think there have been attempts in the past to make both of them supercategories which would havwe an entry for each author. I think a decision is needed as to whether such a supercategory is actually needed, and the roles of both types. Otto has stated his view there (as has Kevin) but at the moment more existing categories reflect a view that "books" is for non-literary works. I support continuing classifying by genres like novels; the implications of abandoning this would be enormous. Johnbod 13:47, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You may well be right about the Lake Wobegon Days, however if that is the case the article makes none of this clear, let alone the category. If fact the article is very cursory at best. Do you know enough to improve it even a small amount. I confess I know little of this one. If it is as you same a collection it probably should be recategorised. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 15:12, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a bit. Actually this may be a good example to take to discuss the book/novel-or story issue because, unusually, the material first appeared as a series of monologues on radio, although the title of the article was first used for the published version in book form. Johnbod 12:43, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The category under discussion now also contains Category:Short story collections by Garrison Keillor - which existed all along in fact. I'd weakly support a rename to "Works by..." - weakly because all the books by & works by are so random, a major overhaul is needed. At any rate, don't Merge as per Otto. Johnbod 17:50, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete all. Kbdank71 20:53, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:P-Model (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Panic! at the Disco (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Laura Pausini (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Pennywise (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Phil Lewis (solo) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:The Pillows (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Placebo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Planet Us (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:The Pogues (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Poison (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Precious (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Pretty Boy Floyd (Canadian) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:The Pretty Things (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Procol Harum (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:The Prodigy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Prong (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Propeller (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Public Enemy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Pulp (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete all - each of the categories is limited to one or more (and in several cases none) of the subcats: albums; members; songs; along with the artist article and sometimes a discography. Per precedent this is overcategorization. Otto4711 13:17, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom & ample precedent. Carlossuarez46 02:31, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. Kbdank71 20:54, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Billie Piper (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete - eponymous overcategorization. Material doesn't warrant category. Otto4711 12:55, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom and ample precedent. Carlossuarez46 02:31, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and so much precedent. Wryspy 05:10, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. Kbdank71 20:55, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Tom Petty (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete - eponymous overcategorization. Category not warranted by the material. Otto4711 12:51, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom and ample precedent. Carlossuarez46 02:31, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and so much precedent. Wryspy 05:11, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename. Kbdank71 14:25, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Andy Partridge to Category:Andy Partridge albums

Nominator's rationale: Rename - everything in it is an album. Otto4711 12:46, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom and ample precedent. Carlossuarez46 02:31, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and so much precedent. Wryspy 05:11, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - the proposal here is to rename the category to fill an existing need in the Albums by artist category structure. Otto4711 12:10, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename Category:Nuremberg executions to Category:People executed by the International Military Tribunal in Nuremberg, and Category:People convicted in the Nuremberg Trials to Category:People convicted by the International Military Tribunal in Nuremberg. Sam Blacketer 09:47, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Nuremberg executions to Category:Nuremberg executions by the International Military Tribunal

Propose renaming Category:People convicted in the Nuremberg Trials to Category:People convicted by the International Military Tribunal in Nuremberg

Nominator's rationale: These convictions should be distinguished from those at the hands of the U.S. Nuremberg Military Tribunals. --GCarty 10:55, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename first Category:People executed by the International Military Tribunal in Nuremberg for sake of consistency with second proposal. Rich Uncle Skeleton ^(talk) 11:12, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename First per RUS for clarity, second per nom. a link to the other lot would have helped. Johnbod 01:59, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename all as proposed. Sam Blacketer 20:49, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Scottish Executive to Category:Scottish Government

Propose renaming Category:Scottish Executive supported organisations‎ to Category:Organisations supported by the Scottish Government

Propose renaming Category:Ministers of the Scottish Executive to Category:Ministers of the Scottish Government

Propose renaming Category:Members of the Scottish Executive‎ to Category:Members of the Scottish Government

Propose renaming Category:Departments of the Scottish Executive to Category:Departments of the Scottish Government

Nominator's rationale: Rename, to match title of the main article: Scottish Government. Mais oui! 10:46, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support Having the categories not match the title of the main article is confusing. Lurker (said · done) 11:35, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename all per nom. The change of usage has been discussed at Talk:Scottish Government#Government_or_Execuitve, it seems clear that this change is happening. Some of the arguments there are about how this fits with UK law are irrelevant: per WP:NAME, things are named here by the name they are best known as, not by what any law says. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:28, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all per nom. Regan123 18:09, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was merge Category:Animals in written fiction into Category:Fictional mammals, and only that. There is apparently some confusion regarding what was nominated, so I'm closing this at the highest level, of what was actually requested. If any of the subcategories need to be merged as well, please renominate them, and list them all, so as not to create further confusion.. Kbdank71 14:35, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The former contains a number of categories named Category:Cats in literature, the latter contains a number of categories like Category:Fictional elephants. While one might argue that the former is about books and the latter about characters, the difference is not really made in practice - both contain a combination of books and characters. I suggest that the two category trees are substantially overlapping and redundant, and that the former be merged into the latter. >Radiant< 07:39, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge all, and purge books not named after characters from both. It doesn't make sense to put Goodbye, My Lady under fictional dogs or dogs in written fiction, as the book is about more than just a dog. (It's not under "boys in written fiction.") Besides, "fictional characters by species and by type of source" seems an undesirable three-way intersection.--Mike Selinker 15:35, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge & purge per both above. Johnbod 15:41, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose merge, instead delete. All of the subcategories and 13 of 15 articles of Category:Animals in written fiction are already contained in Category:Fictional mammals. For instance, Category:Bears in literature is a subcat of Category:Fictional bears, which is in the "fictional mammals" category tree. Likewise, the article Snowball (Animal Farm) is already located in Category:Fictional pigs. The two exceptions are Creatures of Kyralia, which should probably be merged or deleted (and already falls in Category:Fictional species), and The Animals of Farthing Wood, which I'm not sure where to place. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 23:08, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that Radiant is not just proposing the elimination of Category:Animals in written fiction, but also that all of its "X in literature" subcategories should be merged directly into the corresponding "Fictional Xs" subcats. ×Meegs 04:43, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as part of the category hierarchies of fictional characters, but purge all articles that are already included in one of the subcategories and articles that aren't actually about fictional animals. If the categories in question are going to be deleted, all other 'fictional animals by medium' and 'fictional animals by taxonomy' categories should be collectively nominated for deletion. -Sean Curtin 00:25, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, only the parent category Category:Animals in written fiction is nominated; the "[Animal] in literature" categories will not be dismantled by this nomination. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 00:31, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I could be wrong, but I think that Radiant and Mike Selinker are suggesting that the whole tree (all of the "[Animal] in literature" cats) be merged. ×Meegs 04:50, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We are, but of course the subcategories haven't been nominated yet. So that may need another nomination.--Mike Selinker 01:01, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The nomination clearly specifies the "trees", not just the individual categories. >Radiant< 12:12, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was upmerge all. Kbdank71 20:46, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These intermediate categories, while technically correct, are impractical. If I start from "fictional mammals" and want to find, say, a badger, I have to browse down first to "fictional carnivores" (not everybody knows badgers are carnivores), and then to "fictional mustelids" (most people don't know the term "mustelid" period) before I can find it. I am aware that this works well for real-world animals, but I think that the system would be clearer if we merge some of the intermediate layers for fictional ones. >Radiant< 07:39, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. There are few enough subcategories (less than 100) that putting them all under category:Fictional animals would be fine. No need to mirror the taxonomic system. The only downside I see is that articles that fit the canine, feline, or mustelid category, but not any real world animal type (e.g., Daxter, who is an "ottsel," half weasel and half otter) are just animals then, and not under more refined categories. But I'd be fine with putting such "half-" creatures under both halves.--Mike Selinker 15:31, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There is a utility in having "fictional felines" in Category:Felines that outweighs the argument in the nom. Johnbod 15:45, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, in particular "felines", "mustelids", and "canines". As I understand it, the nomination seeks to merge the contents of the four listed categories into Category:Fictional mammals. Though I am not adverse to the idea of trimming some layers, mirroring the taxonomic system has distinct advantages. One of them is pointed out by Johnbod above. The other is that it makes navigation easier and more predictable. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 22:57, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. convenience of navigation. First, fictional animals do not have this really detailed zoologiczl taxonomy. Second, I strongly suspect those interested in fictional rats are hardly experts in zootaxonomy to embrace its alleged benefits here. Mukadderat 01:52, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom and Mukadderat. --Metropolitan90 06:34, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support upmerging Category:Fictional carnivores. Once that's done, we're no longer parallelling the real-life taxonomical cats, but I'm still torn on whether to elimiate the other umbrellas too. If the general rule is to bar nonterminal subcats of Category:Mammals, though, we should also upmerge Category:Fictional primates, Category:Fictional marsupials, Category:Fictional ungulates and Category:Fictional rodents. ×Meegs 05:41, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • All true. Those should be upmerged as well.--Mike Selinker 01:01, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: speedy keep. This category been discussed at two recent previous CfDs (see CfD June 18 and CfD August 30), both of which closed with a clear keep result. Editors should please check for previous CfDs before nominating a category. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:44, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Homophobia to Category:Anti-LGBT Activism

Nominator's rationale: "Homophobia" is a perjorative term, and the category does not provide adequate distinction between violent and nonviolent anti-LGBT entities. The name "anti-LGBT activism" is both descriptive and NPOV, and should solve many of the disputes over the category itself and the articles within it. A new category was recently created, Category:Homophobic violence, for violent individuals/organizations. Category:Anti-LGBT Activism would focus primarily on nonviolent entities. Citadel18080 05:13, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and speedy close - this is the third time in three months that this category has been under consideration. Enough. Otto4711 12:26, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

---

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. Kbdank71 20:36, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Members of Knights of Columbus (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Merge into Category:Knights of Columbus, to match Knights of Columbus, or Delete as non-defining. -- Prove It ^(talk) 03:47, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete both as non-defining, like freemasonry, various fraternity cats, etc. Carlossuarez46 03:32, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. How many people with wikipedia articles are notable because they are a Knight of Columbus?-Andrew c ^[talk] 01:16, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both as non-defining, per Carlossuarez46. There's no grounds for keeping these categories when we deleted the more significant freemasonry categories. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) —Preceding unsigned comment added by BrownHairedGirl (talk • contribs) 10:19, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was merge. Kbdank71 20:34, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:American TV Producer (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Merge into Category:American television producers, convention of Category:Television producers by nationality. -- Prove It ^(talk) 03:34, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. Johnbod 18:47, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. Kbdank71 20:16, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Black people (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete as subjective, see also discussion of November 1st. -- Prove It ^(talk) 03:30, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge this and the similarly isolated parent/subcat for Criole people to somewhere suitable. Changed to delete, I've added one cat & the sub-cats are now respectively adequately and excessively categorised, I think. The articles themselves are not "subjective". and seem uncategorised elsewhere. Johnbod 14:59, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and redirect to Category:People of Black African descent. -Sean Curtin 00:20, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is a biographical category, and the subcats here contain mixed sorts of articles, and are well-categorised. The relevant articles that I have looked at are under are Category:People of Black African descent by other routes. Johnbod 00:39, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename to Category:Expedited border crossing schemes. Kbdank71 20:33, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Expedited Border Crossing (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Rename to Category:International travel ... a slightly wider scope, but probably appropriate. -- Prove It ^(talk) 03:20, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep see below. Proposed rename waaaay too wide, and so misleading. Johnbod 14:44, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not opposed to keeping it, but the current name should be at least sentence-cased, unless it's a proper noun. -- Prove It ^(talk) 01:14, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Expedited border crossing schemes or similar; see above. Johnbod 15:35, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. Kbdank71 20:15, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Calques from German (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: This category is a collection of topically unrelated articles, most of which do not document how they qualify for inclusion. EMS

• Keep was undercategorized. It seems to fit neatly into Category:English words and phrases of foreign origin, which has many sub-cats. Johnbod 13:54, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  This does not deal with my concern, which is that the is a totally subjective hodge-podge of articles. This is not a strong category like Star Wars films. Instead it is an incidental attribute of the titles of the articles. I really don't see the point of this. Additionally, there is also a categoty called german loanwords to which this thing could be merged into. However, I think that same logic for deletion may apply to that creation as well. --EMS | Talk 22:59, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  It would apply to the whole of Category:English words and phrases of foreign origin, and vast swathes of the Linguistics tree as well. You need to explain why etymology is not a suitable area for categorization. Johnbod 00:43, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, based on coincidence of names or their sources. The circumstance of being calques from German is just that: a circumstance, this is much better handled in Calque where it can be sourced or axed, rather than adding etymological categories to countless articles. The rest of the tree headed by Category:English words and phrases of foreign origin is also OCAT. Carlossuarez46 03:39, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Leave as it is. @pple complain 17:42, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Emotion to Category:Affective states and processes

Nominator's rationale: There is much controversy in psychology on what is or is not an emotion: the term affective is suggested as more inclusive for referring to this major area of interest in the discipline. Robert Daoust 02:08, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nom but suggest "Emotion" should remain and a redirect tag added redirecting to the renamed category due to the likelihood of a layperson using "emotion" when searching for the category. Maybe this is done as a matter of course (I am not sure). Rich Uncle Skeleton ^(talk) 02:24, 12 September 2007 (UTC) Change to oppose I am convinced by Mattisse's DSM-based argument below. Rich Uncle Skeleton ^(talk) 22:40, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Object The proposed renaming gives a false sense of accuracy. The new category would be just as controversial and ill defined as the older one, but now no longer of any meaning to most readers. Arnoutf 08:35, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Object I agree with Arnoutf - the proposed new title is meaningless to most readers. I can't see this being helpful at all. Brian Fenton 10:37, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Object "Emotion" is far more meaningful to most people. --orlady 14:36, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for clarity, and consistency with the main article & very many in the category, per Arnoutf et al. Johnbod 14:43, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Proposed name is too long-winded Lurker (said · done) 17:21, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Affect has a specific meaning within the field of Psychology and Psychiatry. It forms the basis of several categories in DSM-IV, the current diagnostic manual mandated for diagnostic use by psychologists and psychiatrists and other medical and mental health professionals in the United States. Renaming the category in this manner would cause articles not fitting the DSM-IV criteria to be dumped into the category. --Mattisse 15:04, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose proposed renaming. Too complicated & confusing, as already noted. However, I've been editing in this subject area and exploring the huge array of categories, and I think it would be useful to broaden the category somewhat, since Affect and Emotion are closely related:
  • Alternative proposal: Rename to Category:Affect and emotion. Cgingold 15:37, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I still oppose. Keep it simple: Emotion. --Orlady 16:02, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd prefer new suggestion to nom; ok if it gets consensus. Johnbod 16:12, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It appears that emotion is a 'popular' term, and though as a category it will be hard to specify what it will include or not, it could be kept if wished for. But then, it will need a parent category which will also include feeling, mood, sentiment and all those things that are distinguished from emotion but belong to the affective nevertheless (emotion is most generally restricted to strong feelings: calmness, for instance is not an 'emotion'). So, if we keep category 'emotion', it remains only to create the right parent category, which could be 'feeling and emotion', or 'affective states' or whatever (I don't like the substantive 'affect' because it does have too many specialized meanings): I don't care much for the name as long as the much needed category is brought into existence. --Robert Daoust 16:48, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose For the same reason as above: Affect has a specific meaning within the field of Psychology and Psychiatry. DSM, for example, using evaluation of Affect as a criteria for many conditions, but DSM never mentions the word "Emotion". I suggest leaving Category:Emotion as it is. I have noticed that all the professional psychology articles are categorized under specific categories and none are left under Emotion currently and they are also not under the general Category:Psychology as Wikipedia opposes articles not under categories that remove them from the general Category:Psychology. I suggest leaving Category:Emotion for the articles that combine religion, philosophy, original research, popular psychology. etc. and if they also end up in the general Category:Psychology, then than is the problem of those particular articles. --Mattisse 17:18, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose alternative. Emotion is still a more meaningful term. Lurker (said · done) 10:01, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename all. Kbdank71 20:13, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:People charged by the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda to Category:People indicted by the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda

Also propose renaming Category:People charged by the Special Court for Sierra Leone to Category:People indicted by the Special Court for Sierra Leone

Also propose renaming Category:People charged with war crimes to Category:People indicted for war crimes

Nominator's rationale: Change of imprecise term "charged" with the more precise and correct "indicted". A "charge" could be a formal indictment or an informal accusation. An "indictment" is something that can be objectively measured—it either exists in hardcopy or it doesn't. Will bring categories' names in line with two other similar categories, Category:People indicted by the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia and Category:People indicted by the International Criminal Court. Rich Uncle Skeleton ^(talk) 02:05, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. "Charge" is a perfectly acceptable legal term and is not in the least imprecise or incorrect. Whereas this might be the case in the USA, in the UK, for instance, it is the term always formally used, whereas "indictment" is almost never heard. -- Necrothesp 01:23, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment (nominator explanation): These are all international courts, not UK or USA domestic courts, and even though "charge" may not be ambiguous under English or American common law, it can be elsewhere. International courts themselves typically use "indict" to maintain accuracy when writing in English, and the French translations use the equivalent. In many jurisdictions—primarily European civil law countries—"charge" (or the foreign-language equivalent) can mean an informal accusation made before a person is indicted. Thus the term is avoided by international courts since civil law judges commonly sit on them. In any case, some sort of consistency needs to be brought to bear with these categories one way or the other. Rich Uncle Skeleton ^(talk) 02:33, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment and Question - I'm leaning toward the proposed renaming for the sake of consistency, but I'd like to know: What term does the ICTR itself use? (I presume its proceedings are conducted in French.) Cgingold 23:42, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

French and English are considered equally authoritative at the ICTR, but you are right that most of the proceedings are first carried out in French and then translated to English. In the ICTR Statute, the statute never uses the term as a verb, as in "indicted" or "charged". It is used as a noun in the statute, and the English version speaks of preparing and issuing an "indictment". The French version calls it a "l'acte d'accusation"—literally, "the bill of indictment". In judgments, the term is used as a verb, and the French phrase used is "la mise en accusation"—literally translated it means "the committal for trial", but it is translated into the English verb "indicted" by the ICTR. Hope that helps. Rich Uncle Skeleton ^(talk) 01:34, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your answer. I think some of your translation/explanations are a little bit off, however, it's clear to me that "indictment" is indeed the correct term. Therefore,

Um, no, the translations I've provided are literal (you van check a dictionary yourself) and the other ones I've provided are exactly how the courts themselves choose to translate them. Rich Uncle Skeleton ^(talk) 08:55, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support renaming per nom. Cgingold 07:29, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.