< September 25	September 27 >

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 15:33, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Eponymous category; delete per WP:OC, or rename and refocus as Category:Novels by Lee Yeongdo. PC78 23:29, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Works by Lee Yeongdo as it contains at least one article on a short story. Works by will serve as a more general parent and, should enough type-specific works articles be written, can be subdivided. Otto4711 13:06, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Works by Lee Yeongdo per Otto4711. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:09, 1 October 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 already speedy deleted by Vegaswikian.-Andrew c ^[talk] 00:38, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as subjective, don't see it as useful. -- Prove It ^(talk) 23:26, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete The category fuck got removed some months ago, but that made a lot more sense than this does. What good articles are there besides the main asshole article, the disambiguation and the article about anus? TheBlazikenMaster 23:30, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per TheBlazikenMaster ... what could the category possibly contain except what's already there. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 23:35, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not adding to encyclopedic understanding (and providing way too much temptation for vandals, although I did get a chuckle thinking about a couple of people I could put in that category). I was bold and removed the category from the article.--Fabrictramp 00:00, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Intended as a joke, surely? Johnbod 00:08, 27 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 upmerge.--Mike Selinker 13:23, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: I'm listing this one separately from the one below because more individuals are listed (14), and because there is often more heated debates when it comes to Muslim/Jewish relations. However, my argument below still applies. What does one's religion have to do with holocaust denial? Trivial intersection. (also, it seems odd to have members of the Nation of Islam in this category) Suggest upmerge to Category:Holocaust deniers. Andrew c ^[talk] 22:39, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge as a trivial and possibly suggestive (of a relationship between Islam and Holocaust denial) intersection. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 23:35, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge per both. Johnbod 23:57, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge per nom. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:18, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge per nom, religion is irrelevant. -- Prove It ^(talk) 12:38, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I understand how people feel uncomfortable with a category like this, and I am not unconcerned about the issue touched on by Black Falcon. In fact, it's probably the only reason I'm holding back, for the moment, from recommending Strong Keep on this category.

That being said, I have to take issue with the reflexive dismissal of any possible connection between religion and Holocaust denial in this instance. I am truly sorry to say that this is NOT a "trivial intersection". While it is undoubtedly the case that the majority of Muslims outside the Middle East do not question the reality of the Holocaust, there is, indeed, a significant strain of Holocaust denial that is particular to a segment of the Muslim population (including the Nation of Islam). And it's not merely incidental -- it's all tangled up with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and contested claims over control of land and sites viewed as sacred by both religions.

It's no accident that many of Israel's leading Muslim adversaries (not just Ahmedinejad) subscribe to Holocaust denial, which is used for the express purpose of helping to delegitimate the existence of the state of Israel. Holocaust denial is a very serious problem among Palestinians and other nationalities in the Middle East -- so much so that, for example, one Palestinian Muslim felt compelled to open a small Holocaust museum in Nazareth last year in hopes of countering the prevailing sentiment on the subject. (I should add that it has not been well received.)

There is no question that a full-scale article can be written precisely on this particular "intersection" between religion and Holocaust denial. In short, this category is valid in every respect. The only question is whether the type of concern that has been raised is so compelling and of such magnitude as to outweigh the value and validity of the category. I think that's a pretty high bar, but I suppose I am open to persuasion. Cgingold 14:00, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One more point: Nobody has mentioned the fact that this category is a sub-cat of Category:Islam and antisemitism, thus placing it within the framework of that larger issue, to which it is, of course, integrally related. It seems to me that it would be rather strange to come to that category and not find a subcategory on this subject. Cgingold 14:52, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that your comment is useful and thoughtful, but for me the crucial bit of it is your pertinent point that this is "all tangled up with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict". In other words, the issue here is not "Holocaust denial by muslim people" but rather "Holocaust denial linked to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict". I think that illustrates the difficulty of this category: it is not just a categorisation by opinion, it takes a further step by trying to categorise the motivation for holing that opinion. That's all getting far too complicated to make a useful category. The factors which lead people to hold a particular view are many and varied, and this sort of sub-categorisation ends up making crude characterisations of a complex issue.

I do agree that a a full-scale article could be written precisely on this particular "intersection" between religion and Holocaust denial. But I think that any such article would illustrate the complexity of the issue, and dissuade us from simplifying it into a category. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:58, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I essentially agree with BrownHairedGirl. Holocaust denial more of a political/ideological issue as a religious one. The fact that politics and religion often overlap does not make automatically make the religion-denial intersection non-trivial, but it does imbue the issue with a level of complexity that cannot be expressed by a category. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:39, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge - to quote Tom Lehrer, "everybody hates the Jews!" Catholicism, Protestantism, etc. all have long and ignominious histories of anti-Semitism. Subdividing Holocaust denial on the basis of the religion of the denier will only lead to a splintering of the category and reduction in navigability. Otto4711 17:55, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge per nom. Those individuals whose holocaust denial has been tied to their religion in reliable sources can have this explained in their articles. Categories can offer no such explanation, and the existence of the category instead presumes that it is a, well, categorical relationship, when it may be coincidental. The category name might furthermore be an issue, as I've never heard of the Muslim Holocaust. Postdlf 16:06, 30 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 upmerge.--Mike Selinker 13:23, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Trivial intersection. What does one's lack of a belief in deities have to do with denial of the Holocaust? There are only two individuals in this category. Suggest upmerging to Category:Holocaust deniers, seeing as they are already categorized as atheists. Andrew c ^[talk] 22:36, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge as a trivial and possibly suggestive (of a relationship between atheism and Holocaust denial) intersection. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 23:34, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge per both. Johnbod 23:57, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge per nom and Black Falcon. There is something rather distasteful about this categ. -BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:15, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge per nom, religion is irrelevant. -- Prove It ^(talk) 12:39, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge per all above. Apparently being a mere garden-variety Holocaust denier just isn't enough to be discredited by, as a human being. But wait! If we can point out that they're atheists (shudder!) they'll be completely discredited. On a more serious note, I'm not aware of a significant or particular strain of Holocaust denial among atheists, so this serves no credible purpose. Cgingold 12:41, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge per nom and per my comments above on the Muslim category. Postdlf 16:06, 30 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 keep, AFD looks like it'll stay. Kbdank71 15:31, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: See the corresponding AfD. The term has not been established to be in actual use by scholars as a textual designation, and the use here seems to be original research. Look through the articles in the categories, we have texts that are not "modern" and we have texts that are not pseudepigraphical. The few texts that actually are pseudepigraphical can be upmerged. The rest seem to be categorized well enough that if this cat is deleted, they would not need to be merged elsewhere. Andrew c ^[talk] 22:32, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'd rather wait to see how the AfD goes. Johnbod 23:56, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there are several texts published recently claiming to be much older putting them in category:pseudepigrapha, is not appropriate--69.153.65.22 23:59, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and clean up or delete per outcome of the AFD. If kept, fix the miscategorizations. If deleted, watchers of Category:Pseudepigrapha or whatever the upmerge target would be can keep that category clean by moving pseudo examples to a religious fiction category or something. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 10:36, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment an issue that has come up with this category is the inclusion of Mormon works, that objectively probably do belong here. Maybe a rename is in order. I have left a more detailed comment at the AfD. -Andrew c ^[talk] 15:17, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Just fix the miscategorizations (either honest misunderstandings of what "pseudepigrapha" means, or a PoV jab at the Mormons, but not appropriate either way.) What would you want to rename it to anyway, and how would that be likely to thwart eventual re-creation of a category for pseudepigrapha that are not from the classical period (or whatever cutoff era is in play; I didn't notice)? — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 16:42, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep --129.115.102.13 14:50, 2 October 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 delete. Kbdank71 15:28, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: These categories are classic examples of overcategorization. None of these books are particularly notable by the fact alone that they mention Jesus went to Egypt/India. If you asked any Christian to name the top 5 most defining aspects of the Gospel of Matthew, how many would answer "it mentions that Jesus went to Egypt"? And some of the other books mentioned deal even less with Jesus. Also, these categories aren't foreseeably expandable. Andrew c ^[talk] 21:53, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all as categorisation on the basis of non-defining characteristics. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 22:02, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Category:Religious texts claiming Jesus went to India There are 100's of New Age texts that claim this and 1000000's of New Agers believe Jesus went to India thus keep Category:Religious texts claiming Jesus went to India these texts describe in detail what Jesus supposedly did in India--69.153.65.22 23:32, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- But is that one detail a defining characteristic of those texts? Author, genre, year of publication, and the like are defining, but it seems unlikely that a single claim defines an entire text. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 23:38, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete & listify all - I expect there already are lists. The 100's of NN New Age "religious texts" are just modern books, all elaborations of these earlier sources (on a good day). Johnbod 23:51, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The Life of Saint Issa supposedly discovered by Nicolas Notovitch, describes only Jesus' supposed life in India. Acts of Thomas, describes only Jesus' supposed life in India. Alse The Aquarian Gospel of Jesus the Christ chapter 21-37 (17 chapters out of 81 chapters) describe Jesus' supposed life in India, definitely a defining major characteristic, Also the Ahmadiyya which number 10's of millions believe the following "Ahmadis believe that Jesus died in Kashmir of old age whilst seeking the Lost Tribes of Israel. Jesus' remains are believed to be entombed in Kashmir under the name Yuz Asaf." --69.153.65.22 00:09, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Most of the works that would eventually be in the India or Egypt category do not fit the pattern you outline. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 10:46, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or rename, and don't listify as there isn't anything encyclopedically useful about a list of books by what they happen to mention; WP is not a collection of indiscriminate information. Rename to Category:Jesus in India, as subcategory of Jesus topics; a category for actual WP articles that touch on this subject might be of encyclopedic value, and less likely to encourage the creation of junk articles on utterly non-notable books by someone obsessed with the topic. If there are not more than 1 or 2 articles that could go in this category then delete it and categorize them a level up. PS: Labeling piles of pseudepigrapha "religious works" along with scriptures that are actually accepted by living and historically attested religions gives them undue weight. They belong in something more like Category:Works of religious crackpotism and fraud. But I tend to be opinionated on such matters... — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 10:46, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename is the best choice rename it to Category:Jesus in India by doing so many figures who have claimed such and religious movements that claim such can be added to the category--69.153.65.22 11:48, 27 September 2007 (UTC) Update: Category:Jesus in India hypothesis suggested below works for me too. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 14:13, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename agreed with above because the Nation of Islam is based off of Moorish Science Temple which claims Jesus went to India also, the founder of Nation of Islam claimed to be a reincarnation of the founder of Moorish Science Temple thus i would assume Nation Of Islam also teaches this dogma, Nation of Islam has between 100,000 to 1,000,000 followers
there are also several articles that can be added to Category:Jesus in India, not just the current articles in Category:Religious texts claiming Jesus went to India but religious movements authors of these supposed true tales of Jesus going to India, and the founders of the religious movements, and terms that refer to the group's belief in Jesus going to India,
I prefer naming the category Category:Jesus in India hypothesis--129.115.38.42 12:27, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all and don't listify. - I tend to take a pretty broad view of what is legitimate and permissible for categories, but none of these cats comes close to serving a valid purpose. I would much prefer to see an actual article or articles written, summarizing the contents of each of these books with regard to the respective subjects of these categories. That would also be much more useful to potential readers. Cgingold 14:13, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all the relevance of these religious texts in light of various theories or beliefs is not defining of the texts and perhaps not really of the theories or beliefs (as they are no more than evidence proffered for or against the theories or beliefs). Carlossuarez46 22:04, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all and do not listify. Don't categorize or even listify by every remark in every text. Wryspy 05:18, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all; neutral on listification (separate debate needed). As a category, the defining-ness of these statements is very subjective; as Andrew c points out many christians won't think of this as a defining characteristic, but some might. So even picking it out as a category declares it as notable which is expressing an opinion on the matter .... Which IMO further reinforces that, rather than picking and choosing yes/no on a wide variety of topics we should just have a very strict policy on subject-based categories. --lquilter 15:53, 30 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 Category:Buildings and structures in Boston to Category:Buildings and structures in Boston, Massachusetts - jc37 12:44, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Buildings and structures in Boston to Category:Buildings and structures in Boston, Massachusetts

Nominator's rationale: :Category:Cemeteries in Boston

Category:Education in Boston

Category:Healthcare in Boston

Category:History of Boston

Category:Neighborhoods in Boston

Category:People from Boston

Category:Radio stations in Boston

Category:Restaurants in Boston

Category:Sports in Boston

Category:Squares in Boston

Category:Television stations in Boston

Category:Transportation in Boston

These categories all suffer from the same problem, which is that Boston, Massachusetts is not the only place named Boston. Therefore, it seems to me that they are all ambiguously named, and should be renamed to correct that. It is true that Boston Massachusetts is the most notable Boston (thus, Boston redirects to Boston, Massachusetts), but there are many others and the tolerance for ambiguity in category names should be lower than that in article names. If people think that "Boston" is not ambiguous, then there is no reason for the main category to be at Category:Boston, Massachusetts, and it should be moved to Category:Boston, and all of the articles (eg, History of Boston, Massachusetts, Neighborhoods in Boston, Massachusetts, Boston, Massachusetts, should be moved to the shorter name as well. Summing up: if the name is ambiguous (as I think), then all of the categories need disambiguation by state; otherwise, if the name is not ambiguous, all of the categories should be moved to the short name for consistency. LeSnail 21:37, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Move per nom. While it's unlikely many people will firstly think of Boston, Lincolnshire, the possibility of confusion does reamin - and the main article is at Boston, Massachusetts, so the cats should aagree with that. Grutness...wha? 01:09, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all per well-reasoned nomination. I agree that the tolerance for ambiguity in category names should be lower than that in article names. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:16, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all with category redirects per nom, in particular the desirability of conforming with the main article. Bencherlite ^Talk 12:59, 27 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 delete. Kbdank71 15:25, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - even should the single subcat survive this will still be small with little or no potential for growth. The single article is linked to the Neue Österreichische Welle article and is appropriately categorized. Otto4711 20:53, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom & below. Johnbod 02:31, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom & below. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:23, 30 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 delete, empty. Kbdank71 15:24, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Simply not worth mentioning in an encyclopedia. Ioeth 20:16, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - compare to the article on defunct businesses in Canada or defunct NFL football teams. There is much evidence of precedent having been set. Shopping malls are part of the community and historical makeup of same. Only a blind person couldn't see the rationale for including this information. Note also that the first two articles in this category refer to malls still in existence, but whose plazas have been removed in favour of outdoor strip malls. This is a significant trend in shopping mall architecture. I don't understand the deletionist trend to deleting things because they don't fit the narrow world view of the deletionist (in this case a 24 year old boy who has no world view beyond his computer screen). It would make far more sense to allow the article to be expanded rather than delete it on sight as if it was in the same class as a vanity article, for example.139.48.81.98 20:52, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's comment: Thank you for the criticism of my intellect and worldview; looking at some of the other comments you have left should have led me to expect it. I think it is worth noting that 139.48.81.98 is likely the anonymous sockpuppet of Michael Dorosh. In response, I think that the category, as well as the articles contained within it are excellent candidates for deletion. Comparing defunct shopping malls to NFL football teams seems much like comparing apples to oranges. Let's compare this category to, say, the Category:Defunct Shopping Malls in the United States. Ah, but it doesn't exist, since I think it's pretty obvious that it is simply not important enough to warrant inclusion in an encyclopedia. --Ioeth 21:15, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment that category does exist, see Category:Defunct shopping malls in the United States 132.205.44.5 23:20, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's Comment: Ah fun with capitalization! This category now only has one listing in it, which looks like it's going to be deleted, after which it will be an empty category. Until that happens, I think I would agree with an upmerge as Prove It recommends. --Ioeth 12:49, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge into Category:Defunct shopping malls in Canada. No need to subdivide it. -- Prove It ^(talk) 22:29, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename if kept, to Category:Defunct shopping malls in Calgary because of capitalization issues. 132.205.44.5 23:19, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge per Prove It. I'm still amazed that we even have categories for defunct shopping malls!. But if they were notable enough to merit articles, they obviously need appropriate categories. However, I don't see a compelling rationale for subdividing by city. On the other hand, I might support doing it by provinces in Canada or states in the US. Cgingold 14:26, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge per Prove It. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:04, 27 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 per Black Falcon (yeah, thanks, make it hard...). Kbdank71 15:19, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Neue Österreichische Welle interpretes to Category:Neue Österreichische Welle something

Nominator's rationale: Rename - to whatever the English word for "interpretes" is. English Wikipedia should be in English. Otto4711 18:53, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, the genre name can be in the language of the genre but anything beyond that should be in English. Otto4711 19:02, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning to Delete. It translates to "Austrian New Wave performers" but the articles seem to have little in common except they are Austrian & have had a hit or two (especially in Austria). Could certainly be upmerged to a renamed NOW parent. Johnbod 19:40, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Neue Österreichische Welle is a music genre similar to Neue Deutsche Welle. If we follow the example of Category:Neue Deutsche Welle groups, then this category should likewise be renamed to Category:Neue Österreichische Welle groups. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:49, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Still delete - NDW was a post-punk movement that petered out in the mid-80s, whilst the 3-line stub on NOW says it is a part of Austropop and sprung from a tv ttalent show in 2003. So I don't think it can be very similar. Notability very much to be demonstrated. Roll it all up into Austropop perhaps. Some of the articles are solo singers. Johnbod 20:05, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - You may be right that it is not (yet) a defining characteristic on which we want to categorise. A Google search (in English and German) turns up little for "Neue Österreichische Welle" or "Austrian New Wave". – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:50, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the groups to Category:Austrian pop music groups and the solo musicians/singers to Category:Austrian pop musicians or Category:Austrian pop singers? Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:50, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Black Falcon - one is a singer and a group, I see!. Johnbod 02:31, 29 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 Category:Interpreters to Category:Interpreters (computing) - to match the article name, and no consensus for an alternative name. (Incidentally, there is nothing wrong with dab phrases in category names when necessary.) - jc37 12:49, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Interpreters to Category:Interpreters (computing)

Nominator's rationale: Rename - to clarify the category contents and to free up the category name for people whose profession is interpreter. Otto4711 18:15, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. Johnbod 00:12, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename but more clearly: There has to be a clear way to express that without resorting to a parenthetical, surely. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 10:53, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The lead article is Interpreter (computing). Generally although it's not required the lead article and the category name should match. Otto4711 13:39, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right; that's what I'm getting at. We don't have DAB categories the way we do DAB articles, so finding parenthetically-named categories is harder. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 14:15, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, there are a small number of Disambiguation categories, some of which do point at parenthetically-named categories. But parenthetical naming of categories does look a bit odd; I was about to suggest Category:Software translators as an alternative, but that could be ambiguous with Category:Machine translation. -- AJR | Talk 17:41, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename but to a non-parenthetical name per above, if a good name comes up. -- AJR | Talk 17:41, 29 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 relisted on oct 2. Kbdank71 15:16, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete as non-defining or rename to something that expands the abbreviation. Otto4711 18:12, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Officials of the Food and Agriculture Organization. They do seem to have a job-title of "expert", but I think Officals covers it. Johnbod 00:12, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Experts of the Food and Agriculture Organization; don't make up fake titles. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 10:55, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Food and Agriculture Organization experts is shorter, if this is retained. Otto4711 13:27, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But too ambiguous, as it could mean "experts on the subject of the FAO, including its critics"; I'm pretty sure that's why Otto4711 picked the longer version (though I am hardly psychic. :-) — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 14:16, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The parent and other UN categories use officials too, as Category:World Health Organization officials - do we have a convention ? Johnbod 14:28, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment whether or not their title is "expert", doesn't have to be parrotted here either Johnbod's first comment or something similar is OK. Lots of companies have marketing folks titled "Evangelists" and so we can expect them to show up in Category:Evangelists because their title fits. Ugh! Carlossuarez46 22:07, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: The problem with that is that the organization has other people in other roles who are also officials. If someone can plausibly make the argument that all of the org.'s officials, including the experts, should go in such a category and that a subcat for experts is overcategorization, I wouldn't have any objection, but that case hasn't been made. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 00:27, 29 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 No consensus. Feel free to renominate as a group nom if you wish. - jc37 12:51, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:PHP programming language to Category:PHP software

Nominator's rationale: Rename following the naming convention in Category:Software by programming language and to distinguish it from Category:PHP, which contains articles about the language itself. --Alksub 17:42, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There's no such convention there; the "X programming language" ones greatly outnumber the "X software" ones. I agree with the sentiment, but the former need to be all be proposed for change to the latter in a mass nomination. (And to be clear, I would agree with such a proposal, because "software by programming language" subcats should be software categories, not categories for programming languages themselves. If consensus is that a mass nom can be bypassed and all of them renamed, consider this a Rename per nom.) — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 10:59, 27 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 Category:Jewish comedy to Category:Jewish comedy and humor. - jc37 12:54, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Jewish comedy to Category:Jewish comedy and humour

Nominator's rationale: Rename, in compliance with the rest of the Category:Comedy and humor by nationality. `'Míkka 16:59, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: this category does not belong in a "by nationality" category in the first place, and none of the categories it does belong in seem to follow this convention. Xtifr _tälk 20:37, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above--69.153.65.22 23:46, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Jewish comedy and humor; the above objections make no sense, as all of the other categories of this sort are of the "X comedy and humo[u]r" form, and there are no similar categories to compare it to under the other categories it belongs in, so that claim is simply nonsense (the closest is Category:Black sitcoms, which is too specific and dissimilar to compare). The nationality concern is more plausible, but fixed by removing it from the nationality category, and has no bearing on whether the rename should take place, as all other categories named in this fashion (that I can find) follow that convention. Finally, use the American spelling "humor", because of all of the Jewish diaspora who speak English, the American ones outnumber the Commonwealth ones by probably at least an order of magnitude, and we use US English for predominantly US topics, UK English for predominantly British ones, and whatever came first for ones like Moon where the question is not applicable. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 11:08, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per SMcCandlish - and clean out (all those comedians need to be moved to the subcategory). Cgingold 12:00, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per SMcCandlish and move the biographical articles into the "comedians" subcategory. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:53, 28 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 Delete - All that remains is the nav box and the main article (which is linked in the nav box). (See also WP:CLS.) - jc37 12:56, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - following recategorization of material into album and song by artist categories remaining material does not warrant a category. Otto4711 16:29, 26 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. Kbdank71 15:13, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Category:False ghosts into Category:Ghosts

Nominator's rationale: "False ghost" seems to have one of two meanings. The first is a ghost that does not exist (with the accompanying implication that any ghosts not in this category do exist or may exist); categorisation on the assumption that paranormal entities exist goes against WP:FRINGE. The second seems to be related to photographic distortion (blurriness, tricks of light/dust, and so on); the two articles in the category do not seem to be related to any photographic issue. More generally, the articles do not seem to be distinct in any way from any of the other members of Category:Ghosts. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:25, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge per nom. The phrase "false ghosts" is probably an oxymoron to some. At first I was thinking the articles would be about ghost hoaxes, a la Scooby Doo. However, I agree with Black Falcon that there does not seem to be a distinction between these two articles and the other ghost articles. I'm wondering if the category was also depopulated because I do not see any article about camera lens distortion (which may be a reasonable categorization, but perhaps is already found elsewhere).-Andrew c ^[talk] 15:21, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge: No demonstrable purpose for this subcategory at all. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 01:50, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge per nom. No need for this category unless you can prove any ghosts aren't false. Wryspy 05:19, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge. Significant original research would be needed to make Wryspy's proof, so no need for the category at all. --lquilter 15:56, 30 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 upmerge to both Category:Coiners and Category:South African designers. Kbdank71 15:12, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uperge into Category:Coiners, there are only 5 of these. Or at least Rename to Category:South African coiners. -- Prove It ^(talk) 16:24, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge per nom. Johnbod 23:58, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom's 2nd choice; 5 is enough, and Wikipedia's young age suggests this number will grow over time as more numismatists write more biographical articles. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 11:10, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the parent category of Medallists were in fact coiners too, as the pages explain. Johnbod 14:31, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question: I don't understand the point you are trying to make (it doesn't seem to be a reply to what I said, and I also don't understand the relevance to the larger discussion). Can you clarify? — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 00:28, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The 5 coiners you & Proveit mention could be greatly expanded from the parent category of Medallists, most of whom did some coins too. Johnbod 02:29, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge to both Category:Coiners and Category:South African designers. Somebody may then want to propose merging Category:Coiners with Category:Medallists. - Fayenatic (talk) 22:21, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support double upmerge here, but not coiners and Medallists. Johnbod 22:39, 30 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 No consensus to rename. See also Disc golf. - jc37 13:11, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:American disc golfers to Category:Flying disc players

Nominator's rationale: With only two known flying disc player articles in all of Wikipedia, there is clearly no justification for game-specific much less country-specific subcategorization of a non-existent category. New name is consistent with parallel category names (Category:Flying disc tournaments, Category:Flying disc games) — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 15:03, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion is directly related the one immediately below. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 02:39, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep "American" part, no opinion on the rest. The sportspeople-by-country system is completely established, and should not be broken here. Personally, I think "Disc golf" is the name of the sport, but others may disagree.--Mike Selinker 04:40, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kbdank71 15:40, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to "keep 'American' part": Disagree; "X by Y" categories, of all sorts, are only used when there is sufficient need for them. In particular, please note WP:OVERCAT#Intersection by location: "[L]ocation may be used as a way to split a large category into subcategories. For example, Category:American writers by state" (emphasis added). Nothing at all is being "broken"; there are no other (i.e. non-American) flying disc player biographies, ergo no rationale for this level of categorization nitpickiness. The other matter: "Disc golf" is the name of a specific game in the larger flying disc sphere, the entire topic of which has and probably will continue to have very few articles (and there is no evidence I've ever seen that players of disc golf are not also usually players of guts, etc., ergo no rationale for this performer-by-performance style subcategorization; cf. how Category:Pool players is not subdivided into cats for players of nine-ball, eight-ball, etc.; the players overlap too much for such hairsplitting to be meaningful in any useful way). — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 05:00, 27 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 No consensus to rename. And someone could justifiably propose to move the article back to "frisbee" per Talk:Flying_disc#Frisbee_.3E_flying_disc. And noting that even the article itself notes that they are commonly called frisbees. Feel free to make Category:Flying disc a category redirect to Category:Frisbee, if wanted. - jc37 13:05, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Frisbee to Category:Flying disc

Nominator's rationale: There is no Frisbee article (it is a redirect to Flying disc), and contents of category is flying disc material in general, not Frisbee™-specific for the most part (to the extent any of it is, it still fits in the new category name). New name is treating "flying disc" as the name of a discipline not a term for an object (thus the singular adjectival instead of plural noun, not unlike "equestrian", "creative" as used in the design industry, "chiropractic", etc.; this "nouning" of adjectives (cf. "plastic") is not tremendously common, but clearly acceptable in unusual cases; Category:Flying discs would be marginally acceptable though). Before anyone says "no, it should be Category:Flying disc games", that more adjectival category already exists as a subcat for specific-game articles like Guts (game). — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 15:03, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Everyone has heard of a frisbee, but "flying disc" was new to me & would have conveyed nothing out of context. Surely they have lost their TM exclusive rights, as Hoover and Biro have (in the UK anyway)? I forget the name of the process once everyone uses the term, some rights cannot be protected. Johnbod 15:49, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response: The process you are thinking of is trademark genericization, and no it has not happened to Frisbee, which remains a US registered trademark. Furthermore, the governing bodies of flying disc, both in the US and internationally, all use the term "flying disc". WP:IDONTKNOWIT does not militate against this rename. ;-) — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 22:11, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom, but keep the old name as a cat redirect to help reduce confusion. The term "Frisbee" may still be a valid trademark, but if so, it's holding on by the skin of its teeth. I don't think any of the frisbees in my house are actually Frisbee^TMs. Maybe one. Who checks? :) Xtifr _tälk 10:07, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Works for me. But, trademark genericization isn't that simple; it takes far more than common parlance usage (else Kleenex and many, many other brand names would have lost trademark status), especially the issuance of competing products under the former brandname and no or only token attempts by the trademark holder to legally defend the mark. :-) — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 05:16, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep let's keep things where people expect them rather than use purple prose, so frisbee redirects but Hula hoop (also trademarked) doesn't. I would more recommend a move from flying disk to frisbee than this proposed rename. Genericization of trademarks - like trademark rights in any event - is jurisdictionally dependent: in the USA, aspirin is generic but not in Germany. I have heard that Hoover is generic in the UK but couldn't find a reliable cite to it, but I've heard it used generically for "vacuum cleaner" or as a verb "to vacuum" from my UK friends, so it's practically impossible to have perfect non-trademarking of articles, categories that complies worldwide so let's leave well enough alone. Carlossuarez46 06:28, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Given that the only rationale yet offered against rename was alleged trademark genericization, I have to observe that further deflating that rationale as jurisdiction-limited and thus of little relevance, is logically an argument for not against the rename, despite your leading with "keep". PS: There isn't anything "overly extravagant, ornate or flowery" about a simple description like "flying disc" (what could possibly be simpler, really?), so it does not qualify as purple prose at all. PPS: There appears to be no generic term for "Hula Hoop", so the comparison is not apt and the Wikipedia naming situation dissimilar. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 05:16, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Carlossuarez46. What is wrong with using the name that is still in common use to describe all of these flying objects? Vegaswikian 21:04, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Because it is a registered trademark for a specific brand (which in fact is not the major brand when it comes to professional competition, but only for what people play with in their back yards), and the governing bodies of the sport do not use that term; thus it is triply (or trebly, if you're British) inaccurate and inappropriate. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 05:16, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to generic name per nom. Are category redirects necessary? Do enough people type: Category:xyzlkadf into the search window to justify that? Neier 23:22, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not really about searching (though I do search for categories pretty regularly). It's for editors. If there's a cat redir, then there won't be redlinks when people try to use the category, and people won't be tempted to recreate the duplicate category. A bot cleans up cat redirs by moving articles to the target cat. Xtifr _tälk 12:16, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kbdank71 15:39, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep not all frisbees are discs. Not all flying discs are frisbees. Flying saucer anyone? 132.205.44.5 23:23, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply I'm unaware of any heptagonal Frisbees, but so what? If someone considers Wham-O's Frisbee product line significant enough for an actual article, they can write one and add mention of any unusual models, a trivial factoid. The term "flying disc" is a standardized sporting term used near-universally within that sport, so the fact that it might conceivably have other meanings to someone is irrelevant (esp. given the ((Catmore)) at the top of the category page, which would serve any such hypothetically needed disambiguation purpose). One might as well argue that "baseball" is too confusing a term because golf, beach and other balls can be found on military bases and therefore could be considered "baseballs". PS: It would be perfectly appropriate, if there were a large number of flying saucer articles, to have a Category:Flying saucers under the UFO category, and I find it hard to credit that any disc golf or guts players would come around and complain that it was too confusable with Category:Flying disc! — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 05:16, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply I'm surprised you've not seen annular frisbees. The article mentions the chakram, which is not a disc. There's also the pie plate frisbies mentioned in the article, which are discs, but are also frisbies, not from the TM holder. flying disc is a term used in association with flying saucers, which frisbee is not. As for sport, is this a sport category, or a more general frisbee category? Concerning your facetious baseball remarks... there's hardball baseball and softball, and variants of standard baseball using things other than MLB type hardballs. Perhaps you should look up football, as in Australian, American, or soccer. Or hockey, as in indoor, roller, ice and field. Perhaps it should have a sports subcategory called flying discs for what is used in _sport_. 132.205.44.5 18:39, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: You're really grasping here, giving an impression that you are arguing simply for the sake of arguing (not unusual for unregistered users that show up in XfD discussions). A flattened ring is in fact a disk, with a hole in the middle of it (cf. "disk jockey"). I don't know why you mentioned the chakram, since it is also a ring, so you are attempting to make the same point twice but with the appearance of making two points. The article classifies it as a flying disc for purposes of that topic, so unless you change consensus at that article that the chakram, Aerobie, etc., should not be so classified, your geometric particulars discussion is of no relevance to this CfR. Frisbie Pie Company plates are not Frisbees, though they have been used as flying discs for outdoor gaming purposes (i.e. your point supports the rename, despite your efforts to have it do the opposite). There is no evidence[1] that "flying disc" is regularly used in the discussion of UFOs, and this point was already addressed anyway. The fact that there is more than one kind of baseball is irrelevant as there is no dispute with regard to baseball categories. The fact that there are some terms, such as "football" that are too ambiguous to be used as unqualified category names is even less relevant, since that is demonstrably not the case here (see external URL linked to above). I do not understand your last point, since Category:Flying disc would in fact be a sub or sub-sub-category of Category:Sports, as the current category already is; no one suggested recategorization, only a rename. Anything else? None of your points seem to me to be substantive, and none of them address the arguments for the rename. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 01:49, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply you're talking baseball, since you introduced it. Flying disc is somewhat common in UFO (disk+disc and UFO gets about 60,000 ghits ; disc+disk -UFO gets about 400,000 ghits ; a 1:7 ratio) A disc is _not_ an annulus. The chakram is mentioned on the flying disc page as an example of a flying disc, which it isn't, since it's not a disc, it's an annulus. If the category for flying discs also deals with flying rings, it's an inaccurate description. (ofcourse a chakram isn't a frisbee either). So flying disc is not nonexistant in dealing with UFOs, and is only at a 1:7 disadvantage on dealing with UFOs or not. [2] [3] [4] [5]. However when you look at FRISBEE alone [6] there's 2.6 million ghits, while flying disc alone [7] only offers 280,000 ghits, roughly a 9:1 ratio. [8] flying disc and frisbee offers 111,000 ghits. 132.205.44.5 21:58, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully final reply: "There are lies, damned lies, and statistics." — Mark Twain. You are abusing Google hit statistics to present a false argument. If one actually looks at the results that come back from google searches for "flying disc UFO" one sees that most of them that are not about toys and other non-UFO false-positives, that the phrase is used descriptively, not as a term of art or jargon. There is no support for the position that "flying saucer" and "flying disc" are synonymous in UFOlogy, much less that its usage is so common as to make "flying disc" too ambiguous for a sport category name. Your other points have already been addressed in detail and you are simply repeating yourself, in particular you failure to recognize that while geometrists would label a flattened torus an annulus, in general English usage a disk with a hole in it is still a disc. PS: Some very basic logic: Just because I mention baseball in a syllogism does not mean that any possible contruction you can come up with that mentions baseball will necessarily be relevant; yours was not relevant. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 01:02, 1 October 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 delete. Kbdank71 15:02, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: I have slightly mixed views about this category; on the one hand it is arguably a useful collaborative grouping, but on the other it is clearly a controversial statement that (if it was made in the text of the article) should properly be supported by a cited authority. Pushing it down into a category allows the allegation to be made without supporting authority, and that strikes me as an uncomfortable position. It would be a bit like (although much les extreme than) having a category called "suspected tax cheats" or "unethical corporations". I am by no means 100% sure it should be deleted, but I think a discussion needs to be had. --Legis (talk - contribs) 13:43, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Haliburton and General Electric still have the main company registered in the US, although like every other multinational we can be sure there are many offshore shell companies in the group (I know for a fact in the case of one of the two). The others have the "Ultimate Holding Company" to use the technical term, registered in Bermuda, etc. Really the category ought to be renamed and restricted to these, as say Category:Multinationals with offshore holding companies or similar. Johnbod 14:53, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Agree that fuzzy issues also arise on when one looks at different parts of the corporate tree. Most large companies (which might be in Wikipedia) will tend to be publicly listed, which means that the top company will more normally (although not always - Hutchison Whampoa is incorporated in Bermuda, TNK-BP in the British Virgin Islands) be located onshore. On the other hand, if one goes too far down the tree (speaking as an offshore lawyer), almost every major multinational utilises offshore companies at some point in its structure as part of either its tax or liability structuring. --Legis (talk - contribs) 18:26, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kbdank71 15:35, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non defining. Listify if we need to keep track of these. Vegaswikian 02:26, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete offshore is vague, shell is vague, and ultimately this distinction is not defining. Carlossuarez46 22:11, 28 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 Category:Human powered vehicles to Category:Human-powered vehicles. - jc37 13:15, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Human powered vehicles to Category:human-powered vehicles

Nominator's rationale: Rename, hyphen is included in related articles and in the group template. Chris Cunningham 15:19, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Should not a rename use a capital H? Onnaghar ^{talk ! ctrb} 16:20, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The two are logically equivalent in English Wikipedia, so it doesn't matter. Chris Cunningham 17:37, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Human-powered vehicles, which already contains 19 entries. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:45, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Rename (merge really)~~ to Category:Human-powered vehicles per Black Falcon & Onnaghar's points, and nom's rationale. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 11:15, 27 September 2007 (UTC) Update: Speedy rename as a typo fix. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 11:15, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename, these are "vehicles powered by humans", not "powered vehicles that are human". GregorB 17:49, 30 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 Delete - jc37 13:16, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - overcategorization. People can and do work for a variety of employers in the course of a career. Especially problematic for entertainment companies as it is likely to end up containing articles for people who appeared on NBC network shows and the like. Otto4711 14:13, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Johnbod 14:14, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; I regard Category:People by company as generally valid, but this is being used as Performer by performance. -- Prove It ^(talk) 17:04, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unnecessary article. Don't categorize people by every job they've ever held. Wryspy 18:21, 29 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 Keep (no consensus to rename). Incidentally, "current convention/standardisation" is trumped by most common name nearly every time. - jc37 13:20, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Road movies to Category:Road films

Nominator's rationale: I like the term movie a lot more believe me. But I find it ridiculously silly that this category is called "Road movies" while the rest of categories have films in their name and not movies, I say, rename. TheBlazikenMaster 13:46, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*NOTE: I think nom means to rename from the current Category:Road movies TO Category:Road films Johnbod 13:56, 26 September 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Note on NOTE: Rendered moot by heading fix. "Tag & nom seem to be in opposite directions" comment below also resolved by this. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 14:22, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep at Category:Road movies, the current name and univeral term. ~~Tag & nom seem to be in opposite directions.~~ (fixed) Consistency can be overdone, and should not over-ride actual terms in use. The main article - surprise, surprise - is at Road movie & has no chance of being changed. Johnbod 13:54, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per johnbud, adding that the material is clearly notable. --Buridan 15:03, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to standardize usage of "film" terminology. In response to Johnbod's argument, disaster film used to be disaster movie (the category "disaster movies" was renamed to "disaster films" as well). The road movie article could easily be moved to road film, but that's a discussion for another time. The alternative phrasing, such as "road movie" having its roots in Road Movie by Joseph Strick, can easily be explained in the article. There's no inconvenience that would occur as a result of the category standardization. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:18, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another note: "Road film" is not a nonexistent term, as apparent from a Google search. There are more results for "road movie", but I think that the outside usage of "road film" in combination with standardized category names warrants the renaming. Like I mentioned there's no inconvenience or confusion that would be caused. Nothing needs to be suppressed at road movie (I suppose some cross-discussion is warranted here), as it can begin with, "Road films, popularly known as road movies, are a film genre..." —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:28, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename Category:Road movies to Category:Road films per the convention of Category:Films by genre. The word "movie" is virtually never used in titles anymore; the main article is film, and movie is a redirect to it. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 15:28, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Johnbod, currently it matches the main article Road movie, a standard term. Road films is currently a category redirect to Road movies, and thats just as it should be, everyone finds what they are looking for. -- Prove It ^(talk) 17:16, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is standardization; we have [[Category:XXXXX films]] across the board, and it's reflected that "road film" has been used outside Wikipedia. There's no reason to give "road movies" special treatment to excuse it from standardization. The redirect can easily be switched, and the standardization would be advanced another step. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:33, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a big fan of standardization but we've been through this before, and I'm ok with the decision of May 23rd. -- Prove It ^(talk) 22:37, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment All the people's reasonings make no sense at all. I have looked on Wikipedia for a long time, and I have seen many articles in fact VERY many articles that have one thing in common with this one: Most of them have movie more common term than film, why should this be any exception? Makes no sense to me. TheBlazikenMaster 22:24, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per the greater use of "film" over "movie" on Wikipedia - • The Giant Puffin • 08:49, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all keep reasoning above and in previous CfD already cited above. Consistency is nice, but it should not be enforced at all costs. Only a film student would say "road film"; the general public uses "road movie". — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 11:19, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By that logic, we should have every article be called (19XX movie) or (20XX movie), since the "general public" uses "movie" instead of "film" ("Let's go to the movies," "Movie night every Friday," etc). It's not a compelling reason to avoid standardization, and it's not going to do any harm because the subject is still identifiable, and the popular term "road movie" can be discussed in the actual article. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 12:42, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Strenuously disagree; I and many others prefer the term "film" in most contexts; I (personally; can't speak for anyone else) usually use "movie" only with "B movies"; if it has any art or class at all, I call it a "film". More to the point, though, I was trying to convey that "road movie" is a term of art, a genre name that is well-accepted and -documented, and "road film" is not; cf. "film noir" vs. "movie noir" (in the opposite direction of terminological conventionalization, but illustrating the same point). I hope that was clearer. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 14:26, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're still not making any sense. It's very nonsensical that this is the only thing left out (not including parts of real titles) your point is useless to me. I hope you will read the comment I made and reply to that particularly. Oh and I really think a lot others are well documented and well accepted, but guess what? They are still have films in their names instead of movies. Road movies is nothing special, it's just another genre. TheBlazikenMaster 18:13, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Being especially useful to you in particular is not among my goals. I did read your comment, and did not find it substantive, as others' objections have already addressed it, to the extent it raises anything that can be addressed, consisting as it does mostly of a vague assertion which fails to address the term of art/genre name point raised by myself and others, and histrionic invective. Lots of heat and noise, but no mass. To the extent this category name is an issue at all, it can be resolved with a cat redirect for those who would prefer utter uniformity in category names at the expense of terminological accuracy. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 01:00, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not especially useful for me, as you're assuming, I did never say it was. I just find it pointless that this is the only genre not named films. I really want others to be called movies, but I don't get why this is the only one that has the name movies instead of films. So stop assuming I find it extremely useful, it's not true at all. TheBlazikenMaster 15:58, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(PS: I apologize if I sounded like arguing when I was pointing out that I don't find it extremely helpful)

Keep. The genre is always called "road movie". Category:Monster movies was kept, based on the same reasoning at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 September 29#Category:Monster movies. Crazysuit 02:44, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, nice find. But I'm still very confused. It's very hard for be to understand why one genre has a name completely different from others. TheBlazikenMaster 15:58, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's one of the few genres that isn't referred to as an adjective (such as horror, comedy, drama, thriller, crime, etc). No idea what the etymology is, but no one ever referred to this genre as "road". Road movies and monster movies are the exception to the rule. Crazysuit 20:25, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I admit I was wrong for nominating this. But it still confuses me why this is any exception. I mean, I don't hear every day someone calling Bad Boys II or other action movie an action film. In fact I haven't heard that in a real long time. TheBlazikenMaster 23:59, 29 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. Kbdank71 15:00, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Far too broad a category with already a Defunct literary magazines of Australia category - the others could be placed in other categories Satu Suro 04:25, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge to Category:Defunct literary magazines per nom ~~without prejudice to creating Category:Defunct literary magazines of Asia. I think a category for magazines of "the Pacific" is somewhat suspect/ambiguous~~. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 04:44, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I think the Australian defunct magazine category is already there in the larger field - I would be cautious about making blanket regional categories for what is such an idiosyncratic cultural anomaly SatuSuro 04:51, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I did not find a category for defunct Australian literary magazines but you're probably right that 'Asia' may not merit a separate category at this time. Still, since the 4 articles in the nominated category are defunct literary magazines, I think upmerging to the parent category is preferable to deletion. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 04:56, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies - Category talk:Defunct magazines of Australia - Having worked extensively on the Indonesian project - I believe the notion of Asia is not useful for such a phenomenon to have such a category - the seperate languages and cultures are such I would not group anything over the region -Satu Suro 05:01, 26 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 to Category:Regional airline brands. If there are any articles that no longer match the category, they can be removed. Kbdank71 14:59, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Over categorization. What exactly is a sub brand? These are companes used to provide a common name for commuter/regional service by major airlines and are not marketing brands. Vegaswikian 02:47, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Are these in fact companies? None of the articles I looked at say so. I expect their legal forms are Joint ventures or just operating agreements. They are certainly marketed separately, so are marketing brands. Having said that, whilst Go! is a true sub-brand of one airline, the others are group brands & I'm not sure if "sub-brand" is correct current marketingspeak for these. Johnbod 03:12, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Go! is an actual airline and not a brand. It is owned by an airline holding company and not another airline. US Airways Express is a subsidiary of US Airways Group and it even owns two airlines that operate flights under this name! Clearly not a sub brand. Vegaswikian 05:26, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If kept, at least rename to ~~Category:Airline brands~~ Category:Regional airline brands which is used in the template ((Airlines of the United States)). The current cat is a capitalization nightmare. Vegaswikian 18:22, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I have looked at several of the articles, and this category appears to a collection of at least two different types of entity:

Airlines: Go! (airline), a subsidiary of Mesa group; Midwest Connect, operated by Skyway Airlines, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Midwest Airlines (Skyway operates only as Midwest Connect);
Joint ventures/contracted-out services, such as Continental Connection, which is a label under which other airlines are contracted to provide services marketed by Continental Airlines

I'm not sure what labels would be best, but it seems to me that this category is currently using a rather poor label to group together some rather different things. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:13, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To both, the company site (referenced in article) seems to confirm what the article says, that Go! is a "division" of Mesa Airlines Inc, not a "company" per Vegas or "subsidiary" per BHG. But we now seem too be agreeing on the wider point. Johnbod 13:12, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so the category is also ambiguous. Vegaswikian 00:13, 27 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 14:52, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename Category:"African Jazz" musicians to Category:African jazz (genre) musicians
Rename Category:"African Jazz" musicians by instrument to Category:African jazz (genre) musicians by instrument
Rename Category:"African Jazz" pianists to Category:African jazz (genre) pianists
Rename Category:"African Jazz" saxophonists to Category:African jazz (genre) saxophonists

In general, categories should use punctuation marks only when they are part of a name (e.g. Category:'N Sync albums). The (genre) portion is included to avoid possible confusion with a category for jazz musicians from Africa and per precedent. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 00:35, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom: the (genre) solution was used in a previous discussion. Bencherlite ^Talk 00:43, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom and precedent. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:22, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename - per nom. Onnaghar ^{talk ! ctrb} 16:20, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy rename per nom; this is basically just a typo fix per the speedy criteria in my view. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 11:24, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. "African Jazz" is not a genre in the Jazz infobox. Please note too that the link to African Jazz in the definition on the category page is actually a redirect to the article on South African jazz. Unless there is clear justification and definition of "African Jazz" as an actual genre, there will just be confusion with the already existing geographical categories (for example Category:South African jazz pianists) AllyD 17:29, 29 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.

September 26

Category:Lee Yeongdo

Category:Asshole

Category:Muslim Holocaust deniers

Category:Atheist Holocaust deniers

Category:Modern pseudepigrapha

Category:Religious texts claiming Jesus went to Egypt

Category:Buildings and structures in Boston

Category:Neue Österreichische Welle

Category:Defunct Shopping Malls in Calgary

Category:Neue Österreichische Welle interpretes

Category:Interpreters

Category:FAO experts

Category:PHP programming language

Category:Jewish comedy

Category:The Music

Category:False ghosts

Category:South African coin designers

Category:American disc golfers

Category:Frisbee

Category:Companies operating from offshore shell corporations

Category:Human powered vehicles

Category:NBC Universal employees

Category:Road movies

Category:Defunct literary magazines of Asia, Australia and the Pacific

Category:Airline Marketing Sub-Brands

"African Jazz" musicians