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 no consensus. the wub "?!" 18:35, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Categories named after films (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Not useful. Trivial. Wiki reflection. And not accurate - three of the cats subjects were originally novels, and one was a stage play. SilkTork *** SilkyTalk 23:03, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Meta type categories are not needed. Timrollpickering 23:14, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Meta type categories are needed. As this category has no articles, and is only designed for categories, this is effectively an umbrella nomination of the categories inside it. If any of the individual categories are examples of over-categorisation, please nominate those separately, or at least add this CfD notice to the categories there. Carcharoth 00:14, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• This is in no way an umbrella nomination for all of the subcats. Saying so is very misleading. Otto4711 02:29, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• "three of the cats subjects were originally novels, and one was a stage play" - that sounds like an umbrella nomination to me. If you look closely, the parent (here) and grandparent (below) of the cats have been nominated for deletion. Once those are gone, the next step will be the categories. For what it is worth, the category named after one of the books already exists: Category:The Lord of the Rings, though I must admit I added the LotR film category to this category after the nomination opened. I know taking stuff out of categories is not good practice during a CfD, but is adding stuff acceptable? Carcharoth 03:13, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is not mentioned anywhere in policy etc, and is ok - I often do it. Johnbod 11:21, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Adding things to categories is fine. I still think that your assumption that all of the subcats here are included in this nom or even will be is unwarranted. I did nominate the one for Hairspray but would've done that regardless. This nomination is about this category only, not the subcats, which will not be deleted should this nom be approved. Otto4711 12:52, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The nomination is purely for the cat under discussion. The assumption that the subcats are included is erroneous. The statement is that the cat itself is inaccurate in terms of its naming and scope because the cat includes subcats which are not named after films because some of the subcats are named after novels or plays. To correct the error perhaps the cat could be renamed Category:Categories named after films, novels, plays, etc. If the intention was to create a category which held subcats of films then that already exists: Category:Films. SilkTork *** SilkyTalk 14:07, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is just a clunky category title. My point is that if this category is deleted, the subcategories will be left without parent categories, and so will need to be upmerged to Category:Named categories, and if that is deleted, they will need to be upmerged to Category:Categories. Anything else, such as putting the subcatgories in Category:Films would show a fundamental misunderstanding of how categorisation works. I realise the category structure is not a tree structure, but there is no justification for putting categories of article related to films, in category of articles about individual films. The two are conceptually distinct. For example, someone might put Category:Magazine editors in Category:Magazines, but this confuses individual magazines with the wider topic of the business or industry of publishing magazines. Magazine editors are clearly not magazines, though they do edit magazines. The solution is to have a parent category, Category:Magazine publishing, into which you put both Category:Magazines and Category:Magazine editors (well, actually, it is a subcategory of Category:Magazine people). Do you see what I am saying here, and how it relates to this CfD? I'm saying that these eponymous categories form their own branch in the category tree, and chopping off the roots (the parent categories) is not helpful. Carcharoth 13:54, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Carcharoth is right--this would amount to a major reorganization, and probably not a desirable one. DGG (talk) 06:06, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete but keep the subcats. I'd say that, if the categories are in need of a parent cat, they're better off in categories like Category:Science fiction films, Category:American films, and so forth. >Radiant< 12:00, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • That would be miscategorisation. The categories you name are for articles about individual films, and for subcategories containing articles about individual films. These eponymous categories are broader in scope than this, and should go in a topic category. Compare Category:Film and Category:Films. Do you see the difference? The subcategories of Category:Categories named after films could go in Category:Film, but not in Category:Films. This is a crucial point, and I really hope people understand this. Think of eponymous topic categories as something in between a "see also" list and a portal. If the categories were very big and had lots of subcategories, you could have a portal on, for example Star Wars. In this case Portal:Star Wars exists. Now, compare Category:Star Wars films (a category for article related to the films) and Category:Star Wars (ie. a category for any and all articles related to Star Wars - not just the films). For the record, the films are in Category:Star Wars episodes, a subcategory of Category:Star Wars films. Here, it should be Category:Star Wars (and not Category:Star Wars films) that is in Category:Categories named after films, and I've changed it accordingly. For the Lord of the Rings example, the film category is distinct from the book category, and it is the film category that needs to go here. Carcharoth 20:59, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete but keep the subcats per Radiant. Carlossuarez46 16:44, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Carcharoth. We have numerous "categories named after X" categories, and Carcharoth has provided a clear and reasonable explanation why those categories exist, and has fully rebutted all the delete arguments so far. No substantive arguments have been offered why this category alone among "named after" categories should be deleted. If nothing else, this should be part of a broader nomination. (As a side note: getting rid of "meta" categories would require pretty much revamping Wikipedia's entire category system from the top—Category:Categories, a metacategory itself—on down.) Xtifr _tälk 12:16, 8 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 no consensus to delete, but rename to Category:Eponymous categories seems appropriate. the wub "?!" 22:28, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Named categories (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete - although admittedly I'm not coming up with a super-strong reason beyond that the category just seems kind of odd. It seems like the subcategories can reside elsewhere (Categories named after companies in Cat:Companies for instance). If kept, there must be a better name than this. Technically all categories are "named" categories. Otto4711 22:04, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, unless a good reason for it is produced. If kept "Name categories" would be (slightly) better. Johnbod 22:09, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Meta type categories are not needed. Timrollpickering 23:11, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then perhaps we should get rid of Category:Categories and most of it's subcategories as well? I don't think you'll find a lot of support for that idea. Xtifr _tälk 09:54, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Eponymous categories. There are good reasons to have meta-categories like this. They help to organise subject areas while articles are being written and improved, and when enough information-rich content has been produced, they can either remain as well-developed categories, or become portals. Think of them as part of the process of developing the article in a topic area. The nominator's comment: "It seems like the subcategories can reside elsewhere (Categories named after companies in Cat:Companies for instance)" is a fundamental misunderstanding of how this category structure works. Read Category talk:Categories named after people for more on this:

  "The articles on people should be placed in Category:People, but the categories named after people shouldn't be, because they include more than just people (they include books, pets, buildings, and so on). Categorising categories is different from categorising articles. When we categorise a category that has a name similar to that of an article, we shouldnt' categorise the category as if it were the article, but we should think about what is inside the category, and categorise the category on that basis, not on the basis of the 'name' of the category."

  Similarly, 'categories named after companies' shouldn't be in category 'companies'. Rather, there is a "See also: Category:Companies." at the top of the category. This is a softlink, maintaining links between related categories, but without miscategorising them. Carcharoth 00:02, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Carcharoth again is right, and based on what I know about classification in general, he understands the principles of categorization. The overall arrangement of supercategories is tricky--and, unless there is very good reason to think that a major improvement will result, it should probably not be done at all. If we want to work with categories , there are certainly enough practical problems to deal with, without upsetting the entire system.DGG (talk) 06:11, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom - all categories are named. Carlossuarez46 16:45, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Eponymous categories per Carcharoth, as the current name is obviously causing too much confusion. I'm not actually convinced that an eponymous category doesn't belong in the category of its main subject, despite the fact that it may technically appear to miscategorize some of its contents. But that's beside the point—we do still need an umbrella category for categories like Category:Categories named after people in any case. Xtifr _tälk 09:43, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Eponymous categories. That name at least means something.--Mike Selinker 15:40, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, though it seems to me to be less a problem with this category, and more with its daughters. Tewfik^Talk 22:45, 11 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 keep. the wub "?!" 18:39, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Film studies journals to Category:Film magazines

Nominator's rationale: Wikipedia:Overcategorisation#Mostly_overlapping_categories The "Film magazine" cat can accompany all articles within "Film studies journals". It's a subtle and awkward distinction, as most notable film magazines will carry a certain amount of content that could be termed "film studies". SilkTork *** SilkyTalk 21:58, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep These are not overlapping, one is a subset of the other. But given that of all types of magazine, most film magazines are among the least academic, the distinction needs to be preserved. This category is in the academic journals tree, which the other could not be.Johnbod 22:13, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I understand your thinking, but having two such cats would possibly require a certain judgment to be made as to which cat a magazine belongs. Who would make such a distinction? It might fall foul of WP:OC#Subjective_inclusion_criterion - or perhaps a better criterion could be drawn up for inclusion or exclusion in one cat or the other? Cahiers du cinéma and Cineaste (magazine) are in Category:Film magazines, but not Category:Film studies journals - is there a reason for this? And, if we wished we could break down the cat into fan magazines, technical magazines, independent film magazines, etc. There has to be a point at which we say we are splitting a cat down too finely - and I think this is probably a good example of that point. SilkTork *** SilkyTalk 23:26, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment There will always be a handful of individual articles that have a fine divide, but having a single category covering all film related periodicals ranging from scholary journals in the academic discipline of film studies to enthusiast & fan magazines with a very different scop is going to make things even worse. Timrollpickering 23:38, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Those two should probably be moved, and maybe some moved the other way. Only leaving four (suggested below) seems excessively strict to me - I don't see peer review as essential (I doubt Cahiers du cinéma has any truck with such a concept) but I don't think the distinction is too hard to make, for those who know the publications. Johnbod 01:33, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep per Johnbod. Timrollpickering 22:28, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but tidy. Only about four of the current articles are genuine, peer-reviewed journals. Others are better in the magazines section. But as other have said, a clear distinction can be drawn between Quarterly Review of Film and Video on the one hand, and Empire (magazine) at the other end of the spectrum. Different readers, different authors, different circulation, different business models, and, if you look inside them, different content. Carcharoth 23:48, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Johnbod & Carcaroth; there are certainly Wikipedians in the Film project (and elsewhere) who can supply and accurate description for each category. Her Pegship (tis herself) 23:58, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. separating the different types of periodicals is tricky and we will probably have a good deal of duplication, but this isnt the place to do it. there are multiple types of magazines, and I the subject people need to sort this out. DGG (talk) 06:13, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. - for better or worse Film Studies is a field in itself. AllyD 22:24, 9 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 keep. the wub "?!" 18:44, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Living people to Category:Living persons

Nominator's rationale: This is the correct title as each article is about a specific, discrete living person, rather than, for example, articles about how people in general live or live together, and conforms to the naming of Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. —Centrx→talk • 18:04, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. Timrollpickering 19:00, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. It's a child of Category:People by status (where all the sub-categories use "people", not "persons") and a grandchild of Category:People (where the only category to use "persons" is Category:Biography of living persons). With the general usage of "people" in those categories, I don't see that a rename of this category is needed, and certainly not in isolation. If consistency really is needed with BLP, then it would be easier to rename BLP so that it uses "people". Bencherlite^Talk 19:09, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where appropriate, those should be renamed as well. Although, Category:People includes articles and other categories that are not about specific persons, such as Category:Social groups; with them, it is more appropriately titled "People". Also, there is no problem with easiness, category renaming is done by bots. The purpose of consistency with BLP is to be consistently correct, not consistency for consistency's sake. —Centrx→talk • 01:34, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. No need for this semantic change. Article about how people live together comes under Category:Sociology. Carcharoth 23:49, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Articles about individual living persons, though, belong under Category:Living persons. The need is to be accurate and unambiguous; the issue is not whether there is presently an actual conflict with Category:Sociology or Category:Anatomy; the example I originally gave is to distinguish between the meaning of "people" in general or without specificity and the specific, individual "persons" that fall under what is properly named Category:Living persons. —Centrx→talk • 01:34, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose rename -- I don't see that there is really any ambiguity created here. I can't believe that editors get confused when categorizing a living person in Category:Living people, just because the living person is not a group of people. In my brand of English, the plural of person is people, and Category:Living persons just sounds odd and highly marked. I appreciate the need for correctness in categories, but I don't think there is anything wrong here. I think it would be much worse to move this category to a non-intuitive name because people will not think to look for it there. LeSnail 01:50, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I agree with LeSnail, the plural of person is people. -- Prove It ^(talk) 04:32, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The plural of person may be either people or persons. The former is much more common; the latter is essentially legalistic in use or at least semantically pedantic, and there seems to be no compelling reasons to change the majority of a nested hierarchy of article names where there can be no reasonable misunderstandings by English speakers. Let's devote our attention to more important revisions. Citizen Sunshine 06:46, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - Just a bad idea. Besides, "people" is the standard term at Wikipedia; here are a few examples: Category:People from Virginia, Category:Surinamese people by religion, Category:People working in public safety and (most relevant) Category:People.--Esprit15d 18:54, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose "People" is an acceptable pluralization of "person". Personal preference is not a good enough reason to change it. As already has been pointed out, changing it would require changing many other categories' names for the sake of consistency. Ubi Terrarum 05:01, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - AMbot has told me that it would like to perform this task in an attempt to close the gap on Cydebot. AMbot is authorized to perform approximately 100,000 edits per week if it doesn't take any breaks. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 16:16, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LOL! And then Cydebot will do the renaming back to Category:Living people after the (very lame) deletion review? :-) Carcharoth 19:51, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Inane pedantry. No compelling case to rename. Quatloo 15:42, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose: not only excessive pedantry, but incorrect pedantry. "People" is (one of the) plural(s) of "person". The category contains people. Each one is a person. Yes, "living persons" would also be correct, but I see no reason to change from one correct name to another. As for articles about groups, if you want to be pedantic, those should be in Category:Peoples not Category:People. As for the issue of consistency with BLP: I'd rather rename that than rename thousands of Wikipedia categories, which would result in horrendous confusion and frustration among thousands of Wikipedia editors. Xtifr _tälk 10:11, 7 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. The list is better. the wub "?!" 19:12, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Nominator's rationale: Invented term. Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Non-defining_or_trivial_characteristic SilkTork *** SilkyTalk 15:19, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete both for the reason offered by nominator and/or Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Unrelated subjects with shared names. I might have suggested listification, but there's already a list at Hollywood-inspired names. Xtifr _tälk 00:35, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

p.s. the existing list is actually more comprehensive, since it has "holly*" as well as "*wood". Xtifr _tälk 09:32, 5 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. Though DGG is correct that the guideline does not require the pre-existence of an encyclopedic article on the intersection, merely the potential for one, he appears to be the only user claiming there could be one. Most others disagree (including apparently keep !voter Eliyak, in hir comment at 19:49). Eliyak's earlier claim that being a "multi-national ethnic group" is enough for such an intersection is not supported by precedent or the relevant guidelines. the wub "?!" 20:01, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Jewish lawyers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete Non-notable intersection that plays on stereotypes, much like "Jewish bankers". Do we have categories for "Hindu doctors" or "Irish-American police officers"? szyslak 14:36, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not a notable intersection. Timrollpickering 15:14, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Since Jews are a multi-national ethnic group, this intersection is notable enough. The examples given are straw men. "Irish-American police officers" is of course, a triple intersection to which "Jewish-American lawyers" would be comparable. "Hindu doctors" characterizes people by religion, while Jews are also an ethnic group. --Eliyak T·C 15:43, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • So this intersection is notable because it is large? Size has nothing to do with the notability of an intersection. szyslak 10:06, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. —Eliyak T·C 15:49, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment ...all religions can be classified as ethnicities. If we went by that, we'd just have trivial lists of people by every occupation.
• Keep per above--יודל 17:08, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment do the same argument apply to all the categories in Category:Jews by occupation? Jon513 16:02, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • No; as stated by the link I posted below, an article has to be written on the subject (Not just a list). Some things, like Category:Jewish philosophers, are valid because there is a legit article on said subject.

perhaps the same might even be said of Category:Jewish comedians but Category:Jewish architects, Category:Jewish actors and Category:Jewish journalists certainly don't have an article. I am concerned that this category is only being nominated because it "plays on stereotype" not because it deserves to be deleted any more than the other categories in Category:Jews by occupation. We will be left with a situation that will be a category for every Jew by occupation except those that are most common (or at least more stereotypical). Jon513 14:47, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete see Non-notable intersections by ethnicity, religion, or sexual preference. I fail to see how law practice and Judaism make a connection. Irk _{Come in for a drink!} 18:01, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I don't agree that "all religions can be classified as ethnicities", and they certainly aren't on wikipedia. Kappa 21:39, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see where the "keep" argument is. szyslak 10:06, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • So this is sorting by ethnicity/occupation not religion/occupation. Kappa 23:40, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • And we don't generally sort by ethnicity or religion, so I also fail to see where the keep comes in. Xtifr _tälk 00:38, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • So why don't we sort by ethnicity/occupation? Kappa 20:58, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep there can perfectly well be an article on this one also--I think its enough to say that if an article could be reasonably written about the subject as the criterion. DGG (talk) 08:55, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: The issue of whether "all religions can be classified as ethnicities" has no bearing on this issue. I'll phrase the question in another way: Is there anything special about being both Jewish and a lawyer? In regards to the other subcategories of Category:Jews by occupation, I think a good number of them will have their own day on CFD. szyslak 10:06, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there anything special about being an American meteorologist, or most of the other cross-sections seen at Category:American people by occupation? The unique identity of that category does not stem from any special relationship between America and meteorology, but from the fact that American meteorologists are a component of American society. The same argument applies here. --Eliyak T·C 19:49, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, because those are meteorologists who do their primary work in such a country (And meteorology is not the same in all countries). There's a difference between something, such as Jewish activists, where people try to spread knowledge and awareness about Judaism. I, and others, fail to see what being Jewish has to do with law practice. Irk _{Come in for a drink!} 00:34, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • So according to Category:American people by occupation is not really sorting by nationality but by location. I think that will come as a surprise to pretty much everyone - an American who does their metereology somewhere else doesn't belong in that category at all? Kappa 21:07, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per nom and WP:OC. Otto4711 01:42, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Non-notable intersections by ethnicity, religion, or sexual preference. (See also: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day). IZAK 14:06, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Irk, szyslak, and others; nonnotable intersection. --MPerel 15:52, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per the above. Not every ethnicity or religion has a cross-section with professions that is actually relevant. >Radiant< 12:01, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as OCAT and trivial intersection. Carlossuarez46 16:47, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Yossiea ^(talk) 17:00, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• So how are Jewish lawyers going to be categorized? If they are American they go in Category:American lawyers and Category:Jewish Americans, and if you don't care that they are American, that's tough luck, right? Kappa 23:00, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Non-notable_intersections_by_ethnicity.2C_religion.2C_or_sexual_preference. Wryspy 07:16, 9 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 and rename to Category:Hong Kong sports teams. While there wasn't as much discussion as I'd like to see, I believe this is a fairly clear example of WP:CSD C2.4.-Andrew c ^[talk] 22:28, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Sports teams in Hong Kong to Category:Sports teams of Hong Kong

Nominator's rationale: Merge, Obvious candidates for merger. The "of" name is consistent with other subcategories of Category:Sports teams by country. DH85868993 14:26, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and rename Category:Hong Kong sports teams to be consistent. SilkTork *** SilkyTalk 23:07, 3 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.--Mike Selinker 20:26, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Botanical journals to Category:Botany journals

Nominator's rationale: To fit the naming of other subcategories of Category:Journals by subject area. Carcharoth 11:11, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. Timrollpickering 11:23, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Looking further, the only categories that have adjectival names are Category:Scientific journals; Category:Academic journals; Category:Medical journals. But all these are based on actual articles: scientific journal, academic journal and medical journal, so they are the proper way to refer to these. I wonder how botany should be treated? Carcharoth 11:25, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per nom and usual usage. You can easily see why no-one uses "Physical Journals", "Chemical Journals" or "Biological Journals" Johnbod 12:07, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to closing admin. I was confused by "per nom", but Johnbod has confirmed on my talk page that this is a keep vote. My reasoning was that I was tagging articles with Category:Botany journals and was getting redlinks when I previewed. It was only after investigation that I realised I needed to type in Category:Botanical journals. This is why consistency is needed in category names. Carcharoth 12:35, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. --Bduke 12:11, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. LeSnail 13:03, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So are we going to go to "Medicine journals" and "Academia journals" then?? Johnbod 14:01, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hope not, as should have been clear from my comment above. As I said above, the terms medical journal and academic journal are established outside Wikipedia (as in the phrase "peer-reviewed, academic journal"), and the alternatives you mention are not. 'Science journal' and 'scientific journal' is about 50-50 (Nature is commonly referred to as a science journal), so I am less sure in that case. Carcharoth 14:12, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and this nom only concerns the botany journals category. Any others will be dealt with in a separate CfD. This was to test the water and see if anyone opposed this sort of naming convention in principle. And the test has worked. Would you like to contribute over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Academic Journals#CfD nomination, where there is some pre-CfD discussion in progress? If something can be decided there, then thing might go more smoothly back here at CfD. Carcharoth 14:16, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. Google Scholar "botanical journal" - 8,430 hits [1], "botany journal" - 444 hits [2]. It seems you were just not familiar with the established phrase, which can't be helped I'm afraid. Johnbod 14:18, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

True, but it is important to remember that this is a category, not an article. My reading of this is that the phrase "botany journal" is also widespread (look outside Google Scholar - Wikipedia is not written for academics). There is nothing wrong with having Category:Botany journals with the introduction "This category is for academic journals on the topic of botany." Anyway, use Google Scholar to look for "journal of botany" - 174,000 hits. Where does that leave your argument now? Googling to decide a category or article name is dodgy at the best of times. I still maintain that Category:Botany journals is the simplest way to keep the category names uniform, rather than requiring each discipline to decide on what is the best name for its categories. Carcharoth 14:53, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Journal of Botany" is the title of one of the world's leading botanical journals American Journal of Botany and the title of a journal containing current and major research by one of the world's leading botanists Australian Journal of Botany so I'm guessing it contains quite a few hits even on google scholar. It doesn't matter. There won't be consistency, either, if you go by most frequent, because in English the adjectival is sometime more commonly used, and the noun at other times. KP Botany 19:03, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that, KP Botany, that's a good point. I think the same argument would apply to "botanical journal" as many leading botany journals have the name "Botanical Journal of...", such as Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society. In my view, the point still stands that "botany journal" is a perfectly valid way to refer to these journals. Do you have an opinion on whether "botany journals" is an acceptable way to refer to a category of such journals? Carcharoth 21:19, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Change I think the main point is parallelism with other subcategories. The =lain noun rather than the adjective is always the simplest unless a special use exists. DGG (talk) 08:57, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep, although, just to add to the confusion, I'd like to point out that List of botany journals opens with the line "The following is a list of botanical journals". I will say A) I'm not a botanist, and yet B) "botanical journals" sounds better (much better) to my ear. Maybe it's a regional thing? Anyway, I find the argument for consistency a bit tenuous when the category is not consistent and nobody actually wants to make it fully consistent. Further, both terms are widely enough used that I suspect someone will be confused no matter which name we go with. (Certainly I would have expected to find "botanical" and would have been lost if it were currently at "botany".) Simply creating a category redirect from Botany Journals to Botanical Journals might be the easiest way to satisfy everyone (more or less). The reverse would also work, although it seems like a lot of database updates for little reward. Xtifr _tälk 10:31, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, it only requires 24 edits to move the articles from one category to another. About as many edits as have taken place in this debate, so not really a lot of database updates compared to some categories. Carcharoth 00:21, 8 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. The question to where wasn't exactly agreed upon. I will use Greenshed's suggestion because it had support, and make sense to me. But because editing categories in articles does not take sysop tools, anyone who disagrees can boldly go and recat Bonn however they like. If further discussion is needed, please discuss at Tak:Bonn, but hopefully the question of "where to upmerge" won't be controversial. -Andrew c ^[talk] 22:22, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Settlements established in 12 BC (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge. In line with recent deletions of too-specific by year categories for older settlement establishments, this should be merged into its parents Category:Settlements established in the 1st millennium BC and Category:12 BC establishments. Grutness...wha? 09:21, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Upmerge per nom. The article says "in about 11 BC" anyway! Johnbod 12:40, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Upmerge per nom. I suggest to Category:Settlements established in the 1st century BC as per discussion at Category talk:Settlements by year of establishment and the recent cfd mentioned above. Greenshed 08:19, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And add Bonn to Category:10s BC establishments as well. Greenshed 10:12, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Upmerge per Greenshed, we don't need to put the 11BCE's with the 970BCE's, a little more gradation is better. Carlossuarez46 16:50, 6 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. the wub "?!" 20:06, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:University of Wales, Bangor to Category:Bangor University

Propose renaming Category:People associated with the University of Wales, Bangor to Category:People associated with Bangor University

Propose renaming Category:Academics of the University of Wales, Bangor to Category:Academics of Bangor University

Propose renaming Category:Alumni of the University of Wales, Bangor to Category:Alumni of Bangor University

Nominator's rationale: Rename all The University of Wales has just undergone a transformation in it structure and the individual insitutitons are undergoing name changes. This one is now Bangor University and the main article has been renamed. The categories need to follow suit. Timrollpickering 09:02, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename all per nom. Bencherlite^Talk 09:06, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understood from the news item that the University of Wales is continuing to exist. It is just that the constituent universities now are independent and have their own degrees. To quote "The university plans to still be accrediting and validating degrees, while also continuing to have a role in research and protecting and promoting the language and culture of Wales". It appears that there will be still be a body called the University of Wales and Bangor etc will remain associated with it. It could also be argued that people who have degrees awarded by University of Wales, Bangor or even University College of North Wales still have degrees awarded by that university and so remain alumni of it whoever awards present day degrees? --jmb 09:33, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is precedent for renaming university categories after a name change: see here. The alternative is that we have two (or, as you point out, even three) parallel/overlapping category structures with some category clutter e.g. Guto Puw would be in Category:Academics of the University of Wales, Bangor and also Category:Academics of Bangor University since his teaching career there straddles the change-over. You're right to say that the name of the institution on old degree certificates won't change, but alumni will get their reunion invitations from Bangor University in the future, not UWB – so in that sense, they are Bangor alumni anyway. The category text can also explain that it includes those who taught/studied at the university under its former names. Bencherlite^Talk 09:44, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename all per nom & Bencherlite, with notes added to the category pages to aid the perplexed. Johnbod 22:33, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename - I understand that the constitutent colleges of the University of Wales are all describing themselves in this way, so that the old names are still formally correct, but "University of Bangor" etc. are used as working names. (Or am I out of date?) There is no reason why WP should not do so as well, but the old name should survive as a redirect. Peterkingiron 23:02, 4 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. the wub "?!" 20:13, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Aussie Millions Winners (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete - similar to other recently deleted poker tourney winners categories. The article on the tourney carries a complete list and there's also a navtemplate so the category isn't needed. If retained it should be renamed Category:Aussie Millions winners to conform to correct capitalization. Otto4711 06:21, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Otto. LeSnail 12:57, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 16:50, 6 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. the wub "?!" 20:15, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Lists of authors by language to Category:Lists of writers by language

Nominator's rationale: Rename, "writer" is more general than "author", and many of these are poets, playwrights etc. Kappa 00:55, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- all of whom are still authors. Why bother? Keep Change to Weak rename per LeSnail, as consistency issue now explained, which Nom did not mention.Johnbod 00:06, 5 September 2007 (UTC) Johnbod 01:28, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak rename -- It is a subcat of Category:Lists of writers, and Category:Authors is a redirect to Category:Writers, so it doesn't matter much, but I think the rename would be a slight improvement because it systematizes the names somewhat. LeSnail 12:57, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Basically agreeing with Johnbod's two word assessment, but also observing that writer has some (admittedly peripheral) meanings that author doesn't: for example see Writers to the Signet in the Scottish legal profession (which you also see in 19th century census returns) or the Naval meaning noted in Writer. AllyD 17:03, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Well can we rename Category:Lists of writers to Category:Lists of authors then? Category:Writers to Category:Authors ? Kappa 12:10, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - lists of this kind are useful where they have red links, indicating articles that may be needed, but care needs to be taken that they do not become unmanageably large. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peterkingiron (talk • contribs) 23:08, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename for consistency. I don't have a real preference for "writers" vs. "authors", but consistency, especially in categorization, is almost always a good thing. Xtifr _tälk 00:42, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename for consistency. Timrollpickering 08:15, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename for consistency. Carlossuarez46 16:51, 6 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.