< August 10 August 12 >

August 11

Category:German Communists opposed to the Third Reich

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename all. Kbdank71 13:32, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:German Communists opposed to the Third Reich (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Red Orchestra (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Rename to Category:Communists in the German Resistance and Category:Red Orchestra (espionage), respectively. When I first saw Category:German Communists opposed to the Third Reich, I thought to myself, "Why would we need such a category -- surely, ALL German Communists were opposed to the Third Reich?!" So this category really only makes sense if it's for people who were in the Resistance. As for the sub-cat, Category:Red Orchestra, the rename will be consistent with the name of the main article, Red Orchestra (espionage). Cgingold (talk) 23:49, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Robot categories

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: No consensus on Theraputic and Ecological. Rename Category:Artistic robots to Category:Artistic and performing robots, Category:Biomimetic robots to Category:Biomorphic robots, and Category:Robot caused deaths to Category:Deaths caused by industrial robots. Kbdank71 14:04, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Ecological robots (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Rename the following categories:
Category:Biomimetic robots (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Therapeutic robots (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Robot caused deaths (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Artistic robots (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Cgingold (talk) 22:50, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • To begin with, Wiki Category names are not restricted to the sometimes overly jargonistic names that may be in use in particular academic or technical fields. "Biomimetics" is not at this point a commonly understood term for non-specialists -- and more importantly, I also think that it doesn't adequately convey the salient characteristic of the sorts of robots in the category: namely that they resemble animals. They are, thus, "Animalian" -- a term which does, in fact, encompasses humans and insects, as well as other animals. Cgingold (talk) 00:01, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, Wiki Category names are not restricted to the exact names or phrases that may be in use in particular academic or technical fields. Other factors are also important -- in this case, I think it would be very useful to expand the category as I've proposed, especially since Category:Therapeutic robots is rather small. Alternatively, we could I suppose set up Category:Medical robots as a parent for both Category:Therapeutic robots and Category:Surgical robots -- but I think this option would only make sense if there are other potential sub-cats that could be added. Cgingold (talk) 00:13, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Both of the articles currently in this category are about musical performance robots, which was not what came to mind when I saw the category name. If there are articles about other types of "artistic" robots that can be added to the category, then I would suggest renaming it to Category:Artistic and performing robots. Cgingold (talk) 00:21, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have no objection in principle to this category, but as things stand it has just one article, so it falls short of what is generally allowed for "free-standing" categories. But if you can find other articles to expand the contents I would be more than happy to withdraw this nomination. Cgingold (talk) 00:26, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Both of the deaths in question were caused by industrial robots, which is the specific parent cat that I added. If you prefer, we could certainly rename to Category:Deaths caused by industrial robots, instead of "robotic machinery". However, we don't create categories for hypothetical events, such as possible future deaths caused by "self-aware" robots. Cgingold (talk) 00:30, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Robotics is an academic field, and the decisions here should consider the vast literature involved. While I appreciate the efforts of the nominator to improve robotics-related categories (WP:ROBO desperately needs active actors), I don't think the changes suggested here follow this general principle. --Jiuguang (talk) 23:03, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for doing that, Jiuguang - you beat me to it. Cgingold (talk) 00:05, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Excuse me, but I really think you need to read through my comments more carefully -- and with an open mind, if that's possible. "Dumbing down"? That's pretty silly, and way off base. Other than my concern about the term "Biomimetic" -- which I believe is a bit off-target, in any event -- I can't even see anything that would have prompted that comment. Cgingold (talk) 00:38, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, sincerely appreciated. Cgingold (talk) 02:36, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, according to Bionics, "biomimicry or biomimetics is more preferred in technology world in efforts to avoid confusion between the medical term bionics". There's also biomorphic robotics, but I picked "biomimetic" since it is more popular - see [4] and [5]. --Jiuguang (talk) 01:06, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: the ensuing discussion on this specific topic has been moved to the end of this section. Cgingold (talk) 02:24, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You can't easily disentangle category names from their place in the category structure. Whether or not another similarly-named category exists or is a parent or a subcategory will often play a decisive role in determining whether to delete, rename, or merge a category. Seriously — now I have to go back and reconsider my positions, because some of the changes have already been made. But, whatever ... often requests like this are little more than pro forma wastes of breath. ... (... yes, I recite aloud while typing ...). Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:44, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think you've overlooked the name I proposed in my reply to your intitial response -- Category:Artistic and performing robots -- which nicely encompasses the range of robots that are now in the category. Feel free to adjust it in some way if you think it can be improved -- but the current name will be seen by most readers as referring to visual arts/artists. Cgingold (talk) 02:45, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, two points - 1) the new name doesn't account for Roblog and other composing systems..short story, poetry, etc. 2) "artistic robot" has, in fact, been used in literature: [6] (also has nothing to do with visual arts, if I might add). --Jiuguang (talk) 02:59, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm really puzzled by your first point: seeing as "Artistic robots" is a narrower term than "Artistic and performing robots", it clearly covers (or "accounts for") a smaller variety of robots, NOT a greater variety. On your other point: The mere fact that you came up with a reference to the term "artistic robot" is actually irrelevant -- because what we're trying to do here is to devise a category name that properly describes and conveys to readers what they will actually find in the category. Just because the word "artistic" can be used in different ways, that in no way negates the fact that most readers will understand the term "artistic robots" to refer to robots which are "artistic" in the most common sense of the word, i.e. "displaying skill or talent in the visual arts". They're not likely to infer that it's actually intended to include "poetic" or "musical" or "literary" robots, etc.
    Having said all of that, it's less clear than ever which of these words (other than "musical") can properly be used in this Category name. I've removed Roblog from the category, because it simply isn't a robot of any sort -- it's a blog produced by a robot. (I did, however, add it to Category:Artificial intelligence applications.) The robot that produces the Roblog is the AIBO -- but unless I'm missing something, I just don't see how that fact qualifies it as "artistic" in any sense of the term. As for the ASIMO robot, I could not find anything at all in the article describing its "artistic" capabilities. Can you tell us what it does? Cgingold (talk) 13:18, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry - I thought performing was an art (Performing arts). Isn't having both terms redundant? As for ASIMO, see the dance videos here. --Jiuguang (talk) 13:25, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some mention of that info needs to be added to the ASIMO article to support its inclusion in the category. With respect to category names, it's important always to bear in mind that the words we choose can be understood differently by different readers, depending on the context. When the word "artist" is combined with adjectives like "musical" or "performing", etc. it will be understood in its broader sense. But when it's used as a stand-alone term without any of those adjectives, for most readers it will revert to its "default meaning", with the connotation that it refers to a person who works in the visual arts. By broadening the name of the category to Category:Artistic and performing robots we are also clueing readers in to the fact that the word "artistic" is being used in its broader sense. Now, it's possible that that name can be improved upon in some way, but so far nobody has suggested anything better. Cgingold (talk) 14:04, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's a pretty convincing argument - I'm semi-sold. Let's see what the consensus is. --Jiuguang (talk) 14:13, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Great, glad to hear that. Please don't forget to add that info you noted above to the ASIMO article, Jiuguang. Cgingold (talk) 22:28, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is both generally the case, & especially so on WP, where there is a convention that "art" and "artists" (but not "the arts") mean the visual arts only. Johnbod (talk) 17:22, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • How do you feel about "Category:Artistic and performing robots", Johnbod? Cgingold (talk) 22:28, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, I've softened as the articles added make it clear that there are a lot of artists using robots in some fashion, though we can be certain all intellectual property rights to the work produced are retained by the artist! Johnbod (talk) 22:34, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your last point would be more accurately phrased as "Cgingold appeared to suggest that biomimetics is an 'overly jargonistic' term." My only concern was that it's a bit too jargonistic as an adjective in this particular category name -- and to reiterate, it doesn't properly convey the most salient characteristic of those robots -- their resemblance to animals. On the other hand, assuming that there were enough articles available to populate such a category, I wouldn't have any problem at all with a Category:Biomimetics, since that is a well-recognized field. Cgingold (talk) 22:33, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Really?? -- I'm surprised to hear that (re the proposed merger). All the same, I think your suggestion re Category:Bionic robots is very interesting and worth serious consideration. I would agree that it's a much better known term. I'm not sure if it's the answer or not, but it certainly helps move the discussion forward. (And all of your constructive comments are a very welcome change from your earlier remarks!) Cgingold (talk) 23:04, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, part of the problem was that when you reply, you end up inserting your own comments into other people's earlier comments, which made it really hard to follow everything when you suddenly try to read everything. - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ contribs 23:17, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, Jameson Tai, I may not have been clear enough -- that last remark referred strictly to your first comment, only. Cgingold (talk) 00:36, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, according to Bionics, "biomimicry or biomimetics is more preferred in technology world in efforts to avoid confusion between the medical term bionics". There's also biomorphic robotics, but I picked "biomimetic" since it is more popular - see [7] and [8]. --Jiuguang (talk) 01:06, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Seeing as it's been such a distraction, I suppose I would have been better off leaving out that short remark I added on about the term not being commonly used outside of the field. On the other hand, it's curious that there's no Category:Biomimetics to be found. All the same, my principal concern is that it seems slightly off the mark, given that the common feature of the robots in question seems to be that they resemble animals. "Animalian" was the best I could come up with at the time, but I am certainly open to a another term that conveys the same point. Cgingold (talk) 02:30, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've just seen Category:BEAM robotics, newly-created and added to Category:Biomimetic robots by Jiuguang. It seems to me (based on a quick assessment) that the two terms refer to pretty much the same thing, conceptually. Is there a distinction to be made? At the same time, I still feel that the biomorphic robots in Category:Biomimetic robots are a distinct group deserving its own properly-named category. However, I'm not sure that "biomorphic robots" is satisfactory, as few readers will grasp that it refers to "robots that resemble animals". Cgingold (talk) 03:12, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The BEAM robotics category exists because we happens to have a series of articles on the subject - it just seemed like the natural to do. While BEAM is conceptually different from its parent category, it does exhibits similar characteristics. So yes, there is a distinction, and no, the categories shouldn't be merged. --Jiuguang (talk) 12:42, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And to your other points - the phrase you are looking for is "biologically-inspired systems". This a very broad category (you can have a robot with only parts derived from biological systems), and the biomimetic category is specifically for robot resembling their biological counterpart as a whole. You still haven't convinced me that "animalian" includes humans and insects, though. I also cannot find the word in my Oxford dictionary app. I don't like coining new terms like "animalian robots", and I can only support this if you can show (please provide sources) that 1) the scope as described above and 2) that the use of the phrase "animalian robots" is popular culture (I'm willing to let go of the academic use). I don't think you can show me either of these items. --Jiuguang (talk) 12:42, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(Note: While you were replying here, I was responding below. :) Leaving aside the biomimetics/BEAM question, I think we can make some progress here. I know it's hard to keep track of everything, but please do note that I've already said that I'd be happy to find a term other than "animalian". Since you find that word objectionable, let's simply drop that line of discussion entirely, and focus on coming up with a term (other than "biomimetics") that best describes the sort of robots that are currently in that category. Would you agree with my statement that these are "robots that resemble animals"? If so, I would think that we could devise a name that clearly conveys that essential point to the readers. That's basically what I was aiming for with the word "animalian" -- I just didn't happen to hit upon the right word. Cgingold (talk) 13:41, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. So there are currently two articles in this category that are not animals - FlyTech Dragonfly and Entomopter. I'd like a category that describes biologically inspired robots that resembles humans, insects, or animals. I like biomimetic/biomorphic robots since they receive more Google hits, as mentioned above. But I'm open to suggestions. --Jiuguang (talk) 13:57, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As I pointed out before, humans and insects ARE animals, so that's not an issue here. All we really need is a readily understood term that expresses this notion to the readers. Cgingold (talk) 14:13, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
By your logic below [now above - CG], animal usually refers to mammals like dogs, cats, etc, while insects are referred to separately. This name also doesn't address plant-type robots like this. --Jiuguang (talk) 14:26, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, Jiuguang, but I honestly haven't a clue what you're referring to when you say, "By your logic below." In any event, it's simply not the case that the word animal "usually refers to mammals...". On the contrary, it is well understood to encompass all of the animals in the "animal kingdom", including insects, birds, reptiles -- and humans. That's just standard usage. On your other point, we don't even have an article about "plant-like" robots, so that's purely hypothetical. So I still would like to come up with a name for these "animal-like" robots. Hmmm -- there's a thought. It's not really what I was looking for, but what do you think of Category:Animal-like robots? I was hoping to find a word akin to "humanoid", but I suppose we could do worse. Cgingold (talk) 22:28, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I meant that below [now above - CG], you wanted to distinguish visual arts and other type of arts, when here, you don't want to separate the various animal types. I suppose that our understanding of other's perception for the use of the word "animal" is different, and I can drop that point. But since you insisted that the category names must reflect the articles already on Wikipedia, I created the article flower robot - now would you agree that "animal-like" no longer covers the topic? --Jiuguang (talk) 00:23, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have a problem with that. I mentioned before that I picked "biomimetic" since it is more popular - you get about 3x Google hits with biomimetic, and it is academically recognized (see the IEEE conference here). But if the consensus is to go with biomorphic, sure. --Jiuguang (talk) 14:11, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:UK SCUBA diving sites

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename. Kbdank71 13:31, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:UK SCUBA diving sites to Category:Underwater diving sites in the United Kingdom
Nominator's rationale: Rename. The parent category is Category:Underwater diving sites, and presumably these sites can be used for forms of diving other than scuba. (? not that I'm an expert on this subject, though ?) Also use the full name of the location. Notified creator with ((subst:cfd-notify)) Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:19, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Files that are public domain in the United States but not public domain in country of origin and that must not be hosted on Wikimedia Commons

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 August 24. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:46, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Propose renaming Category:Files that are public domain in the United States but not public domain in country of origin and that must not be hosted on Wikimedia Commons to Category:Files that are not in the Public Domain in their country of origin
Nominator's rationale: Current name is wayyyyyyy too long, rivals Longcat maybe, but we should be more concise with these things. ViperSnake151 20:57, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any particular reason why details like that couldn't be placed in a usage note on the category, or its talk page, instead of in such an insanely long category name? Bearcat (talk) 08:26, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
After looking at this more closely, there are the two templates ((PD-US)) and ((|tl|Do not move to Commons)) which take care of those tow issues, so no, there is probably no reason to leave that in the category title. But then again, I can't imagine anyone wanting to browse images that are public domain in the US, but not in the country of origin, and don't copy to commons. So renaming seems pointless. Changing to delete. --Kbdank71 17:33, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You have no idea how much of a problem this is. Commons deletes most files on sight not PD in country of origin, and tracking the issue can be hard. While they have developed a movebackbot to deal with the problem (file deleted at local wiki and on Commons, so not useful anywhere) I think warning people BEFORE they move the file is an utmost priority. I do not think categorizing the files (especially if the cat name were hidden) is outside our maintenance goals. -Nard 07:32, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Districts of the United States

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. Kbdank71 13:26, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Districts of the United States (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: There is only one district in the United States. Category is nonsensical. epicAdam (talk) 20:36, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Districts of American Samoa can be left as their own category if it's really necessary (there are only three), but I can't see how the overarching category is needed as there are no first-order districts of the United States besides Washington, D.C. There is also a separate category, Category:Subdivisions of the United States, that is all-encompassing and makes the need for a separate category just for "districts" unnecessary. -epicAdam (talk) 22:01, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Persons who have been cloned

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge. Kbdank71 13:23, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:Persons who have been cloned to Category:Cloning
Nominator's rationale: Overcategorisation - small with little or no potential for growth, at least for the next few months/years. If kept, consider renaming to the shorter title of Category:Cloned humans. –Black Falcon (Talk) 20:39, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Benjamin Zephaniah

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:Books by Benjamin Zephaniah. Kbdank71 13:24, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Benjamin Zephaniah (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Eponymous overcategorisation for a person (see Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Eponymous categories for people). All of the material (the main article and two articles about publications) is adequately interlinked from the main article and via ((Benjamin Zephaniah)). –Black Falcon (Talk) 20:32, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:User:The Twenty Thousand Tonne Bomb

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: being discussed at WP:UCFD. –Black Falcon (Talk) 20:25, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:The Twenty Thousand Tonne Bomb (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Pointless category, really. Also fails WP:OWN - "This is my own category".  Asenine  19:12, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
"The deletion, merging, or renaming of user categories is discussed on this page"(WP:UCFD). I would assume that the two pages are separated because mainspace and user categories have different inclusion guidelines. - Icewedge (talk) 19:30, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Politics about the military

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename. Kbdank71 13:23, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Politics about the military to Category:Military sociology
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Please see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history#Renaming_of_Category:Politics_about_the_military. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 16:25, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Georgia-related categories

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename all. Kbdank71 13:22, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from WP:CFDS at this point.

  1. U.S. states don't compete at the Olympic Games. There is a Georgia at the Olympics article.
  2. UNESCO designates World Heritage Sites for countries, not for U.S. states. Our categorisation scheme follows this.
  3. U.S. state of Georgia doesn't have monarchs, kings, presidents, nor prime ministers.
  4. Same applies for Catholicoses and Patriarchs, or have you seen Georgian Orthodox Church in the U.S. state of Georgia (sic!)?
--Darwinek (talk) 11:20, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Agree entirely with rationale provided by Darwinek above. No possibility of confusion between Georgia (country) and Georgia (U.S. state) in these instances, so renaming superfluous, over-pedantic, and cumbersome. Think about what the outside reader is going to type in the search field. Incidentally, I would think that the umpteen separate "Olympic" articles for Georgia could be usefully merged into one. --Zlerman (talk) 11:29, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re specific arguments above. Re #1: U.S. states don't compete at the Olympic Games, but an American from Georgia who participates in the Olympic Games could plausibly be described as an Olympian of or from Georgia. The potential for some confusion exists, especially on the part of the uninitiated who are unaware of the finer details of Olympic teams and participation. Re #2: So you're suggesting that it's impossible for a UNESCO World Heritage Site to be "in" the U.S. state of Georgia? I find that fantastic and obviously nonsensical. Re #3: actually, in the history of the area we call Georgia in America, there have been monarchs and kings that have ruled over the territory. Categories are not temporally limited to the current state of affairs. Re #4: The Georgian Orthodox Church is not the only church body that uses the terminology of "patriarchs" and "catholicoses", and yes, some of these churches exist in the U.S. state of Georgia. It's not beyond the realm of possibility that a person could be a "patriarch of" the U.S. state of Georgia. Re in general: I'm also not aware of any U.S. highways in the country of Georgia, and yet we have Category:U.S. Highways in Georgia (U.S. state). There's quite a body of consensus where it's been agreed we just use the disambiguating term for the placename "Georgia", regardless. Otherwise we have endless debates like this in which there are plausible arugments on either side. It's easier just to have a standard rule, in my opinion, which is what criterion #6 has accomplished. Good Ol’factory (talk) 11:31, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As for now you are the only one supporting this move. Let the community decide this nomination. Personally I think U.S. Highways category that you mentioned, should be renamed too. - Darwinek (talk) 11:40, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, there is ample precedent to back up my position, and speedy criterion #6 supports my position. In other words, I don't have to demonstrate consensus the rename; you (or the community, I should say) have to provide a strong consensus to not follow criterion #6. Right now it's the default naming pattern when "Georgia" is used in a category name. Good Ol’factory (talk) 11:43, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: I just noticed that some of the Olympics categories (medallists, etc.) use "for", while the majority use "of". Is there really any reason not to use "of" for all of them? Cgingold (talk) 13:22, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to be a naming convention that is in use for all countries competing at the Olympic Games. - Darwinek (talk) 14:24, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Kashrut

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: keep. As Eliyak points out, these are being used interchangeably. As such, it does make sense to merge them. But that is just my opinion. The masses have spoken, and they want them both. Kbdank71 13:17, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:Kashrut to Category:Kosher food
Nominator's rationale: Merge, "Kashrut" is a lesser-known (to non-Hebrew speakers) term for kosher observance. --Eliyak T·C 09:17, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
More