< August 17	August 19 >

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

The result of the discussion was: Speedy keep and a trout to me. Non-admin closure.

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

Nominator's rationale: According to WP:STUB, this category is deprecated (and by association, I would assume ((stub)) is too. I don't see why it's still around; we've already re-categorized every stub into a proper subcat. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 23:52, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This is, of course, the container category for all of those sub-categories. I think you might want to withdraw this nomination, TPH. That was a rush comment -- it seems that the actual container category is Category:Stub categories. However, I would agree with the comments below. Cgingold (talk) 00:05, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Well, not everyone is a professional stub-sorter. It's only "deprecated" to the extent that disambiguation pages are "deprecated", i.e. that "it is preferable to link to something more specific if you can find it", not that "it should eventually be deleted". Also if I don't point it out I'm sure a dozen other people will... this probably belongs at SFD. — CharlotteWebb 00:11, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This has its uses for articles that are stubs but the tagger does not know what tag to put on the article. This way, someone can put on the tag later who knows where the article should go. Captain panda 00:27, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong and speedy keep. This category is an actively used container for any stubs that have not been further sorted. As such it is likely at any time to have between zero and aboujt two thousand stubs in it. At present, luckily, there are very few to be sorted from it, but check back in a week's time, and the situation is likely to be different. Grutness...wha? 00:46, 19 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.

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 per nom. If it is desired to create North and South American categories and populate those from the new category, be bold and do it.. Kbdank71 13:41, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Rename to Category:Royalty in the Americas. The current name is ambiguous, since "American" is commonly understood to pertain to the United States. (I thought it might refer to Kennedy's, Rockefellers, etc.) Cgingold (talk) 22:42, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Never been too fond of "the Americas", suggest splitting into North America and South America as direct sub-cats of Category:Royalty by continent, and delete. — CharlotteWebb 00:14, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• In most cases I would support that suggestion, but as far as I'm aware, there are no Canadian royalty (and certainly no American royalty). In other words, the only royalty in North America are Mexican royalty -- so I'm not sure it's worth splitting into separate cats. Cgingold (talk) 00:45, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Hmm, I doubt the house of Montezuma or any other royalty predating the conquistadores could properly be considered "Mexican". — CharlotteWebb 01:02, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• True, but they're not included in any event. Have a look at Category:Mexican nobility. Cgingold (talk) 01:51, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Canadian royalty would depend on your defintion of royal, Canadian, Canadian royal, and Canadian royalty... Autumn Kelly is Canadian, and married to Peter Phillips, 11th in line to the throne of Britain. And are heritable tribal cheiftainates royal? 70.51.11.210 (talk) 07:44, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Category:North American royalty/Category:South American royalty (see below) Keep because of the danger of obfuscation as illustrated by the discussion. --Kleinzach 06:53, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Any danger of obfuscation is not solved by making no change. Keeping the current name is worse due to the American=USAian perception. I think using "the Americas" is OK in this sense for the reasons provided, unless you want to go with "New World royalty", but in my opinion that's maybe not as good. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:28, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Category:Royalty in the Americas will be understood as 'European royalty in the Americas' i.e. people like Maximilian I of Mexico. (If on the other hand you mean 'native' royalty you need a different name.) The present label at least avoids that pitfall by being less specific. --Kleinzach 10:21, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Not if American royalty is understood as USAian royalty. Equally bad, if not worse. But if you're that worried about the proposed name, then surely Category:New World royalty is preferable to a straight "keep", or perhaps Category:North American royalty/Category:South American royalty as suggested by CharlotteWebb. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 10:43, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• OK. I've no objection to Category:North American royalty/Category:South American royalty. I'd be happy to support that. (Category:New World royalty would be less ideal as it could be understood to refer more narrowly to post-Columbus, historic America.) --Kleinzach 11:04, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - It's really all the same to me whether this is renamed to Category:Royalty in the Americas or split into Category:North American royalty and Category:South American royalty. As long as it gets renamed, I'll be fine with either of these options. Cgingold (talk) 12:03, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. The current name is simply wrong. If someone wants to break out the various entries into sub categories they can make that decision at any time. It does not need to be decided here. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:39, 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.

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 13:21, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Metros in Japan to Category:Rapid transit in Japan

Nominator's rationale: Merge, "Metro" and "rapid transit" are synonyms, and the dominant naming for all other categories is "rapid transit in..." Currently, the metro category is a child of the rapid transit one. Arsenikk ^(talk) 21:29, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep Merge There's a terminology problem here because of the different ways of referring to underground railways/subways and indeed similar overground transport systems. What are the categories for other countries called? BTW I don't think "metro" and "rapid transit" are synonyms. For example the Haneda monorail would be a 'mass transit' sytem but not a subway/metro. --Kleinzach 22:40, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Note the difference between mass transit and rapid transit. According to the article, rapid transit is a synonym to metro, subway, underground, U-bahn, T-bane etc. "Mass transit" is a wider terminology that refers to urban public transport (and redirects to public transport) while "urban rail transit" is a term used to describe tram, light rail, monorails, rapid transit and sometimes (incorrectly) commuter rail as a collective group. Note that there are no separate articles on subway or metro; these are just local naming conventions given to specific systems—the definition of a metro is identical to the definition of a rapid transit: an urban, electric mass transit railway system, independent from other traffic with high capacity and frequency. Concerning the Tokyo Monorail (aka Haneda) it meets the criteria for rapid transit, and thus also metro. Therefor it is correct to call it either a rapid transit or a metro (as well as a monorail). What it is branded as, or local people nickname, may very between systems—the term "metro" is commonly used to market (incorrectly) everything from buses to light rails. All countries except Japan and India use solely "rapid transit in..." categorization, except Germany, that subdivides into U-Bahn and S-Bahn, both as subcategories of Rapid transit in Germany. At current, metro is a disambiguation page since its dominant meaning is a metropolitan city, rather than a rapid transit; this is why the terminology choice for rapid transit was chosen for the article and the categories (per heated discussion on Talk:Rapid transit. There is an independent categorization scheme for Underground rapid transit systems that parallel includes those rapid transits that has sections underground. There is no top-level category for "metros".
    • Thanks Anon (?) for the long explanation and sorry for confusing 'mass' and 'rapid' transit. It's all very complicated. I don't agree with you about the meaning of 'Metro' re. Tokyo Monorail but I guess this is a usage problem. On the other hand if 'Metro' is a problem word I should probably withdraw my 'weak keep' - so I will do this. Best. --Kleinzach 07:03, 19 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.

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 13:20, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Metros in India to Category:Rapid transit in India

Nominator's rationale: Merge, Metros in India is synonymous with Rapid transit in India—its parent category. Rapid transit is the naming convention for all other categories at national level. Arsenikk ^(talk) 21:19, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. --Kleinzach 22:19, 19 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.

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 13:20, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Rapid transit in Morocco (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: There is no rapid transit in Morocco. The only article in this recently created category was a high speed rail article, something completely unrelated to rapid transit. Arsenikk ^(talk) 21:10, 18 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.

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: relist here. Kbdank71 13:24, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Cultural generations (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete: Redundant to Category:American generations. Katr67 (talk) 17:59, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: It's redundant and its subset of 5 entries are all (now) in American generations, which has 30 entries. It's possible that Cultural generations is a better name for the category though. —EncMstr (talk) 18:18, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Renamerge. This category does duplicate Category:American generations, but "Cultural generations" is a better name for that category, which is not exclusively American.--Father Goose (talk) 21:31, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge Category:American generations to Category:Cultural generations per Father Goose. The new category does indeed seem like a better name, since more places than just America use many of these designations. Many are common in Canada, the UK, NZ, Australia, even parts of continental Europe. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:44, 20 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.

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 13:19, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Australian fashion labels to Category:Clothing brands of Australia

• Category:Chinese fashion brands to Category:Clothing brands of China
• Category:Hong Kong fashion brands to Category:Clothing brands of Hong Kong
• Category:South Korean fashion brands to Category:Clothing brands of South Korea ‎

Nominator's rationale: Rename all. To match the parent Category:Clothing brands by country and several siblings. Otto4711 (talk) 16:44, 18 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.

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 13:17, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Talk pages of the deleted replaceable fair use images to Category:Talk pages of deleted replaceable fair use images

Nominator's rationale: Grammar. Populated via ((subst:rtd)). Almost a speedy, and I could probably just IAR this, but let's do this by the book. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 16:30, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:NIKE, just do it. — CharlotteWebb 00:17, 19 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.

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, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest renaming all the above categories

Nominator's rationale All the above categories are misnamed, they sould be Category:Arizona League Brewers players, Category:Gulf Coast Astros players, Category:Gulf Coast Rangers players, Category:Gulf Coast White Sox players, and Category:Sioux Falls Canaries players to agree with the title of the teams' articles. Jackal4 (talk) 14:50, 18 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.

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 13:36, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest deleting all the above categories

Nominator's rationale All the above categories are misspelled and categories exist with the correct spelling.Jackal4 (talk) 14:50, 18 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.

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. Kbdank71 13:15, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Yahweh to Category:God

Nominator's rationale: Merge, A category "for the Judeo-Christian God" already exists: Category:God. Also, Category:Yahweh is badly named, since Jews and Christians overwhelmingly do not use this name when referring to God. --Eliyak T·C 13:50, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please note the existence of Category:Jehovah.71.108.15.251 06:24, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

• Not aloud anyway. Some will argue otherwise but Category:Allah refers to the same "God" and should by the same logic also be merged, but I think there would be significant resistance to that. Perhaps the best solution might be found in Template:Conceptions of God which deliberately avoids the use of proper names. We already have Category:God in Christianity, so perhaps the best solution would be to use Category:God in Judaism, Category:God in Islam, etc. for these and any other beliefs where "God" is capitalized and unambiguous, following the titles of the articles discussing the role of "God", rather than the name of "God", in each faith. — CharlotteWebb 00:43, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or rename to Category:Tetragrammaton. Certainly not all Christians believe that Yahweh is "God", meaning "God the Father". A fair number of groups believe that Yahweh was the pre-mortal Jesus and that Jesus and "God" are separate individuals. (I suppose the majority of Christians would agree that Yahweh was Jesus but they'd say Jesus is the one-and-only God. Still other Christians say Yahweh and Jesus are separate individuals altogether.) I think CharlotteWebb might be on the right track here, and perhaps that's the way we need to go with future nominations or category creation, but given the current status I'd resist moves to merge either Category:Allah or Category:Yahweh into Category:God. Category:Yahweh should be (and appears to be) limited to articles related directly to the name "Yahweh" as the "name of God", so I don't think it's poorly named at all. It's usage is distinctive from that of Category:God. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:35, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If the category is only for content regarding the tetragrammaton, I would prefer Category:Tetragrammaton since "Yahweh" is a somewhat divisive reconstruction. Both the Yahweh and Jehovah articles define those names in terms of the Hebrew, so an unambiguous reference to it seems preferable. --Eliyak T·C 21:35, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. I'd go for that rename as an alternative solution. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:10, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep -- Yahweh is the Judeo-Christian name for the one God. Allah is the Muslim name for him. There may be other monotheistic religions which would give a different name to God. Which is the true name of God (if not all of them) is a POV matter for each religion. It will be much better to make this a subcategory of Category:God, if it is not one already. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:02, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Tetragrammaton is the Judeo-Christian name for the one God. Yahweh is a possible reading. --Eliyak T·C 14:53, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment using Category:God as the category for the Islamic-Judeo-Christian construct is NN and POV. 70.51.10.69 (talk) 07:54, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • What title do you suggest? Obviously religion-specific proper names such as Jehovah/Allah/YHWH/CeilingCat would be inappropriate for a top-level category. — CharlotteWebb 02:09, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Category:God of religion X with Category:Monotheistic god being the top level category. Using Category:God for IJC presumes that there is no God but God of Islam, Judaism and Christianity, which is not the case, since there are _other_ monotheistic religions. The IJC god is Category:Abrahamic God, since they are the Abrahamic religions. (along with Samaritanism and some others) 70.51.10.38 (talk) 07:45, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Many people use "God" to refer to anything and everything. We have God of Christianity and gods of Hinduism, etc.

I never understood what Mahatma Gandhi was referring to when he said "God" (all transcripts of Gandhi's speeches I have seen use the capital G); was he referring to Vishnu or Yahweh? Was he referring to Brahma? But no Hindu worships Brahma yet Brahma is recognized as a god. Was he referring to Ishvara which isn't what the article claims. Ishvara is an image or idol of Brahma. Was Gandhi trying to trash the many Hindu gods and flush them down the toilet?--71.108.15.251 (talk) 06:20, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename and clarify proper use. There are two clear problems here. 1: As exemplified by the discussion above, people have very different ideas about what a category with this name should be used for. 2: Use of the name Yahweh is regarded as positively offensive by some Orthodox Jews. This is for two reasons, (1) they see it as an incorrect reconstruction of the name, created by Protestant Christian academics; (2) they believe the name of God is not something to be pronounced ever, and in everyday use should not even be written in a form that might be pronounced. This is therefore a completely unsuitable category name for articles on the Jewish conception of God.

Fortunately, however, we already have categories Category:Conceptions of God, Category:God in Christianity, Category:Christian theology, Category:Jewish theology, so this category is not needed in that role. The articles Shekinah and Incarnation (Christianity) are therefore, I suggest, not well filed in this category.

The other articles relate specifically to the letters YHWH in the Hebrew Bible, either on their own; or as part of larger compound words; or in one case (Nissi) a not entirely clear word closely associated with them. In collecting together these articles, the category would be better named Category:Tetragrammaton, as a subcat of Category:Names of God in Judaism. Jheald (talk) 08:27, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"God is not something to be pronounced ever" makes wonder if we have a clear understanding of the theologies of any of the major religions; why do we even have Category:God since there are pantheists (e.g. Johannes Eckhart) who have said that even a flea is God?[1] Category:God is like Category:Widget.--71.108.15.251 (talk) 09:06, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. If you don't mind my saying so, much of the discussion (esp. Keeps) seems to be about whether to keep Yahweh as an article, not about the category. I agree with keeping the article. But the separate category seems implausible. All the listed articles in the category seem to be already sufficiently categorized. HG | Talk 09:39, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator states "A category 'for the Judeo-Christian God' already exists: Category:God." Is that why "Forms of Krishna" is one of its sub-categories. I presented evidence above why a flea would qualify as God. Take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Names_of_God which originates from God.

The best argument for deleting this category and keeping God (God is more vague than Yahweh) is to keep us entertained that folks arguing there is or there isn't the God--nobody worrying about which God. After all, somebody has to sell books and provide some entertainment. --71.108.15.251 (talk) 09:53, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hope that I am not being loquacious. I am not expert on any religion; I sometimes wonder whether the claim that Yahweh is ineffable is a true Jewish tradition. Could be be a Catholic one?"his name is ineffable" Why is Yahweh found all over the Old Testament which I confirm through Strong's Numbers?--71.108.15.251 (talk) 09:59, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. IZAK (talk) 18:52, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename Category:Yahweh (and the redirect Category:Jehovah) to Category:Tetragrammaton which is the correct technical and scholarly name for both the postulated "Yahweh" and/or it's anglicized form "Jehovah", see the Tetragrammaton article to understand this clearly. The nominator's suggestion to merge Category:Yahweh to Category:God is not acceptable because "God" is too broad of a parent category in this case whereas Category:Tetragrammaton would retain Category:Yahweh's uniqueness and specificity in both scholarly and theological terms. IZAK (talk) 18:52, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There aren't a large number of articles in the category, the general subject is otherwise adequately categorized, and I wouldn't recommend have separate categories for variant spellings of the same concept. If kept, suggest combining the variants into Category:Tetragrammaton. Once again the category is different from the article. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 22:55, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per my comment above and Shirahadasha. Policy basis of over categorization, plus it's a POV side (vs Jehovah) for the Tetragrammaton. But note that several articles in the Yahweh category would not belong in Category:Tetragrammaton (e.g., Shekhinah, Incarnation (Christianity)). Thanks for your patience. HG | Talk 03:47, 25 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.

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 13:13, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Articles with example Visual Prolog code (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Basically an empty category at this point; contains only the article Visual Prolog itself, and Comparison of programming languages (list comprehension), which is one of those pointless lists of how to write X in fifty different programming languages. Note that Category:Articles with example Prolog code still exists, although it also looks fairly empty. --Quuxplusone (talk) 08:36, 18 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.

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 13:12, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Mauian royalty and Category:Oahuan royalty to Category:Royalty of Maui and Category:Royalty of Oahu

Nominator's rationale: rename: Per my previous nomination for Category:Royalty of Hawaii (island). Basically, that category has already been renamed from Category:Big Island royalty, and others (Category:Royalty of Kauai and Niihau, Category:Royalty of Molokai) have also been renamed. —Kal ^(talk) 06:49, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename both per nom for consistency. Cgingold (talk) 22:44, 18 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.

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 and per GO, if any article is inappropriately in this category, it can be removed by anyone. Be bold. Kbdank71 13:11, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Cultural lists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: This category is extraordinarily broad and undefined. Many, many lists on Wikipedia must be 'cultural'. The present collection of list articles don't form a coherent group. Kleinzach 05:10, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - While I would agree that the category could stand some serious cleanup, and would surely benefit from a headnote and some additional sub-categories, I fail to see any possible gain from deleting it. Oddly enough, I just made use of it yesterday, adding it as the "other" parent cat for Category:Classical music lists. If it were deleted all of the articles and sub-categories would have to be upmerged to the super-cat, Category:Lists. How would that help anything? Cgingold (talk) 08:00, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. No, I think the articles should be put into specific cats, i.e. down-merged. --Kleinzach 12:16, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• You haven't addressed the issue of the sub-categories which are (sensibly) grouped together in this category. And I've already suggested that additional sub-cats are needed, and that the contents of the category are in need of a cleanup -- neither of which have any particular bearing on the utility of Category:Cultural lists itself. So what is the point of asking for this category to be deleted? Why not just get to work on creating new sub-cats, and cleaning out/re-categorizing the articles that may not belong in this category? Cgingold (talk) 13:34, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• "What is the point of asking for this category to be deleted?" . See Nominator's rationale (above). --Kleinzach 14:19, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Pointing me to your initial statement doesn't answer the question.<sigh> In any event, I've decided to take another approach here -- I found the time to do some cleanup of the category. I replaced the old, unhelpful headnote with a clear and concise note that properly explains what the category is to be used for. I also removed two inapt parent cats, as well as several sub-cats that didn't belong there (those for Seven Sages of the Bamboo Grove, Thirteen Colonies, Thirty Tyrants, and Labours of Hercules), since their contents aren't List-articles. It should now be more readily apparent what purpose this category serves. Please be sure to take a look at the parent, Category:Culture, which similarly groups together a wide array of topics. All that's left now is cleaning out any articles that may not belong in the category. I think that about covers it. Cgingold (talk) 21:44, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I think it would be better to depopulate Category:Cultural lists if you want to keep it as an umbrella cat. --Kleinzach 22:49, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Like I've been saying, articles that are, in fact, misplaced should be removed and recategorized. But please don't simply depopulate the entire contents of the category. Every List-article needs to have a home somewhere in the Category:Lists tree. And everything that pertains to Category:Culture belongs somewhere in Category:Cultural lists, either in one of its existing sub-cats or in a new sub-cat -- or failing that, directly in Category:Cultural lists. Cgingold (talk) 23:16, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• A lot of these lists are Chinese. They really need to be put in appropriate Chinese categories. --Kleinzach 23:27, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• If they're about Chinese culture, they could have their own sub-cat that would belong here, as well. Cgingold (talk) 00:07, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  We have Category:China-related lists, which is already rather well-populated, so I'd say it would make a lot of sense to create a new sub-cat for Chinese culture lists (or perhaps Chinese cultural history lists). Cgingold (talk) 01:45, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, but once again it has to be defined and not left vague. If you are not sure about it then it would be better to put them all in the unambiguous Category:China-related lists.--Kleinzach 02:03, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The only reason I'm not "sure" about the right name is because I haven't looked at every one of those articles, but I saw a number that looked to me like cultural history, since they didn't pertain to modern China. Just use your judgement on what name to use for the new sub-category. Cgingold (talk) 03:01, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Have a look at Category:Cultural lists - most of the articles are not lists at all. Most of them are just ordinary text articles that happen to have a number in the title. The easiest way to deal with this would be to remove the cat altogether. --Kleinzach 07:19, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Kleinzach, I've done my very best to explain to you why it is that none of the things you've pointed out have any bearing on whether the category itself should be kept or deleted. Categories simply aren't deleted purely to save an editor the bother of removing or recategorizing articles that may not belong there. In all sincerity, at this point all I can do is suggest that you read through WP:CAT, and perhaps you will discover what it is that you've overlooked in forming your conception of what constitutes a valid category. Cgingold (talk) 10:14, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Objection If that's (quote) "in all sincerity" (unquote) this conversation is over. I've made some points, you are entitled to agree or disagree. That's it. --Kleinzach 10:43, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• It most certainly was in all sincerity -- I don't say "in all sincerity" unless I mean it. I went out of my way to word that comment as nicely as possible so as not to cause any offense, since none was intended. Clearly I didn't succeed. Cgingold (talk) 11:40, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - and organise per Cgingold. The intersection of Category:Culture and Category:Lists is necessarily broad. There's a tag (catdiffuse? - no, ((Parent category))) that can be applied to categories thought to be umbrella ones (unrelated to deletion). Occuli (talk) 22:57, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Actually, ((catdiffuse)) is the better choice -- I just added it to the page. Cgingold (talk) 23:17, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, that's a step in the right direction! --Kleinzach 23:27, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• keep and diffuse. Keep as a means of tieing all these lists together in one place. Hmains (talk) 02:58, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: If Category:Cultural lists is kept an umbrella, can the closing admin please depopulate it? As now categorized most of the articles are not lists at all, and were put in the cat by one user, Zigger, who seems to have had an interest in titles containing numbers. --Kleinzach 03:44, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Looks like an appropriate parent category to me. I don't think it will be a closing admin's job to depopulate the category if kept—that's something any editor can do after the CFD is closed. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 10:32, 25 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.

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 13:08, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Former dictatorships (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: This category should be deleted for the same reasons that "Dictators" was deleted, "Dictatorships" contains only generic articles (and no goverment categorized as dictatorship) and also the highly similar "Former dictators". The main criteria that applied was that this categorization "Violates POV by endorsing a subjective view, which could never have unbiased criteria as to what a dictator is". The only difference added by this category is a temporal one, the issue about neutrality remains. Note: the sub category "Chile under Augusto Pinochet" would not need to be deleted, as it is a historical period of the history of Chile. That category would have to simply be recategorized instead Benito Sifaratti (talk) 03:23, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. If named properly, this category would be called Category:Dictatorships, since using "former" is usually redundant when dealing with WP categories. I can't see a whole lot of daylight between a category for dictators and a category for dictatorships; if one is deleted I suppose the other probably should be too. So delete for this reason and based on the two precedent CfDs cited. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:28, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. per nom. --Kleinzach 05:12, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. - Darwinek (talk) 12:11, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Which countries have not been dictatorships at some point in history? Certainly all European countries would fit into this category. --Soman (talk) 15:46, 18 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.

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 13:07, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Public companies run by founders (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Seems rather a trivial basis for categorization. Aren't most companies run by the company's founder for at least some of its history? Also a temporally-based category, which we tend to avoid. Not to mention being a triple intersection of company plus trading status plus founder's status. Somewhat vague as well; what does it mean in light of boards of directors and shareholders' initiatives to "run" the company? Otto4711 (talk) 00:11, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. per nom.--Kleinzach 05:13, 18 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.