< July 21	July 23 >

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 16:09, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Guadeloupan culture to Category:Guadeloupean culture

Propose renaming Category:Guadeloupan music to Category:Guadeloupean music

Propose renaming Category:Guadeloupais football clubs to Category:Guadeloupean football clubs

Propose renaming Category:Guadeloupe football competitions to Category:Guadeloupean football competitions

Nominator's rationale: Rename to match the adjectival form of Guadeloupe used by all other such categories (e.g. Category:Guadeloupean people by occupation and its subcats) and because "Guadeloupean" is the more widely used term (see the demonym listed at Guadeloupe#Demographics, for example). As for the football competitions category, it currently uses the noun form ("Guadeloupe") but all other subcats of Category:Football (soccer) competitions by country use adjectival forms, so it should be "Guadeloupean". — jwillbur 23:15, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom, for consistency if nothing else. Both may be used and I have no preference, but we should be consistent in using one or the other. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:03, 23 July 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 to Category:National Baseball Hall of Fame inductees, since there seemed to be a consensus at least on the "inductees" wording. Of necessity, I'll create Category:National Baseball Hall of Fame to be the parent for this and the other existing categories and the few non-inductee articles. Category:Baseball Hall of Fame balloting and Category:Baseball Hall of Fame navigational boxes could be nominated for renaming, and if desired, the inductees could be subcategorized as discussed. Category:Baseball Hall of Fame to become a disambiguation category Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:04, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Baseball Hall of Fame to Category:Baseball Hall of Fame members

Nominator's rationale: Reorganize. This category should be split up and reorganized. I suggest that when the dust settles, we should have Category:Baseball Hall of Fame for articles relating to the Hall itself, Category:Baseball Hall of Fame members for the players and Category:Baseball Hall of Fame templates for the templates. Members and templates should be subcats. I don't know what the best way is to do this from a technology standpoint and I didn't want to undertake that sort of restructuring without input, hence the nomination. Otto4711 (talk) 23:05, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I like the idea but a renaming is probably not what you're looking for. More of a category split. We need to come up with new categories and then we can move the existing articles into them. Category:Baseball Hall of Fame members is good but maybe we should divide up even more - Category:Baseball Hall of Fame players and Category:Baseball Hall of Fame managers, etc. perhaps? I'd be good with those and would volunteer to fire up WP:AWB to move them once it's finalized. —Wknight94 (talk) 23:42, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Yeah, I know I don't really want a rename but I thought a CFR would come off as less inflammatory than a CFD. Otto4711 (talk) 00:07, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I'll make a few observations and suggestions:

• If your plan is simply to create a subcategory for Hall of Fame inductees, that can be done without renaming the main category.
• I strongly recommend using the official name, National Baseball Hall of Fame, to refer to the hall in Cooperstown, since there are many other baseball halls of fame--for example, the Japanese Baseball Hall of Fame, the Canadian Baseball Hall of Fame, the Salón de la Fama del Beisbol Profesional de México, as well as halls for Cuba, Venezuela, the Dominican Republic, several minor leagues, and so forth. (In fact, the parent category probably should be Category:Baseball halls of fame.)
• If I'm reading their Web site correctly, the National Baseball Hall of Fame appears to use the term "member" to refer to donors who provide specified levels of financial support. They appear to use the term "Hall of Famer" to refer to players and others who are honored in the Hall. Therefore, Category:National Baseball Hall of Famers or Category:National Baseball Hall of Fame inductees would be preferable to a category name using the word "members." BRMo (talk) 04:17, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• "Inductees" is fine with me, I was going by usage in various Wikipedia articles that I reviewed before listing this which use "member." Using the official name is fine too. As noted, I wanted community input before making radical changes to the category structure, which is why the nomination rather than just pushing forward with the changes. Otto4711 (talk) 13:15, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Or '(National) Baseball Hall of Fame (United States)'. I think 'inductees' is clearer (from a UK perspective). So Keep/rename, reorganise. No objection to players/managers/other subcats. Occuli (talk) 08:11, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• One reason I created the cats for the Spink and Frick awards was because there is a widespread misconception that its recipients are HoF members, and the subcats avoided the possibility of these individuals being added to the category for true members while simultaneously noting their formal association with the Hall. I wouldn't mind renaming the cat for members as a subcat for the Hall. MisfitToys (talk) 21:23, 28 July 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 per precedent and OC. As noted, there is a list in the article, and while true, is not a mutually exclusive option, but in this case, appears to be the better option, as it lists every award winner, not just those with articles. Finally, while the article does state that this is the highest honor a baseball writer can receive, that in itself doesn't speak to whether or not it is a prestigious award outside the sphere of baseball writers. Kbdank71 16:23, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:J. G. Taylor Spink Award to Category:J. G. Taylor Spink Award winners

Nominator's rationale: Rename. As per precedent regarding categories that are for the winners of an award. Or delete per WP:OC#AWARD if the award is not considered prestigious enough; I don't know enough about baseball awards to judge. Otto4711 (talk) 22:54, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as is usual for categorisation by award. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:01, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as category is redundant to J. G. Taylor Spink Award#Recipients of the J. G. Taylor Spink Award. - Icewedge (talk) 23:14, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. The first sentence in the article says that this is the highest honor a baseball writer can receive. - Eureka Lott 01:20, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • But that does not mean that a category is better then a list. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:58, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The two are not mutually exclusive options, as I'm sure you know. I feel that it's significant enough to justify a category. YMMV. - Eureka Lott 03:30, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom, unless doubt is thrown on 'highest honor a baseball writer can receive'. Occuli (talk) 10:27, 23 July 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 per precedent and OC. As with the above nomination, these award winners, while having their names in the actual hall of fame building, are not inducted into the Hall of Fame (from the article: While they are often considered to be inducted into the "broadcasters' wing" of the Hall of Fame, they are not considered to be members of the Hall.) . Kbdank71 16:29, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Ford Frick Award to Category:Ford C. Frick Award winners

Nominator's rationale: Rename. As with similar previous CFDs when the category is for the award winners. In the alternative if it is deemed this is not a significant enough award per WP:OC#AWARD then delete. I don't know enough about baseball awards to judge. Otto4711 (talk) 22:51, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as is usual for categorisation by award. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:01, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. The award more or less amounts to hall of fame induction for broadcasters. - Eureka Lott 01:22, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. The award does seem 'significant enough'. Occuli (talk) 09:16, 24 July 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 16:24, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:30-30 club (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete - although larger than its companion Category:40-40 club nominated below, this is still a fairly small category with uncertain growth potential. A complete list exists at 30-30 club. Otto4711 (talk) 22:47, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:40-40 club (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete - small category with little or no growth potential. Only four players in the history of baseball have done this and they are listed in the article. Should anyone do this undoubtedly that list will be updated. Otto4711 (talk) 19:54, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Two separate nominations joined together by me. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:58, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- According to the article this is not stictly a "club" merely a journalistic shorthand. The articles have detailed lists already. It seems to me that this is rather similar to categorisation by award, which we regularly listify. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:58, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both - seem to fail WP:OC#ARBITRARY (unless 30 and 40 are in some way not arbitrary). Occuli (talk) 15:35, 23 July 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 16:31, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:People of the Boer War to Category:People of the Second Boer War

Category:Military personnel of the Boer War to Category:Military personnel of the Second Boer War

Category:British military personnel of the Boer War to Category:British military personnel of the Second Boer War

Category:Australian military personnel of the Boer War to Category:Australian military personnel of the Second Boer War

Category:Canadian military personnel of the Boer War to Category:Canadian military personnel of the Second Boer War

Category:New Zealand military personnel of the Boer War to Category:New Zealand military personnel of the Second Boer War

Category:Boer War prisoners of war to Category:Second Boer War prisoners of war

Category:British Boer War killed in action to Category:British Second Boer War killed in action

Category:Boer War Victoria Cross recipients to Category:Second Boer War Victoria Cross recipients

Nominator's rationale: Rename. We have a Category:People of the First Boer War and this category which is designed for people of the Second Boer War - these were two different conflicts years apart. The omission of the Second in the cat name is potentially confusing and I've just found one person listed for the wrong war so needs changing to disamb. Kernel Saunters (talk) 19:43, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename as nom -- When people refer to the Boer War in England, they usually mean the Second Boer War, which made much more impact on the British consciousness than the first. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:16, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Good grief. By all means, Rename per nom. I see from the edit history that this resulted in part from the recent renaming of Category:People of the Transvaal War to Category:People of the First Boer War (the law of unintended consequences at work, I suppose). Cgingold (talk) 22:21, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Seems unnecessary - anyone writing about someone from either war should know the difference, and the Second Boer War is the Boer War to most people Hugo999 (talk) 00:52, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support changes to "Second Boer War" from "Boer War", but oppose mergingtogether of Canadians, Australians and New Zealanders as British. This will cause problems with parent categories for military personnel from those countries, even if they may have served as part of British-commanded forces during the war. Grutness...wha? 02:24, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support changing of "Boer War" to "Second Boer War", but oppose merging together of Canadians, Australians and New Zealanders as British. Alfred Bessell-Browne for instance clearly fought in an Australian unit of the (British) army. Occuli (talk) 08:19, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support/oppose per Grutness and Occuli for the reasons they give. Add the "Second", but don't lump all the soldiers who fought on the British side as British. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:56, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category text now updated. The New Zealand/Australian/Canadian categories was a typo rather than the rename suggestion! I created two out of the three categories in question Kernel Saunters (talk) 11:28, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wondered about that - it's an easy slip to make. Fully support now :) Grutness...wha? 00:13, 26 July 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 16:43, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Category:Medieval Roman consuls:

Nominator's rationale: Delete. This category seems to be a tendentious creation by an editor who had previously added various Ancient Rome titles to a series of medieaval German princes who ruled Rome, or held some authority over the region. After I removed these titles, the editor returned and created this category. The fact remains that the Roman Senate is known to have survived the fall of the western empire, but this late in history was no longer a functioning body. If there was something in the city of Rome called the Senate, it was not the same body, and certainly would require a category more descriptive than this, which merely implies the time period. Hiberniantears (talk) 17:18, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment It depends on what you mean by "functioning" - the leading families of Rome were arguably more in control of the city during much of the Middle Ages than their predecessors ever had been under the Empire. I'm not sure I really see a problem with this cat. Whatever the title meant, it is clearly defining for all of these except perhaps one or two. Johnbod (talk) 17:45, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In so far as authority in Rome is concerned, I would agree with you, but I think the category is grouping together feudal lords who declared themselves (or had themselves declared) consul by leading families. I definitely think there is some interesting underlying storyline concerning the use of ancient titles in Rome after the empire, but I do not think we do a service to the historical record by applying a category like this which obfuscates the discontinuity between the ancient period, and that of 10th or 11th century feudal rulers. Hiberniantears (talk) 21:35, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename -- I would suggest Category:Medieval rulers of Rome, which would be a somewhat wider category than the present one. However, this should have a headnote that it refers to secular rulers only, and Popes should not be included. I would hope that a useful category can be constructed out of this one, which does not appear to be a satisfactory one. The present category appears to cover those who were given (or arrogated to themselves) the title "consul", probably merely an honorific, rather than a real title. However, one is described as "regent", not consul. Some of the articles do not mention this. However note the Alberic II of Spoleto who is currently not in the category has an "ancient Roman" category. Not being an expert, I do not want to interfere, but hope Hiberniantears can make something worthwhile of this. Has the "other editor" been notified about this? It would be good to hear his view. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:37, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename -- If they are all rulers then Peterkingiron's suggestion is appropriate, if not I suggest Category:Medieval Roman nobility. In either case, it should be a sub-category of Category:People of medieval Rome, into which these people might fit if a delete is the consensus. Jaraalbe (talk) 20:46, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Both of these suggestions cause a lot more problems than they solve - we have enough "nobility" categories already thank you very much, without starting a whole new bunch of "medieval" ones. To me the distinction between Ancient and medieval Rome seems clear enough. Many titles, notably patrican had ancient and medieval uses. Johnbod (talk) 21:46, 24 July 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 16:33, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Alcohol companies to Category:Alcoholic beverage companies

Nominator's rationale: Rename. The current name is ambiguous in that it could include any company working with any alcohol. Clearly from the contents it is intended to cover drinking alcohol production. I'm open to a better name since I'm not sure the one proposed is the best choice. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:09, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Booze? No, you're right, "alcoholic beverages" is the best catch-all term for potent potables. — CharlotteWebb 18:25, 22 July 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 14:31, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Breweries and beverage companies of Hong Kong to Category:Beverage companies of Hong Kong

Category:Breweries and beverage companies of the United Kingdom to Category:Beverage companies of the United Kingdom

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Category:Beverage companies by country uses the standard form of Category:Beverage companies of Foo. Why are breweries so unique that they need to be included in the category name? Aren't these actually beverage companies? To make this name even more odd is the existence of Category:Beer and breweries by country in Category:Beverage companies by country. Simply the breweries are included at two levels in Category:Beverage companies by country and there is no need to add breweries to the name for all beverages in a country. If that is needed so is wineries, and distilleries and so on. I will note that I'm in discussions with one user to straighten this out at the lower levels, but this one just needs to be corrected. Vegaswikian (talk) 16:46, 22 July 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 16:42, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Stub-Class physics articles of Low-importance to Category:Stub-class physics articles of low importance

Nominator's rationale: caps fix (current name has two capitals that don't conform to capitalization convention), and hyphen removal (low-importance would be correct as a compound adjective, as in Low-importance physics stub, but is incorrect as used in the current name). -Eric ^talk 16:26, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: All assessment categories are in this format and all entries are placed there by the ((physics)) template. Capitalization currently follows the ((A-Class)) and ((High-importance)) format. I don't mind changing the code, but I don't look forward to it. For an overview, here's the full table of physics categories:

­

Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 16:52, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - this is part of a far wider scheme which uses capitals. If you want to change this one, you'll also need to change all the others. While I'm not opposed to changing all of them in principle (though I'd rather someone else did the work :) simply nominating one of them is not going to work. (If we were going to rename the lot, I'd also suggest changing "Stub-Class" to something that doesn't caused constant confusion with "real" stub templates). Grutness...wha? 01:06, 23 July 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 16:34, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:600 home run club (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete - small category with virtually no growth potential. There are only four active players who have more than 500 home runs but fewer than 600. 600 home run club is a redirect to 500 home run club and all of the players with 600 homers are listed there. Otto4711 (talk) 15:09, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:OC#ARBITRARY. Occuli (talk) 16:32, 22 July 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: relisted on Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_July_30. Kbdank71 14:44, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Critics of contraception (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Rename to Category:To be determined. This category is intended to be used for people who are "notable for their opposition to... contraception". It should be renamed to denote the fact that these people are activists who oppose contraception, rather than merely people who hold a certain view of contraception -- which would allow it to be parented in the category tree for activists. We could, I suppose, rename it to Category:Opponents of contraception, or perhaps Category:Anti-contraception activists, but I'm not sure that either of those is entirely satisfactory. Feel free to improve on these, or offer alternatives. Notified creator with ((subst:cfd-notify)) Cgingold (talk) 13:35, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom, but to Category:Activists against artificial contraception, since some, like the Couple to Couple League, strongly promote Natural family planning (and the best of luck with that!). Johnbod (talk) 16:21, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I did have that in the back of my mind, but it makes the wording more cumbersome. However, I suppose you're probably right that we need to specify "artificial" in the name. In that case, I think Category:Opponents of artificial contraception reads better. Cgingold (talk) 22:31, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Let's stick with "contraception". NFP involves periodic abstinence, and does not involve contraception at all. A category reserved for those who oppose "artificial" contraception but support "natural" contraception would be so small as to include no one notable. The original category "critics" suggests persons who not only oppose the practice, but who challenge it in an outspoken manner. "Activists" seems to me to suggest political and social involvement more than intellectual efforts. If it is deemed necessary to change the categorization, "opponents" is probably preferable, but again it suggests more a taking of sides than the reasoned challenge which is offered by a critic. Whatever the heading, it should serve to direct students of the subject to thinkers in a variety of fields and coming from various social and religious backgrounds who challenge the prevalent thinking in this area. Rabbet (talk) 03:20, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Activist categories are intended for people who work actively in behalf of a given issue, whether by speaking or writing or organizing or committing civil disobediance, etc. etc. We generally eschew categories for mere "critics". Writing a single article that proves to be influential probably doesn't qualify as activism in and of itself. But if they've devoted substantial effort to promoting their arguments such that they're understood to be advancing whatever cause it may be, then they are rightly considered to be activists. I haven't looked at all of the articles in this category, but the ones I sampled looked like activists to me. Cgingold (talk) 12:12, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Category:Activists against contraception, thanks to Cgingold for explaining the use of "activist" in Wikipedia category names. As Rabbet indicated, these people generally consider NFP to be "family planning" or "birth control" (since it results in planned or controlled timing of births) but not contraception (since no action is taken to render intercourse infertile). With this definition, there is no need to specify "artificial" in the category name. Lyrl^Talk _C 15:50, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm not sure Category:Activists against contraception is really suitable as a Category name. There's not a single other sub-cat of Category:Activists by issue that uses a similar formulation -- all activists who are against something are referred to as "Anti-Xyz activists". So between the two, my preference would be for Category:Anti-contraception activists. Cgingold (talk) 12:48, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Please relist for further discussion. Cgingold (talk) 12:49, 30 July 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: relisted on Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_July_30. Kbdank71 14:40, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Video game critics to Category:Video game journalists

Nominator's rationale: Merge, both categories point to video game journalism and it's unclear what distinction there is between a journalist and critic in this field. Ham Pastrami (talk) 13:24, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Question: Is either of these terms more widely used than the other? Cgingold (talk) 14:10, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Reverse merge to match Category:Television critics, Category:Film critics, Category:Theatre critics, etc. Remove any pages that don't belong, obviously. — CharlotteWebb 16:08, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• This makes sense to me - reverse merge per CharlotteWebb. Cgingold (talk) 22:33, 25 July 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 16:39, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Game programmers to Category:Video game programmers

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Programming already implies video games, so the scope of the category is unchanged. But being specific in the name doesn't hurt. Mainly, the benefit of renaming is that it would bring the category name in line with other VG-specific categories (in contrast to general "game" categories). This makes it easier to navigate as a subcategory. Ham Pastrami (talk) 12:48, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. Clarity is always a good thing. Cgingold (talk) 14:31, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Clarity is a good thing, but is there even such a thing as a "board game programmer"? Or a "card game programmer"? I think, given its context, it is clear. Brevity is a good thing too. — Frecklefσσt | Talk 18:39, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename if it should not include programmers for games of chance used for gambling purposes, like electronic keno machines. 70.51.8.231 (talk) 05:06, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename. Clearly the current name is ambiguous. The lack of other like categories is, for me, not a good reason to keep an ambiguous category name. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:43, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename – as subcat of Category:Video game people and per all its siblings bar one (which should also be renamed). Occuli (talk) 02:21, 27 July 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 16:38, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Secret Garden album to Category:Secret Garden albums

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Grammar for current title is incorrect. :Raphaelmak: [talk] [contribs] 07:10, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Rename per nom for pluralization fix. Cgingold (talk) 08:28, 22 July 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 16:38, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:American people in Japan to Category:American expatriates in Japan

Nominator's rationale: There is no need to keep a separate category page for expatriate American officials (of the U.S. government, presumably - see heading on the page itself). (Should one be perceived however this page needs to be renamed for clarity.) Mayumashu (talk) 04:32, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. The two categories overlap. Dimadick (talk) 12:13, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. Occuli (talk) 13:40, 24 July 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 16:37, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming

• Category:French Greeks to Category:Greeks of French descent
• Category:Serbian Greeks to Category:Greeks of Serbian descent

(remaining 6 subcat pages of Category:Greek people by ethnic or national origin already named with 'Greeks of Fooian descent' pattern)

Nominator's rationale: as per precedent Mayumashu (talk) 02:20, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. - Darwinek (talk) 10:15, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom for consistency reasons. Dimadick (talk) 12:14, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom and recent precedents. Occuli (talk) 13:40, 24 July 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 16:37, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming

• Category:Indo-Jamaicans to Category:Jamaicans of Indian descent

(other 6 subcategories of Category:Jamaican people by ethnic or national origin already follow 'Jamaicans of Fooian descent' pattern)

Nominator's rationale: as per precedent Mayumashu (talk) 02:02, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom for consistency reasons.Dimadick (talk) 12:15, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom and recent precedents. Occuli (talk) 13:40, 24 July 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 16:36, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging/renaming

• Category:American Israelis to Category:Israelis of American descent
• Category:Guatemalan Israelis to Category:Israelis of Guatemalan descent
• Category:Russian Israelis to Category:Israelis of Russian descent

(remaining 18 subcategories of Category:Israeli people by ethnic or national origin already follow 'Israelis of Fooian descent' pattern)

Nominator's rationale: as per recent discussion and precedent Mayumashu (talk) 01:14, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. - Darwinek (talk) 10:16, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom for consistency reasons.Dimadick (talk) 12:15, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom and recent precedents. Occuli (talk) 13:40, 24 July 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 16:36, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Big greenhouse gas-emitting countries (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. This isn't a matter which is easily dealt with by a category. Something like List of countries by carbon dioxide emissions is a preferable format. The meaning of "big" is, of course, subjective and any definition for "big" would be entirely arbitrary (creator seems to be suggesting that it be limited to the "top ten", but that is as arbitrary as anything else. Why would Italy (#10) be a "big" emitter but not Mexico (#11)?) Even if these issues were resolvable, the category isn't even really being used to house articles about countries (more about countries and global warming, etc.); and even if it were, I'm not sure that the category is defining for a country. Notified creator with ((subst:cfd-notify)) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:35, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per above. Arbitrary, and there's also the ambiguity of the title: Mexico is a big country and it emits greenhouse gases. Ergo... Grutness...wha? 01:22, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  It is about big polluters, not about big countries. One can be a big country with small pollution, if has a low carbon economy. --Mac (talk) 06:08, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  I know that and you know that, but the current title certainly doesn't make that clear - hence my comment. The current title can be read as either 'countries that are big polluters' or 'big countries that are polluters'. As such, it should go. Grutness...wha? 02:26, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per both of the above. And further: Top 10 as of when? For how long? ALL greenhouse gases?? (or just carbon dioxide?) What about countries with large expanses of swampland (methane)? etc., etc. In short, this just isn't a well-conceived category. Cgingold (talk) 02:46, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Greenhouse gases are more than carbon dioxide. And this category gives evidence that China, the U.S.A., and India are big polluters. But this can change in the future...--Mac (talk) 06:08, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Criteria for inclusion are vague as is the historic scope of the category. Dimadick (talk) 12:18, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  It is about this year polluters. Countries can change in the next year. I don´t see now space for a historic big polluter category, but this can change later.--Mac (talk) 06:08, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per vagueness of definition and POV word ("big").--:Raphaelmak: [talk] [contribs] 13:00, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  See http://www.nationalpost.com/news/world/story.html?id=638562 --Mac (talk) 06:18, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename Category:Global warming by country or Category:Greenhouse gas emissions by country or soemthing like that. The category is being used for articles on countries' contributions to the problem. This should deal with the difficulties implicit in the present name, which involves POV issues as to what is "big". Note the existence of List of countries by carbon dioxide emissions, so that there is no nmeed to listify. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:51, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I think Category:Greenhouse gas emissions by country is too narrow to serve as a viable category, as I don't believe there are enough different articles available to populate such a category. As for Category:Global warming by country, that's a much broader subject than the issue of Greenhouse gas emissions -- so it could well be viable, but I'm not sure it's warranted when we already have Category:Climate change by country. In either case, I don't think they're good solutions to the questions raised by this particular category. Cgingold (talk) 02:41, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• There articles about greenhouse gases by country, i.e. about greenhouse gases in the United States. So, this category is good. But all countries have not the same pollution of GHG, because of this are big polluters and damage the planet in a big way.--Mac (talk) 06:08, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for joining the discussion, Mac. Please understand: this discussion is NOT about whether the subject of Climate change is important, or whether there should be information about where countries rank in terms of Greenhouse gas emissions. What you may not understand about Categories is that they need to have names that are clear and unambiguous, and the criteria for what belongs in them need to be easily understood and applied by everybody who comes along (readers and editors alike). So it just isn't enough for a category's creator to be able to answer questions about it in a discussion like this. That's why we've been pointing out the problems we see with this particular category. Cgingold (talk) 10:30, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, if you see it is unclear, what do you propose?. Here there have been suggested some solutions. Replace big by Big quantity?. --Mac (talk) 10:54, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• As stated in the original nomination, "big" is just too subjective and any proposed definition for it would be arbitrary. The same goes for "big quantity". Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 10:59, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• So, we can use top. --Mac (talk) 13:31, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But "top" gives no information about where the cut-off line is. And if we define the cut-off line, how is it done without being arbitrary? This is the crux of the rationale for deletion, and unless it is addressed, we are just going in circles. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:21, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per above deleters. Ill-defined and arbitrary. Occuli (talk) 13:37, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as POV, and don't try to replace it with something like Countries with GHG over arbitrary threshold. Superm401 - Talk 04:44, 25 July 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 16:35, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Blackwater USA to Category:Blackwater Worldwide

Nominator's rationale: Rename to match main article and current corporate name. The company changed its name from Blackwater USA in October 2007. Dale Arnett (talk) 00:24, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom - This could probably be added to the Speedy Rename criteria (simple name-change of a company). Cgingold (talk) 02:39, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure I would do that. Company renames on WP:RM sometimes are heated discussions. I could go along if the rename was after a name change and was to match the article name. Not as a general rule, but only after a company rename. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:24, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I probably didn't state that clearly enough, but I think we're in agreement about this, VW. Cgingold (talk) 21:57, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. This should not be ambiguous. Dimadick (talk) 12:19, 22 July 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.