< May 15 May 17 >

May 16

African-American 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 to match general lack of a hyphen for this on WP. BencherliteTalk 08:24, 5 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Not Speediable - The use or non-use of a hyphen is not a spelling error, but rather a stylistic choice, so it doesn't fall under the criteria for Speedy renaming. There have been a number of attempts to get concensus on this, but to date all have failed. Cgingold (talk) 08:59, 13 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Previous discussion was in October 2007. Her Pegship (tis herself) 23:14, 16 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, that was actually on a different issue, nothing to do with the hyphen; but there have been discussions on this - links would be useful. Johnbod (talk) 22:42, 20 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Note: These all need to be re-tagged for full CFD -- there's no point in discussing this if they're not properly tagged. Cgingold (talk) 23:30, 16 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I take your point, Otto -- but I would rather maintain the original intent of the category. Perhaps a rename to Category:Plays by African American authors/playwrights would be in order. Cgingold (talk) 21:24, 18 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I don't think we ought to be categorizing by the race of the author. Didn't we have a big battle not to long ago about various stripes of science fiction by "people of color" categories? Renaming for the race of the author also excludes any AA-related plays not written by African Americans (assuming there are any of course). Otto4711 (talk) 22:33, 18 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Those "people of color" categories were novel, and were problematic for a number of reasons -- as such they were not comparable to the African American categories, which are well-established. This particular category is a sub-cat of Category:African American literature, and it has 3 sub-cats -- all of which are for plays by African American authors. So I don't really see a good reason to broaden it to "AA-related plays". Cgingold (talk) 09:49, 19 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Thanks for this bit of research, Johnbod. It so happens that I had arrived at those same conclusions in my personal approach to usage & spelling. I strongly favor the hyphen in adjectival terms; I can live with either in the nouns. But I note again that these categories still haven't been properly re-tagged. Cgingold (talk) 23:21, 20 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[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:Supervillains without aliases

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. Wizardman 01:25, 24 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Category:Supervillains without aliases (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: For the same reasons I gave for superheroes without aliases. A category is not the way to do this, especially because there is no inclusion criteria for Japanese supervillains, like Vegeta and Dante, who are categorized here. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 21:19, 16 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[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:Names of God

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. Doczilla STOMP! 03:59, 25 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Names of God to Category:Names of the chief gods
  1. Allah and Yahweh maybe categorized together because they are very similar. However, Allah=Yahweh=Jupiter (god)=Amaterasu=Brahman=Great Spirit, etc. simply is false. By the way, Brahman is not even a being, I only know of Hindus who worship Vishnu, Shiva, and lesser gods like Ganesha and so forth.
  2. Furthermore, the title of a certain god isn't its name. "The Most Merciful" is not a name for Allah but a title and description. Lord (Adonai) is not a name for Yahweh, but a title. --71.108.31.176 (talk) 17:06, 16 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  3. Even Hebrew speakers who want to speak about gods in general say Elohim; pay attention to the -im which makes Elohim plural. Articles that say otherwise that claim Baal is the same as Yahweh are false. Elijah spent many years of his life making this clear.[1]--71.108.31.176 (talk) 17:31, 16 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I support deletion of Category:Names of God. 71.108.31.176--Names of gods (talk) 18:07, 16 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I believe that the only way to fix this is deletion of Category:Names of God with the support of others because my efforts to empty the category have been reverted by a user.--Names of gods (talk) 18:22, 16 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for sharing your belief. Now please let the discussion that you started come to consensus before the community. It is highly inappropriate for you to make a proposal, and then (without waiting for consensus) start implementing the proposal. I'll write if off as a newbie mistake :)-Andrew c [talk] 20:40, 16 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I found this discussion via the AfD you mention. I tend to agree with the renaming to Category:Names of gods which I see has been done. "Names of God" should only be a cat for articles on names used for the monotheistic god of the Abrahamic religions in my opinion.--Sting Buzz Me... 01:12, 17 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If they aren't the same, then why didn't you use the plural Gods for your proposed category? The category and its respective article imply the major gods of monotheistic and polytheistic religions are the same. The problem is that they aren't even the same types.--71.108.31.176 (talk) 02:14, 17 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
How about a similar Category:Names of Animal?--71.108.31.176 (talk) 02:15, 17 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I see what you are getting at. The problem is that some will always see "God" (which was the redirect for "singular God" above by the way) as the only option because of faith reasons. This being an encyclopedia as such we cannot support just the monotheistic religions. With an article called "Names of God" the title should be corrected to at least "Names of God (Abrahamic)" so that readers are enlightened as to which god is being discussed. Always best to remember that there are many gods to choose from (although some people regard all/others/some as mythical). A rename is definitely in order if this article is kept.--Sting Buzz Me... 02:27, 17 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"God", with a capital G, refers to the general concept of a singular God, which includes but is not limited to the various conceptions of a monotheistic God, as exemplified by the Abrahamic faiths. Belief in a singular God is not unique to monotheistic religions, so your comment about different "types" of gods is a non sequitur. -Sean Curtin (talk) 02:37, 17 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(reposted as edit conflict stopped me posting reply)They are all different types. Males, females, omnipotent, not so omnipotent etc. My point was mainly on "God" being the one worshiped by people believing in "one" deity as opposed to gods or a God being worshiped by people who believe in several gods at once. The content of the article and indeed it's name are in conflict with different belief systems.--Sting Buzz Me... 02:58, 17 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"the various conceptions of a monotheistic God" isn't clear to most people which is why the current version of this category includes Jupiter (god) and other gods which don't fit the name. Hence the name of the category is not correct. User:Names of gods71.108.31.176 (talk) 02:53, 17 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I also concur with the sentiments of User:Hereticam at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category_talk:Names_of_God&oldid=212867999 and was inspired by it.User:Names of gods 02:56, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

On the one hand, some have said that the "God" is not the same. That is, Baal=Brahman=Vahiguru=Aten=Jupiter (god)=Zeus=Great Spirit=Amaterasu isn't implied by the current category. On the hand, they same users insist on using the singular "God" to denote the plural chief gods.--71.108.2.69 (talk) 09:05, 21 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[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:Educational institution disambiguation

{

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. As an aside, the nominator's proposal does not appear feasible as the ((schooldis)) template categorises articles and the X-class Y-project articles categorise things categorise article talk pages. Angus McLellan (Talk) 09:35, 9 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Category:Educational institution disambiguation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Suggest merging Category:Educational institution disambiguation to Category:Disambig-Class school pages
Nominator's rationale: Merge, Modernly, disambiguous pages may be categorized two ways. The first way is by placing the ((disambig)) template on the disambiguous page itself to add the page to Category:Disambiguation. The second way used by 300+ WikiProjects is to use "|class=Dab" in a WikiProject template on the disambiguous talk page to place the article in a subcategory of Category:Disambig-Class articles. In May 2006, ((Schooldis)) was created to populate Category:Educational institution disambiguation. However, ((Schooldis)) duplicates the efforts of ((disambig)) for the article page and the efforts of Category:Disambig-Class school pages for the article talk page. Merge proposed: (1) All article talk pages of articles listed in Category:Educational institution disambiguation be tagged with ((WPSchools|class=Dab|importance=NA)), (2) all ((Schooldis)) tags be replaced with ((disambig)), and (3) Category:Educational institution disambiguation be deleted. GregManninLB (talk) 03:21, 2 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Those pages not called "Schools" can have their talk pages tagged with ((WikiProject Education|class=Dab|importance=NA)) instead of ((WPSchools|class=Dab|importance=NA)). That will place the talk page in Category:Disambig-Class education pages. See Talk:Furness College as an example. GregManninLB (talk) 05:15, 2 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kbdank71 13:40, 16 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[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:People from Dominica

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:Dominica people. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:22, 22 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Updated to reflect correct rename on close. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:41, 31 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK,I think I have it right this time. Sorry. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:27, 2 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Propose 'merging' Category:People from Dominica to Category:Dominican people
Nominator's rationale: to match naming convention at Category:People by nationality and to match naming used for this page's sub-category pages. there's no need to maintain this page naming to avoid a mix-up with Category:Dominican Republic people as a statement of disambiguation at the top of the nominated page can handle this perfectly well enough Mayumashu (talk) 02:52, 9 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kbdank71 13:38, 16 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[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:Auto racing competitions in Mexico

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. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:24, 22 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Category:Auto racing competitions in Mexico (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary and inconsistent with all other countries, where races are included in the "Motorsport in <country>" category, e.g. 1000 km Silverstone is included in Category:Motorsport in the United Kingdom. DH85868993 (talk) 10:06, 16 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[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:Worcester

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: that so long as the article is called Worcester (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) the category needs to match it. So that means WP:RM first, WP:CFD second. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:24, 30 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Worcester to Category:Worcester, England
Nominator's rationale: Rename. While the current name matches the article, it is completely ambiguous as there are many uses for this name. It is not clear that any of these uses is the primary usage so having this disambiguated makes the most sense. In fairness I'll state that the article failed a rename attempt to Worcester, Worcestershire so that might be an alternative rename target. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:15, 16 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Strewth - it gave me a headache... but I still think that the sensible way is for the cat to follow the article, and until the article is settled is there much point changing the cat(s)? More generally perhaps it should be a guideline if not a policy that these clumps of related cats and articles should all be decided in one go, rather than being fought out separately one after the other. Is that feasible? HeartofaDog (talk) 20:58, 20 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The solution is more likely based in getting editors to support Wikipedia:DISAMBIGUATION#Deciding_to_disambiguate. Another solution is to explain that differing naming conventions is not a reason to keep something that is clearly not the primary topic at the main name space. In cases like the article rename proposal, it just shows that in some cases, badly placed articles will stay there since with involved editors wanting to protect their article and their naming convention, they are not willing to budge. So I guess the question is, do we have to ignore guidelines and reason here too? Vegaswikian (talk) 02:01, 21 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Unless the category name is ambiguous as a result. Can anyone say that the current name is not ambiguous? There have been many exceptions to following the article name when that produces an ambiguous result. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:53, 21 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The scope for confusion is surely increased rather than reduced if the article is called one thing and the cat another. Nor am I clear under what circumstances you are envisaging that people are likely to be confused by a cat, since it will either occur (with other cats) attached to articles, from which it must be apparent anyway which Worcester is meant, or as a sub-cat of an over-cat which puts it in context. As for the cat's own page, a three-word headnote will remove all doubt. HeartofaDog (talk) 09:33, 21 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Thanks for the v clear explanation. The B'ham example shows though that people will mis-cat regardless, and a principle reason for that must be the assumption, wh is not unreasonable, that the cat name will follow that of the article. So renaming the cat AND the article as per above looks like a good idea, but just the cat by itself looks a bit pointless. HeartofaDog (talk) 23:15, 22 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[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.

Categories:(Defunct) United States soccer clubs

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. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:18, 22 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Propose renaming
Nominator's rationale: 'American' is the accepted, convention adjective for 'United States of America' on wikip, as in Category:American people etc., however this renaming makes it clearer (that the soccer is not necessarily American, the clubs are) Mayumashu (talk) 04:55, 16 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[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:Jews and Judaism by country

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 change. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:29, 30 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Propose renaming Merge Category:Jews and Judaism by country to Category:Judaism by country
Nominator's rationale: Rename Merge. Firstly, "Jews" is extraneous - there's Category:Jews by country. Secondly, the title is a disconnect - Jews aren't necessarily connected to Judaism and a person that is closly connected to Judaism isn't necessarily Jewish. This cfd includes all the subcats - Category:Jews and Judaism in Afghanistan, Category:Jews and Judaism in Algeria, etc. brewcrewer (yada, yada) 04:42, 16 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Category:Judaism by country was not intended as a subcat of Category:Jews and Judaism by country. They were made on seperate tracks, and only later the former make a subcat of the latter because it looked like it made sense. Indeed, both cats have the same type of subcats. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 15:12, 16 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm still trying to understand what it is that you want to do here. Your proposal says "Rename", but the "target category" already exists -- so I'm guessing that you're thinking of some sort of merger? I looked at the edit histories for the 3 super-cats, and it looks to me like there was a clear rationale for the way things were set up (back in 2004). The "by country" trees came along a couple years later -- that's when things get really complex. As it stands now, Category:Jews by country has 101 country sub-cats, whereas Category:Jews and Judaism by country has only 81 country sub-cats -- and Category:Judaism by country has only 16 country sub-cats. Perhaps you could offer some sort of explanation of what things would look like if whatever it is you're proposing were to be implemented? Btw, I have notified the category's creator with ((subst:cfd-notify)) Cgingold (talk) 17:56, 16 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I proposed a "rename" because most of the subcats, e.g. Category:Jews and Judaism in Afghanistan, Category:Jews and Judaism in Algeria, would be renamed. But, yes, Category:Jews and Judaism by country should be "merged" into Category:Judaism by country. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 18:08, 16 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Okay, that's pretty much what I thought -- in which case you should strike thru the words "renaming" (and "Rename") in your initial proposal and replace it with "merging". Also, if you want to merge all of those sub-cats into a different parent category, each of them needs to be properly tagged for CFD. Cgingold (talk) 02:04, 17 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Done, and I struck through the proposal re the subcats. We'll take it a step at a time. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 04:10, 17 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Hi Carlossuarez46: What you say is not clear. There is a huge super-category of Category:Jews, so would you say that should go as well? How does it serve "no purpose" when Jews are a objectively known and defined as both an ethnicity (see the Jew article) and also as part of a religion (see the Judaism article) and accoring to your logic one would also need to merge the Jew article into the Judaism article which could never be. The purpose of the category under discussion is to serve as a parent for two connected sub-categories, such as is the case with many others. You see seem to be misapplying the principle of WP:CATGRS which simply does not appply to any of this because if you look at all the sub-categories and examaine the articles they hold you will see that they fulfil and important non-trivial purpose and function of use to the serious scholar and reader. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 07:23, 20 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Evidently you're not aware, IZAK, that Carlossuarez opposes all categories for "race/religion/ethnicity" across the board, every time they turn up at CFD, regardless of the particulars. Cgingold (talk) 14:36, 20 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not quite so Cgingold, there is no harm in having Category:Lutheran clergy as that is meaningful, understood, as is Category:Rabbis (and will that be split among those ethnically Jewish or Jewish by religion if someone got the notion, ready for Category:Gentile Rabbis everyone?). Categorization of Jews per se and mixing up those Jews who are ethnically so Edith Stein (a Roman Catholic nun and saint) with those who are religious but not ethnically Sammy Davis Jr. (who is of African-American ethnicity/race, not Jewish) does nothing to clarify what exactly is being categorized here. CATGRS is just wrong in that it makes the leap of illogic that, e.g., Tom Cruise, Ellen DeGeneres, Cameron Diaz, Paris Hilton share something identifyingly different (all being Americans of German descent) that their next door neighbors didn't share. And perhaps as Jews have been segregated and treated differently in different places at different times, does not make any cross the board assumptions upon which to base categorization valid. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:05, 21 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[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:Lilongwe

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. Doczilla STOMP! 08:30, 28 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

There is no "city, country" standard for categories anywhere outside of the United States, except where their names are actually ambiguous. Bearcat (talk) 05:17, 16 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Why would the US be different?--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 15:26, 16 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ask the US contingent. Nobody else understands it at all. Bearcat (talk) 18:40, 20 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I trust you'll support Category:California, United States, North America on the same grounds, then. And yes, it is the same thing. Bearcat (talk) 05:36, 16 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
California is a state, Lilongwe is a city. The proposal has two place names, yours has three. Seems fairly substantially different on a number of grounds to me ... Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:43, 16 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Your own statement that "clarity, which can and does subjectively exist for many when all they see is a place name" is not one iota less true of states or provinces than it is of cities. It's not even any less true of countries. Some of our readers (at least as many as would be confused by Lilongwe) won't necessarily know that Djibouti or Nepal are countries if the titles aren't "Djibouti, Africa" or "Nepal, Asia", either. Bearcat (talk) 05:47, 16 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That may be true, but you're still comparing apples to oranges. This nomination is proposing a "CITY, COUNTRY" naming format, not a "COUNTRY, CONTINENT" or a "STATE, COUNTRY, CONTINENT" format. We can address your examples when someone proposes them. Until then, they are largely irrelevant and pretty much standard fare "slippery slope" arguments (or "camel's nose", "thin edge of the wedge", "domino theory", "reductio ad absurdum", etc., and so on.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:04, 16 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hmmm. I'd say reductio ad absurdum hits the nail on the head. But more importantly, I'm still not hearing what it is that really bothers Bearcat so much about the very idea of giving readers an additional bit of info in the category name. In all sincerity, all I'm getting is that WP:ITBOTHERSME. Cgingold (talk) 11:11, 16 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In all sincerity, WP:ITBOTHERSME is the only conceivable reason for changing this. It's simply unnecessary. The current title doesn't conflict with any other potential category, imparting supplementary information about the subject isn't a category title's job in the first place, and it's backdooring behind a naming convention that was established by thorough discussion and consensus. If you think the naming convention is wrong and needs to be changed, then you always have the right to go to WP:NC and propose a change, but simply ignoring the established convention every time it comes up, just because you personally disagree with it, isn't really appropriate wikipractice. Bearcat (talk) 15:06, 16 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Bearcat, it's totally absurd to throw WP:ITBOTHERSME back at me when I've given a very clear explanation of the problem as I see it. However, I do take your point about the question of whether this is the appropriate forum for what would ultimately amount to a change in the naming convention. I'd like to see what other editors have to say on that point. Cgingold (talk) 18:07, 16 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The particular format that's being proposed is not relevant to the comparison — when you get right down to it, what you're proposing is to extend a category name, despite the fact that it's not in any disambiguation conflict with other topics, on the grounds that some users might not recognize the name by itself. That situation applies equally to cities, subnational divisions (states, provinces, etc.) and countries themselves. There isn't a single geographic topic on Wikipedia, not even United States, whose name isn't going to be new and confusing to some potential readers — and it fails both WP:OR and Wikipedia's injunctions against arbitrariness to decide that some topics need this and others don't on the basis of some arbitrary and unverifiable estimate of how many readers are likely to be confused by a particular geographic name on its own. It's not "slippery slope", and it's not reductio ad absurdum — it's the logical outcome of the argument. Bearcat (talk) 15:24, 16 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
When one immediately resorts to exaggeration verging on caricature instead of dealing in a straightforward way with specific issues that have been raised, I think that meets the legal definintion of reductio ad absurdum. I'm amazed and amused that you would invoke WP:OR here -- another red herring. The notion that exercising sound judgement when naming categories is somehow frowned upon is simply ludicrous. Surely you can come up with something better than that, Bearcat. Cgingold (talk) 01:31, 17 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I've never suggested that there are "other Lilongwes" -- that was a red herring introduced by Bearcat. Would you care to respond to the issues that I did raise, Roundhouse? Cgingold (talk) 01:31, 17 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I read your suggestions. Your 'consistency' argument is completely undermined by all the other capitals in Category:Capitals in Africa and all but 6 of the 42 names in Category:Cities, towns and villages in Malawi. Also (cf below) the CFD on Pple from Lil closed as 'no consensus'. Consistency requires us to drop the country, unless there are good reasons to include it (ambiguity being the most persuasive). -- roundhouse0 (talk) 13:13, 17 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oh, dear... we seem to be operating in parallel universes or something, Roundhouse. I didn't make a "consistency argument", I made a "clarity argument" -- which extends to all of the other capitals in Category:Capitals in Africa because not one of them specifies the country, either. As for the CFD for Category:People from Lilongwe, Malawi, it most assuredly was closed as "Keep" -- the term "no consensus" is nowhere to be found. I'm still hoping that you will explain why we should not give our readers an extra bit of info (the country name) that will assist them in making use of these categories. Cgingold (talk) 22:27, 18 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • When you say (above, in the nom) "I would like to keep the country-name in both categories, for clarity and consistency" I am entitled (in my universe) to infer that you are using a 'consistency' argument. I concede that KBdank did close the cfd as 'keep'; I am not sure why I thought otherwise. It's really up to you to explain why capitals in Africa need to have a country attached when capitals in every other continent have none (apart from Kingston, Jamaica, San Jose, Costa Rica, San Juan, Puerto Rico and St. John's, Antigua and Barbuda, which have obvious disamb problems). Of which country is Chişinău the capital? -- roundhouse0 (talk) 16:32, 20 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • First, my apology for any confusion I inadvertently introduced by using the word "consistency" in that one instance, since that is in no way at the heart of my argument. Please note that I only threw that in in connection with the sub-cat Category:People from Lilongwe, Malawi, which was what prompted me to propose renaming this category in the first place. Cgingold (talk) 23:49, 20 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
On to your other remarks. In all sincerity, thank you for finally responding to my requests for some real substance by articulating that question. There is certainly nothing that sets Africa apart from other continents in this respect. As I've explained, it's sheer happenstance that this issue arose in connection with an African city; it could just as easily have been a city in Asia or South America. The same principle applies across the board: we owe it to our readers to facilitate their use of the Wikipedia category system. Cgingold (talk) 23:50, 20 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I'm obviously not explaining myself clearly enough if you think it's a red herring, so let me try again: the practice for geographic category names has always been that they should match the article title, and only need to contain the country name if they're actually in a state of ambiguity conflict with another valid category. What you're proposing is a major revision of that practice, an entirely new guideline that's never been applied to geographic categories before. It's a fundamental change to the way geographic categories have been named up until now. It would necessitate a comprehensive review of the entire geographic category structure to create whole new rules for how to distinguish categories which are "obscure" enough to require the country name, even if they're unique names on their own, from those which are "famous" enough to stand alone. The question of whether there are any other Lilongwes in the world is the current and established precedent for whether a category name needs its country in it or not, whereas you're proposing that we throw out the existing precedent for a new reason. Bearcat (talk) 18:36, 20 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment: That is absolutely NOT the case, Necrothesp -- have you even read my explanation? How about a little WP:AGF here? Cgingold (talk) 18:10, 16 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Of course I have read it. The article is called Lilongwe. Why is that clear, whereas the category isn't? Are people reading categories somehow more ignorant than those reading articles? -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:34, 17 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • As I've already said, the entire point is that if you happen to be reading the article, that extra bit of info -- the country name -- is right there, in the very first line. You don't need to go anywhere else to find it. So would you please explain to me exactly why it would be so terrible to provide our readers with that extra bit of info in the name of the category? Also, I was hoping you would retract your comment that questions the good faith of my argument. I have no connection with this issue other than what I have openly stated here. Cgingold (talk) 22:36, 18 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment - actually it has been closed as No consensus - not the same. HeartofaDog (talk) 15:03, 20 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Yes, you're right. I wrote that very hastily and was simply trying to convey the fact that it was kept and not renamed. Sorry, that was not intentional. Cgingold (talk) 23:30, 20 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I have added the country (and continent) to the first (and only) line of the category page, so it is now right there, just as it is in the article Lilongwe. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 16:32, 20 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Sigh... this is getting tiresome. Would you care to respond to the real argument that has been made in favor of this proposal, rather than to a straw-man argument that has only been made by those who are opposed? Cgingold (talk) 22:39, 18 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • There's nothing in the least "patronising" about this. I'd say the operative word here is "disdainful": So what if our readers are forced to download dozens of pages just to find out where all of those African capitol cities are located -- all because we refuse to provide that extra bit of info that would save them the bother of loading those pages. Of course, the reality is that hardly anybody is going to go to the trouble to do that. Cgingold (talk) 19:30, 19 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Patronising to Africa - you seem to be making the huge and unwarranted assumption that there is something intrinsically "obscure" about African capitals. HeartofaDog (talk) 10:48, 20 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • As I explained above, it's sheer happenstance that this issue arose in connection with an African city. Certainly there's no intent to patronizingly single out Africa. That said, it is most certainly the case that few readers outside of Africa (and possibly inside too, for that matter) would be able to identify more than a handful of those 60 or so capitol cities. The same is undoubtedly the case for other continents. Cgingold (talk) 02:08, 21 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • That is indeed a very useful template, and appears to go a long way towards addressing my concerns. But I'd like to take my time with this before I "sign off" on it. I'm also hoping there are analagous templates available for the other continents. Cgingold (talk) 02:26, 21 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would also like to run this by the other editors who supported the proposal to rename to see what they think. Cgingold (talk) 11:41, 21 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This and the explanatory intro should alleviate the problems raised by nom. Kudos to Roundhouse. However, wouldn't we want to place the template on each capital cat?--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 14:20, 21 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As an editor who has essentially agreed with Cgingold's positions throughout, and have therefore remained silent since my initial discussion with Bearcat, I see the template solution as a good compromise. Especially if, as Brewcrewer suggested, it could be placed on each category for capital cities. It's clear from the preceding discussions that there's no consensus to rename, but I do believe that such a solution addresses any concerns I myself had about "clarity", etc. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:40, 21 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I have, assisted by AWB, added the template + an explanatory intro to each of the African capitals categories. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 01:28, 26 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[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:Webzines

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. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:14, 22 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Webzines to Category:Online magazines
Nominator's rationale: Rename. The main article is actually online magazine (webzine is a redirect to it). More to the point, "online magazine" is currently the more popular term; "webzine" sounds very mid-'90s. Proof: Google Blog Search finds 14,809 results in the past month for "online magazine" (with quotes) but only 6,759 for "webzine." --zenohockey (talk) 02:26, 6 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
...And Google Book Search finds 324 books published from 2004 to 2008 using "webzine" versus 648 using "online magazine." --zenohockey (talk) 02:35, 6 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wizardman 02:40, 16 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[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:NASL teams

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. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:15, 22 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Propose renaming Category:NASL teams to Category:North American Soccer League teams
Nominator's rationale: convention here to spell out initialisms, as in Category:North American Soccer League players, Category:National Football League teams, etc. Mayumashu (talk) 00:18, 16 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[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