< May 1 May 3 >

May 2

Category:Regional Airline Association

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 13:36, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Regional Airline Association to Category:Regional Airline Association members
Nominator's rationale: Merge. Merge into the category with the name that clearly describes the content. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:33, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Jat people tribes

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 both to Category:Jat clans to match article (Jat People does not exist). Kbdank71 13:40, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:Jat people tribes to Category:Jat gotras
Nominator's rationale: Merge, these seem to be duplicate categories Ka Faraq Gatri (talk) 23:27, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category creator User:James smith2 notified Ka Faraq Gatri (talk) 23:38, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Lists of ambiguous human names

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 13:46, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:Lists of ambiguous human names to Category:Biography disambiguation 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 September 2005, ((Hndis)) was created to populate Category:Lists of ambiguous human names. However, ((Hndis)) duplicates the efforts of ((disambig)) for the article page and the efforts of Category:Biography disambiguation pages for the article talk page. Merge proposed: (1) All article talk pages of articles listed in Category:Lists of ambiguous human names be tagged with ((WPBiography|class=Dab)), (2) all ((Hndis)) tags be replaced with ((disambig)), and (3) Category:Lists of ambiguous human names be deleted. GregManninLB (talk) 16:16, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Ship 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: keep. Kbdank71 13:02, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:Ship disambiguation to Category:Disambig-Class Ships articles
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=Disambig" in a WikiProject template on the disambiguous talk page to place the article in a subcategory of Category:Disambig-Class articles. In January 2006, ((Shipindex)) was created to populate Category:Ship disambiguation. However, ((Shipindex)) duplicates the efforts of ((disambig)) for the article page and the efforts of Category:Disambig-Class Ships articles for the article talk page. Merge proposed: (1) All article talk pages of articles listed in Category:Ship disambiguation be tagged with ((WikiProject Ships|class=Disambig|importance=NA)), (2) all ((Shipindex)) tags be replaced with ((disambig)), and (3) Category:Ship disambiguation be deleted. GregManninLB (talk) 15:49, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Westchester County New York, legislators

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 move. — CharlotteWebb 15:16, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Westchester County New York, legislators to Category:Westchester County, New York legislators
Nominator's rationale: Move for correct punctuation. Russ (talk) 14:36, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Stradivarii

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:Stradivari violins, feel free to create the cello cats whenever. Kbdank71 13:35, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Stradivarii to Category:Stradivari instruments
Nominator's rationale: Move from speedy, original reason was "to correct misspelling; change to more descriptive name" Kbdank71 14:22, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I left a note asking for input on this at Talk:Stradivarius. Cgingold (talk) 06:09, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think Category:Stradivari violins; Stadivari was the family name. It's a Stradivarius, the Vegaswikian Stadivarius, several Stradivarii, or a Stradivari violin - I think! Johnbod (talk) 01:52, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:WikiProject PlayStation articles

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 13:10, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:WikiProject PlayStation articles to Category:WikiProject PlayStation
Nominator's rationale: It is not just articles, and it will be the same as all of the other VG WikiProjects. MrKIA11 (talk) 17:18, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom.--Lenticel (talk) 11:33, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kbdank71 13:36, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:American propaganda films

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. WoohookittyWoohoo! 10:15, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:American propaganda films (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: This is a non-defined category, used largely in an inconsistent fashion for POV pushing. If we go by WP's own defition of propaganda, we have: "Propaganda is a concerted set of messages aimed at influencing the opinions or behavior of large numbers of people. Instead of impartially providing information, propaganda in its most basic sense presents information in order to influence its audience." Well that's probably a huge percentage of movies, every single documentary, and every commercial you've ever seen on TV. Yet there are less than a dozen movies in this category, and trying to add others inevitably ends up in a edit war. Recently Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, has been repeatedly added and removed from this category. Those who want it included point to reviews calling or comparing it to propaganda. Those opposed say critics calling it propaganda doesn't make it de facto propaganda any more than calling it the worst movie of the decade actually makes it the worst movie of the decade. The inconsistent application of this is very obvious if anyone tries to add it to a Michel Moore movie or An Inconvenient Truth, both of which have been widely described as such by detractors and critics. When it's applied to movies people don't like, "propaganda" is referred to as a neutral descriptive term, when applied to movies people do like, it's ful of negative connotations and POV. I think the latter are basically right whatever movie it's applied to. The best that can probably be done for this category is to rename it "American films that have been called propaganda," but I'm not sure how useful that is either. R. fiend (talk) 12:59, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now, there really are films that can objectively be characterized as "propaganda films", and there are a goodly number of categories for such films. It's possible that we may need to restrict this one to use as a "container category" for such sub-cats. And/or we may need to restrict this (and other categories for propaganda films) to films made by governments or government agencies. Cgingold (talk) 13:46, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A slight problem with that. Namely the article is under dispute and it's even tagged as "may need to be rewritten."--T. Anthony (talk) 07:40, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No it is not under dispute. The editor who added the ((pov))-template nearly a year ago has never edited the article before or after, and made only one talkpage edit (in which he objected to the idea of restricting the topic to "government-sponsored" films, as that would automatically exclude Farenheit 9/11. As this restriction, and thus any dispute is not currently present, I am removing the template. HrafnTalkStalk 05:17, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Railway stations in Canada by compnay

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 13:11, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Railway stations in Canada by compnay (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Speedy Rename. Typo. (compnay -> company). --Kevlar (talk • contribs) 10:44, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Anti-racists

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 13:12, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Anti-racists to Category:Anti-racism activists
Nominator's rationale: Pretty much any contemporary public figure with something to say on the matter is against racism. Being an anti-racist is common to the point of triviality. What this category actually comprises, or should comprise, is individuals who devote careers, or at least a significant amount of time, to combating racism. I think my proposed renaming better encapsulates that. Biruitorul (talk) 05:52, 2 May 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.

Useless plant cats created by Bot, Episode VI

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 13:12, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Nominator's rationale: Five more plant categories created by User:Polbot. Specific reasons to follow. - IceCreamAntisocial (talk) 05:45, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Cheers, IceCreamAntisocial (talk) 05:50, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Foorian people to Cat:Fooian peoples

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 13:13, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming
Nominator's rationale: these category pages list (sub)groups of peoples belonging collectively to a larger ethnic/linguistic group (a peoples), and not individual people with a particular ethnicity Mayumashu (talk) 04:33, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Branches of Han People

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 13:14, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Branches of Han People to Category:Subgroups of Han Chinese
Nominator's rationale: to match the article Subgroups of Han Chinese Mayumashu (talk) 04:22, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Massacres 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 consensus. Kbdank71 13:50, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Massacres by country to Category:Massacres by location
Nominator's rationale: Rename. New name would more accurately describe the category. Old name is ambiguous because "massacres by country" could suggest that these massacres were committed by these counties, instead of in these countries, which is what is intended (as the names of the subcategories demonstrate). The old wording is of course derived from Wikipedia's naive, presentist bias towards categorization of historical topics by existing national boundaries; we can't fix that here, but this would be a baby step in the right direction. —Kevin Myers 04:21, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Massacres committed by the United States

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: no consensus. Kbdank71 13:50, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Massacres committed by the United States to Category:Massacres committed by United States military personnel
Nominator's rationale: Rename. A country doesn't commit a massacre; people do, and often in violation of the laws of that country. Presumably this longer name better describes the intention of the category. —Kevin Myers 03:52, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

more cat pages for people by ethnicity

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 (Foo people sounds good to me, personally. It keeps people from doing things like calling Peterkingiron a Britisher. Great Britainer? United Kingdomer of Northern Irelandisher and Great British? Whatever, you've all spoken.). Kbdank71 13:25, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming/merging
Nominator's rationale: people by ethnic groups, see Category:People by race or ethnicity and recent alike nominations Mayumashu (talk) 04:15, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose because the nominator #1) is incorrectly assuming that "Iranis", "Parsis", "Sherpas" etc are adjectives, and hence need to be followed by a noun. #2) is incorrectly assuming that these are not terms already in common use in the English language #3 is incorrectly assuming that these are actually "ethnic groups" by some formal definition, and not by editor's arbitrary definition of "ethnic group." #3) is assuming that "race", "tribe", "ethnicity" and "nationality" (Greek ethnous) are all co-eval (if at all either apply); #4) is attempting to apply an uncolloquial construct to the English language; along the lines of the Robbie Burns is not "Scottish", he's a "Scottish person." #5) is unaware that such a rename would in at least two of the four instances would cause a conflict with other articles #6) is unaware that there is continuous and bitter nationalism to contend with and that a rename would only aggravate the problem, #7) is assuming that all those categories contain only biographies. #8) There is absolutely no reason why one has to get convoluted when a short name will do. #9) the nominator is in such a hurry to get everything uniform that he/she failed to check the other parent categories of at least three of those categories -- not to mention that the text at the top of two of those cats make clear that the definition of those groups hinges on religious affiliation. #10) that the 'Manchu people' has a big fat banner on the top (since 25 July 2006!!) saying that cat is deprecated in favor of 'Manchus' But what I really don't get is why some editors can't leave well enough alone. -- Fullstop (talk) 18:06, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
reply #1) each seems to be a properly formed adjective, check the Merrian-Webster online dict, for instance #2)I don t dispute at all that these are common terms (my comments on the recent alike nominations that I have made for subcat pages of Category:People by race or ethnicity clearly indicate this) the reason for the nomination is to have a universal naming pattern. why is it Category:Italian people and not Category:Italians? both grammatically correct used commonly (to the contrary, certain adjective forms have less commonly used noun forms - French is an adjective whose noun form is? should it be Category:Britons and not Category:British people #3) nothing of this nomination or any alike ones that I ve made suggest in any way this?? #4)again, Robbie Burns is both Scottish and a Scottish person #5) please indicate the articles. #6)I don t know what place these comments have here. #7)even if articles other than biographies are contained, how does this deter from the renaming?? #8)I agree with you. however, in the case of people, both for nationalities and ethnicities, given the problem British, French, and a few others present adjectives seem preferable to denonyms #9)religious affiliation can be a defining feature of an ethnic group (eg. Jews/Jewish people). #10)the article page Manchus begins, "The Manchu people". Mayumashu (talk) 00:31, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
a) All of the above are nouns. 'Manju' is a proper name, and the others have a genetive suffix: -n in Turkic, -i in Indo-Iranian, -pa in Tibetan. These words with the suffix of appurtena can also be adjectives, but without context the default is a noun (like a "of Pakistan" is a Pakistani and "of Bengal" is a Bengali, but a person "of Nepal" is a Nepalese). Besides, the pluralization with -s makes it clear that we aren't taling about a language. Indeed, the -pa in "Sherpa" explicitly denotes "person of."
Even in the English language, Freddie Mercury was a Parsi and Tenzing Norgay was a Sherpa. Nothing wrong with those phrases. The articles and their lemmas reflect this as well.
No one's asserted that for these particular groups of people use of the plural noun is less correct than the adjective + people. As you later acknowledge your awareness of, this nomination is (just) about having a universal naming scheme or not
b) For the previously mentioned conflicts see hatnotes of the respective articles.
c) Tuvans, Manchus, Iranis, Parsis, and Sherpas are not French or British. There is neither any need to make everything "uniform," nor is what is good for the goose necessarily also good for the gander.
We fundamentally disagree on this, it seems clear to me.
d) While religious affiliation can be a defining feature of ethnicity, your 'Jewish people' example falls flat: 1) there is no other word for a follower of Judaism, 2) 'Jewish people' is not an ethnicity, 3) The category 'Category:Jewish people' redirects to 'Category:Jews' and the article for 'Jewish people' redirects to 'Jew'. Both short forms are perfectly fine. And the ones you want to rename are all fine too.
?? A Jew is a Jewish person, that is someone ethnically Jewish and practicing Judaism. Again, I agree, the shorter naming is perfectly fine here and in 99.5% of cases - this nomination is about the 0.5% (British, Dutch, English, French, and possibly Chinese and other -ese ending names).
Huh? I don't know which nomination you are referring to with "this nomination" but it can't possible be this nomination which is not "about the 0.5% (British, Dutch, English, French, and possibly Chinese and other -ese ending names)." -- Fullstop (talk) 04:20, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If it weren t for that 0.5%, I wouldn t have made this nomination. I have no problem, again with plural s other than that it can t be done for 100% of namings for people and I m seeking universal naming. Mayumashu (talk) 05:19, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but your aesthetic sensibilities are not a valid reason, nor was that part of your original rationale for rename. And that too only so that the nominated categories can be made to match the "0.5%" for which -s pluralization is not possible. Sorry, doesn't wash. -- Fullstop (talk) 07:14, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
e) The reason why the 'Manchu' article begins with "The Manchu people" is because 'Manchu' is singular. Exactly like every other *-nym that can be pluralized with a simple -s. That the editors chose to go with a definite article + "people" is an arbitrary editorial decision and indicates nothing. -- Fullstop (talk) 14:06, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
what then should be done with French and British in noun forms? Mayumashu (talk) 00:31, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing should be done! If/When appropriate it will already have been done. Wikipedia has been around for enough time for demonyms/ethnonyms to have settled. That 'British people' isn't 'Britishers' or 'Britons' is presumably because someone chose the former over the latter two. Arbitrarily perhaps. But what does it matter? 'French' and 'British' are not on the table here.
And just because some ethnonyms/demonyms need a "people" suffix doesn't mean that all do. Inversely, that most ethnonyms/demonyms don't need a "people" suffix doesn't mean that all don't.
But why are you insisting that there be "a universal naming pattern" anyway? Neither does the English language need to be stuck into a corset, nor does WP need "a universal naming pattern," nor would demonyms/ethnonyms exactly qualify as the best example to apply uniformity to (because, by definition, they are loan words). -- Fullstop (talk) 14:06, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Game show card games

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: not tagged until today, relisted on may 9th. Kbdank71 13:30, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Game show card games (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Category is redundant, is not accurate (listing segments from a game show; not gameshows themselves), and seems to have little potential for growth. Modor (talk) 04:07, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:WP Pakistan AoA

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. WoohookittyWoohoo! 10:29, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:WP Pakistan AoA (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Has to be deleted as the page was later decided to be called Category:WP Pakistan AaA Arun Reginald (talk · contribs) 04:03, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category: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: relisted on may 16. Kbdank71 13:40, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[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]
  • 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]
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:Post-funk albums

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 13:30, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Post-funk albums (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete This is a non-existant genre which only exists on the one article which is in this category. Munci (talk) 03:20, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Russian White Emigration

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:White Russian emigration. Kbdank71 13:33, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Russian White Emigration to Category:White Russian emigrants
Nominator's rationale: improved word order, use of a lower case 'e', and that most pages listed are of emigrants and this rename would link well for Category:Russian emigrants (and there is no Category:Russian emigration) Mayumashu (talk) 02:36, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
comment. I see now that White Russian can mean Belarus. An alternative renaming (therefore) could be Category:White émigrés, to match White Emigre (which itself should be renamed White émigré - something with my keyboard I can t do). Mayumashu (talk) 02:44, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
comment if sentiment is to keep the cat page as is (about the emigration and not as a list of the emigrants of that wave), and to keep the proper noun form (which I favour as well) then how about the alternative Category:Russian 'White Emigration' for a little more clarity Mayumashu (talk) 04:10, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I d support this too. Mayumashu (talk) 00:34, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with that too, as the only other commentor so far. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:23, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support last proposal - There certainly is an ambiguity with Belarus (but the term White Russia for it is obsolete). Fortunately there are no (or few) black (skinned) Russians, so that problem does not arise. If there is a problem as to the scope of the category, then a short headnote can be provided describing with its intended content. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:35, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Don't you believe it!

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. WoohookittyWoohoo! 10:22, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Don't you believe it! (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Classifying Tom & Jerry episodes by a famous phrase used in the episode doesn't seem to be a good way to go. Granted, the phrase is classic, but we don't classify Seinfeld episodes by the ones in which Jerry says, "Hello, Newman ...". Notified creator with ((subst:cfd-notify)) Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:26, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Blacks and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

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 13:34, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:Blacks and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to Category:Mormonism and race
Nominator's rationale: Merge. These categories are, for the most part, co-extensive. There are few prominent issues involving Mormonism and race that don't (1) involve the LDS Church, and (2) involve Black people. Right now there doesn't seem to be a good rationale or larger scheme purpose for the subdivision. If put together, there would still only be 17 total articles on the topic of Mormonism and race. If kept, most articles need to be transferred into the subcategory. Notified creator with ((subst:cfd-notify)) Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:17, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
More