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.
Propose renaming Category:Burmologist to Category:UNKNOWN
Nominator's rationale:Rename. I'm relatively sure "Burmologist" and "Burmology" are neologisms. Google searchresults seem to confirm that. However, I'm unsure what the correct term would be. The category's defined as "scholars of Burmese", and all of the articles included are about linguists who teach and study the Burmese language. At Category:Linguists, we seem to have linguists divided by nationality and some divided by ancient languages, but no system of dividing linguists by extant languages. (There are the Category:Translators categories, but this seems a bit different.) Good Ol’factory(talk) 23:42, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Problem. The only references to the word online have more to do with burms (which seems to be something to do with pythons) than Burma. I can find no word for an expert on the culture and history of Burma overall, let alone one for those who study the language. The current name's not appropriate, but other than something convoluted like Category:Experts on the Burmese language, which sounds clunky, I can't think of a viable alternative. Grutness...wha? 00:06, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The usual options would be -ologist (Turkologist) or -ist (Sanskritist/Mongolist). When I decided to make the page in the first place the google searches revealed that burmologist is an attested word (though not much) and no other imaginable option seems to be. By my account the Google test seems to have voted in favour of Burmologist. Tibetologist (talk) 09:06, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Scholars of Burmese. "Burmology" seems in use (mostly by Indian sources [1]) but not "Burmologist", except as a joke word by keepers of Burmese pythons (those that haven't been strangled yet). All these are linguists, or linguists plus - we can cross the other bridge later. Johnbod (talk) 13:30, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
SupportJohnbod. Alternatively, Category:Experts on Burmese language and culture. Two of the three named appear merely to be expert in the language, the other also in culture. I suspect the term has been coined as cognate to Sinologist, but it is a neologism and so unacceptable. If kept, it should be in plural Category:Burmologists. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:05, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per Johnbod - "experts" as proposed by Peterkingiron is POV. You can be a scholar but still be inexpert. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:13, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Burmese studies scholars per recent discussion which retained the Foo studies scholars format in Category:Scholars by subject except where ambiguous. "Burmese studies" is preferable as the category is already small, and its growth will be stifled by limiting its contents to language scholars. In fact, I could not find a single WP category devoted to scholars of any language; they are all grouped with scholars of the culture.-choster (talk) 20:11, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support renaming to Category:Burmese studies scholars per choster. Ya beat me to it -- I was having the very same thoughts as I read down through the other comments. Cgingold (talk) 22:19, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per choser (nominator). (Either that or Category:Myanmarologists.) Good Ol’factory(talk) 09:02, 30 January 2009 (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:Shopping centers by year of establishment
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 15:19, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Restore. Let the otters loose to return things so that an informed decision can be made. For the record I'm not sure which is the parent and which is the child or if we really need both. But I also think a discussion is warranted. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:51, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
mall The typical mall is enclosed, with a climate-controlled walkway between two facing rows of stores. The term represents the most common design mode for regional and superregional centers and has become and informal term for these types of centers.
shopping center A group of retail establishments and other commercial establishments that is planned, developed, owned, and managed as a single property. The center's size and orientation are generally determined by the market characteristics of the trade area served by the center. The two main configurations of shopping centers are malls and open-air strip centers.
Oppose Too US-centric. Lugnuts (talk) 17:44, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I live in the US, and I think the general term should be "shopping center." ("Shopping mall" has a narrower definition, even in the US.) --Orlady (talk) 18:50, 31 January 2009 (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:Sibling musical trios
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.
Nominator's rationale: Delete Overly specific, not a defining characteristic. Either delete or move it back to Category:Sibling trios. We already have a precedent at Category:Sibling duos and Category:Musical duos that categorizing is fine when it's by number or relationship, but not both. I should also note that this is basically is a more narrow re-interepretation of the long since deleted Category:Musical groups with siblings, which was deleted as a non-defining category. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 21:33, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging this and Category:Sibling duos into a new Category:Sibling musical groups. Such groups are relatively unusual, so that the fact that all the members are siblings seems to me a notable characteristic. However a quartet with two siblings in it would still be NN. I suspect that this is why Category:Musical groups with siblings got deleted - can some one give us the reference for that CFD? Peterkingiron (talk) 13:58, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – per recent cfd discussion brought up by the same nom very recently. (The point would be that a trio of 3 siblings is defining, whereas 2 siblings in a quartet is not.) Occuli (talk) 19:03, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep too soon to renominate. I would have !voted delete had I been paying attention then and would now had there not been a CFD <2months ago. It's trivial, yes, but perennially voting on the same thing is more disruptive to WP than bearing this lousy category a few more months. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:15, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep per Occuli & Carlossuarez. At this rate we could have 6 CFDs per year on the same category -- so let's not go there. Cgingold (talk) 22:34, 26 January 2009 (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.
Aborted 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.
Normally I don't supported adding disambiguators to artist names in categories (I voted against "Disturbed (band) albums," for example), but in this case, it seems possible to confuse this with "Albums which which were started but then stopped before release," which is a lot of them.--Mike Selinker (talk) 21:14, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support rename per nom. Lugnuts (talk) 17:43, 26 January 2009 (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.
Major Indoor Soccer League
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
Category:Major Indoor Soccer League (1978 – 1992) to Category:Major Indoor Soccer League (1978-1992)
Category:Major Indoor Soccer League (original) to Category:Major Indoor Soccer League (1978-1992)
Category:Major Indoor Soccer League (1978 – 1992) players to Category:Major Indoor Soccer League (1978-1992) players
Category:Major Indoor Soccer League (original) players to Category:Major Indoor Soccer League (1978-1992) players
Suggest merging Category:Major Indoor Soccer League (1978 – 1992) to Category:Major Indoor Soccer League (original)
Suggest merging Category:Major Indoor Soccer League (1978 – 1992) players to Category:Major Indoor Soccer League (original) players
The two newly-created categories with dates are redundant with older categories. No preference on the direction of the merge. Please note that Category:Major Indoor Soccer League (2001 – 2008) was created at the same time. - Eureka Lott 20:57, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If we are going to use the range of years, the correct titles would be:
Comment - No preference on which categories survive but if a date range is used then oppose use of non-keyboard characters in category names as a barrier to navigation. Otto4711 (talk) 22:14, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question for Otto - I don't know what OS you mainly use; but in OSX, option-"hyphen" gives – (and, shift-option-hyphen for the really long one —). I suspect XP has a similar feature, but, I don't have any of those to experiment with. In any case, as I wrote below, no strong feelings either way. Neier (talk) 11:52, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I use OSX as well and was unfamiliar with the keystroke combination you mentioned. I would guess that a goodly percentage of users of any particular OS are unfamiliar with key combo-generated characters, which is a good reason IMHO not to use such characters in category names. Otto4711 (talk) 16:32, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reverse merge, as having the dates adds clarity. Mayumashu (talk) 05:40, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reverse merge to keep the dates. No strong feeling on the –/- issue, but, the spaces surrounding either –/- should be eliminated in these two, and the 2001/2008 categories as well. Neier (talk) 11:52, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reverse merge to keep the year ranges, but remove the spaces per MOS links above. — CharlotteWebb 21:05, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to a hyphenated version. My keyboard doesn't come with an en dash. --Kbdank71 15:16, 2 February 2009 (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.
Disestablishment by year and decade BC
The result of the discussion was:no consensus, defaulting to keep. Hersfold(t/a/c) 23:42, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge A system of categorization has been established for Category:Disestablishments by year that is refined down to year for all of history. The pre-1st century categories are defined extremely narrowly -- most of the discatBC (yearly) categories and many of the decade categories have at most one entry, so they are of little or no use for navigation. As with Category:Settlements by year of establishment, it makes sense to establish a cutoff before which events will be categorized by century, not by decade or year. I propose that a cutoff be established at 1 B.C., subject to revision by future consensus. - Stepheng3 (talk) 21:03, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That would be helpful if there was a meaningful way to sort them chronologically within the same category, which there isn't. — CharlotteWebb 21:09, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In case I was unclear, let me clarify that I was hoping for an upmerge both to the year category and also to the disestablishment-by-century category. To me, it seems unlikely that someone would go looking specifically for a disestablishment in, say, 337 B.C., but if they did, they look could either in Category:337 BC or Category:4th century BC disestablishments, neither of which would have more than a dozen entries. - Stepheng3 (talk) 06:17, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
They sure would look in the exact-year categories if they were looking for events of any kind with which to expand the 337 BC article. In the future we may implement some way to automatically generate a timeline based on chronological information of this sort. I realize the current category system wouldn't be ideal for that, but transitioning from this to something better would be easier than manually regenerating the current level of precision from scratch. I don't think the number of items in a category has anything to do with its usefulness. — CharlotteWebb 15:24, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep these will be filled in over time. There's not much going on in any random year you may pick more than a few centuries ago, but they all form part of a schema that partial dismantlement will do more harm to WP than good. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:17, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Useful for sorting articles, extracting subsets of articles automatically, etc. I don't see anything particularly harmful about keeping them, since you can still do the per-century navigation as long as these year categories are all subcategories of the proper century categories. At most it requires an extra click or two. --Delirium (talk) 09:29, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete until needed. One-article categories aren't useful. --Kbdank71 15:13, 2 February 2009 (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:Tecmo Super Bowl players
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 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:Anno Domini
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.
Nominator's rationale: To match actual article name and English name for the series -- Collectonian (talk ·contribs) 19:21, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Semi SupportAnno Domini is something else altogether. I suggest Gundam 00 universe instead. 76.66.198.171 (talk) 06:32, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Pages and categories should be named after the series, not the time line. --Farix (Talk) 11:58, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support as some long-needed Gundam cleanup. 「ダイノガイ千？！」(Dinoguy1000) 18:49, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support per above and then we put the right stuff in the right box. --KrebMarkt 10:49, 29 January 2009 (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:Arkansas State Indians football categories
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:no consensus. Kbdank71 14:41, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. Arkansas State University changed their nickname from the Indians to the Red Wolves beginning in the Fall 2008. The use of "Indian" in collegiate nicknames is a highly contentious issue in the United States as well and, seeing as the University has changed the name, our categories should reflect this.TM 17:45, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but create new categories for current and future players/coaches/etc. There is ample precedent against anachronistic categories, i.e. using team names which were not in use during so-and-so's career with the team. For example we have:
These are in fact six names for the same team. This is actually a similar case as the "Bullets" name was abandoned on the basis people might associate it with presidential assassinations and/or phenomenal violent crime rates in the D.C. area. — CharlotteWebb 21:26, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per CharlotteWebb's well-outlined reasons; and to avoid anachronisms. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:11, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional rename. In the college categories, all categories currently default to the current name (see, for example, Category:Syracuse Orange football players). I'm not saying it's a bad idea to do what CharlotteWebb suggested here, just that it may require a whole lot of manual effort to make it consistent. If that's going to happen, great. But if not, I'd oppose making CharlotteWebb's change by itself, if only for reasons of inertia.--Mike Selinker (talk) 01:23, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually this would require less work, because we would not be re-categorizing old players every time a sports team adopts a new name. — CharlotteWebb 21:09, 31 January 2009 (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:Stuart Draper plays
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. While there are some playwrights that have categories, my review of these is that they are the more prolific ones. In some cases they even have subcategories. I don't think that it is valid to use the part of argument in this case when there may be a large number of playwrights that may only produce a single play and have no need for a category. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:12, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete One-page category of playwright of barely marginal notability. THF (talk) 13:43, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - part of Category:Plays by author. (If you doubt the notability of the play then take it to afd.) Occuli (talk) 15:20, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I don't buy the "part of" argument. I believe the notability in the nomination is referring to the playwright, not the play. --Kbdank71 14:16, 2 February 2009 (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:Nuclear-powered ships
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:do not rename. Good Ol’factory(talk) 07:54, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Most of the articles listed under this category are submarines. The word "ship" describes a surface-vessel - submarines are "boats". Thus "ships" should be changed to "vessels" so as to include icebreakers, etc and submarines. John Smith's (talk) 12:52, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The term vessel includes spacecraft and is generally a more ambiguous term. And the boat/ship distinction is a historical detail which seems of little importance. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:13, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A nuclear power station has a pressure vessel, which is a "nuclear power vessel", this nom will lead to confusion. Anyway, I am not sur that the statement that submarines are "boats" not "ships" applies universally in the Enlsih-speaking world. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:44, 25 January 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Which English-speaking navies call their submarines boats? If you can't think of any perhaps we could create a new category for nuclear-powered submarines. I had a quick look at an online dictionary and the definition of ship didn't include submarines. Are they any that do? John Smith's (talk) 16:14, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I recall hearing boat used for the US subs. Maybe the ship or military task forces could help provide guidance? Vegaswikian (talk) 21:56, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Submarines are indeed boats in navy jargon, but not to the public at large, and when a word used professionally differs from how it is used commonly, it is the common use that is likely to prevail at WP through custom if not rule— for example see Category:Cannon.-choster (talk) 19:29, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As Is - Yes, it's true that submarines are referred to as "boats". But notice how that's phrased: they're referred to as "boats" -- that doesn't mean they are "boats". The article on Watercraft, which has a nifty delineation of the various sorts of water craft, points out that the practice of referring to subs as "boats" has been held over from the era when they were more properly considered boats. More to the point, they're now rightly considered to be ships, which is reflected in the fact that Category:Submarines is NOT found under Category:Boats -- it's found under Category:Ships by type. And lastly, take a quick look at the article about the Reagan-era plan for a 600-ship Navy: you guessed it -- nuclear-powered submarines were most definitely counted as "ships", regardless of what term may be favored by submariners. (Btw, they also refer to sub skippers as "drivers" -- whereas our Wiki category uses the term "Submarine commanders".) So my advice is, let's not stress over this one -- the current name does the job, and there's no compelling reason to change it. Cgingold (talk) 11:03, 27 January 2009 (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.
Writers by state
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.
Nominator's rationale: Recent discussions indicate a consensus for categories of people from individual states in the US to be of the form Fooers from Bar which is less confusing, and more in-line with the stand-alone clause of WP:NCCAT. For one example in this nomination, without the surrounding context of by-state, Category:Alaska writers could apply equally to James Michener or anyone currently in the category. This is part of an ongoing series of nominations intended to bring all of the by-state categories into a common format, even when the chance for confusion is low. Neier (talk) 11:35, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all as nominator. Neier (talk) 11:35, 25 January 2009 (UTC) striking !vote as it is assumed as nominator that you favor the proposal and at least one recent CFD has been affected by the inclusion of a nominator's separate !vote. Otto4711 (talk) 13:14, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom - so we get the "from" categories that are ill-defined but seem comfortable. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:19, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom; it's an improvement, though I question whether such categories should exist at all. See my comments below in the artists CFD. Postdlf (talk) 20:10, 26 January 2009 (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:Pools
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.
Nominator's rationale: Delete Article for Pool is a disambiguation page therefore it makes little sense to have an associated category. This is merely a collection of things with Pool in their title.JBellis (talk) 11:31, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
rename to Category:Natural pools. As a subcat of Category:Fluvial landforms, this cat should be proper named, properly purposed, and properly populated with natural pools of any kind, regardless of the article name. Some pruning is needed to rid it of non-natural pools. Hmains (talk) 01:00, 26 January 2009 (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:Object-oriented database management systems
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 14:13, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. The term "object-oriented database" is incorrect. It shall be "object database". Johan Natt och Dag (talk) 10:54, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question - why is "object-oriented database" incorrect? Otto4711 (talk) 14:11, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
question why do we seem to have two renames happening simultaneously on this category? Hmains (talk) 01:10, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I believe that Object-oriented database is the correct term. It certainly gets plenty of Google hits. The main article should be moved back. - Stepheng3 (talk) 18:50, 31 January 2009 (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.
Artists by state
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.
Nominator's rationale: Recent discussions indicate a consensus for categories of people from individual states in the US to be of the form Fooers from Bar which is less confusing, and more in-line with the stand-alone clause of WP:NCCAT. For example, in the nomination below, without the surrounding context of by-state, the exact nature of Category:Oklahoma musical groups is not obvious. This is part of an ongoing series of nominations intended to bring all of the by-state categories into a common format, even when the chance for confusion is low. Neier (talk) 09:04, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all as nominator. Neier (talk) 09:04, 25 January 2009 (UTC) striking !vote as it is assumed as nominator that you favor the proposal and at least one recent CFD has been affected by the inclusion of a nominator's separate !vote.[reply]
Comment. I don't care what these are named as long as all the articles in these categories remain in the grandparent Category:American artists. I have yet to go to a museum that separated their artists by state. Many museums have "American wings". That is the important category and it should not be diffused. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 09:33, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This begs the question of whether it is proper at all to categorize a nationally classified occupation by an individual's subnational association. If the point is to group information, for each subnational entity, regarding what occupations notable people from there have gone into, regardless of where those occupations were actually engaged in, then lists accomplish that without causing navigation problems of this kind. Postdlf (talk) 18:25, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all per nom. Though I question the utility of these categories at all per my above comment, the rename is better in that it more accurately captures how these categories are used: not for individuals whose art careers were necessarily connected to those states (as "Wyoming artist," etc., would imply), but for artists who simply happened to have been "from" those states (whatever "from" means) regardless of where they eventually made art. Postdlf (talk) 18:25, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support per my comment in the writers cat. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:21, 26 January 2009 (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.
Musicians by state
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.
Nominator's rationale: Recent discussions indicate a consensus for categories of people from individual states in the US to be of the form Fooers from Bar which is less confusing, and more in-line with the stand-alone clause of WP:NCCAT. For example, in this particular nomination, without the surrounding context of by-state, the exact nature of Category:Oklahoma musical groups is not obvious. This is part of an ongoing series of nominations intended to bring all of the by-state categories into a common format, even when the chance for confusion is low. Neier (talk) 08:25, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all as nominator. Neier (talk) 08:25, 25 January 2009 (UTC) striking !vote as it is assumed as nominator that you favor the proposal and at least one recent CFD has been affected by the inclusion of a nominator's separate !vote.[reply]
Rename all per nom, and per my comments in the above similar CFD for artists categories, while maintaining doubt as to the need for these categories also for my reasons in the above CFD. Postdlf (talk) 18:27, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per my comment in the writers cat above. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:21, 26 January 2009 (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:Robert Morrison (missionary)
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 14:09, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Overcategorisation. The two articles will provide all the navigation aids that will ever be needed. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:38, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete eponymous cat, lots of precedent. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:22, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete For now.But if there would be some more article about Robert Morrison I will create same category again. Is that OK? Vojvodaen (talk) 19:22, 26 January 2009 (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:US State Articles (LDS)
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 14:07, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support rename with mild misgivings about the unwieldiness of the proposed name. - Stepheng3 (talk) 18:51, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Don't know what else we could do to shorten it. It's long because the name of the church is long. Good Ol’factory(talk) 07:27, 1 February 2009 (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:Ex-gay 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.
Propose renaming Category:Ex-gay people to Category:People who identify as ex-gay
Nominator's rationale: CfD from two years ago ended in "no consensus". It's time to bring this point up once again. Category as it is named now is a magnet for POV inclusions. Please see that discussion. CaveatLector TalkContrib 04:43, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, on the baasis of the fact that we don't know whether they are "ex-gay" or not, only how they identify themselves. Will Bebacktalk 06:13, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'm not sure this category should exist at all, but if it does, the name would be Category:People self-identified as ex-gay. Two reasons: 1) Without "Self-identified" it will continue as POV magnet, and 2) the wording should cover people who now say they are ex-gay, previously said they were ex-gay, and are now alive or are now dead. I would also hope that this category only be used for articles where the person's ex-gay self-identity is discussed. The problem, in general with all of these sexuality categories is that many people's self-identity change over time for different reasons. If we are going to try and make this category useful academically, the people listed should be those associated to the ex-gay movement rather than people who just happened to have changed their self-identity over time or are bisexual and ended up later in life in a heterosexual relationship. Stephen Spender is someone who comes to mind as not belonging here. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 09:27, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - what is John Paulk's defining characteristic if not ex-gay? Neutral on the rename but the category itself is valid and defining. Otto4711 (talk) 13:45, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"We don't know whether they are "ex-gay" or not, only how they identify themselves" ← Uhhh, wouldn't that caveat also apply to people who identify as "still-gay", etc. I know we're not mind-readers but we still have thousands of categories based on people's sexuality, religion, political affiliation, and so forth which are based primarily on self-identification. Is there any precedent for second-guessing article subjects in this manner? I've never seen anything like it. — CharlotteWebb 22:00, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The only precedent I'm aware of is Category:People self-identifying as alcoholics which IIRC ended up there after a CFD because of WP:BLP concerns. Calling someone "ex-gay" is not AFAIK defamatory so BLP doesn't apply. Otto4711 (talk) 22:13, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do we have any who identify as ex-alcoholics, or is there such a thing? — CharlotteWebb 22:35, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think most recovered alcoholics consider themselves still alcoholics--certainly those association with AA do.DGG (talk) 00:26, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think this special title designation is necessary in order to prevent or at least discourage the infiltration of this category with inappropriate entries. I agree it is an exceptional case, but I think we need it. DGG (talk) 00:26, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm puzzled. This discussion was intended (by me, the "nominator") to be about whether or not we should rename this category. Deletion was never the goal of this CfD (In fact, listing people who identify as ex-gay is a perfectly reasonable category that I support. If I didn't, would would have argued for deletion...). So I'm curious as to why Otto's and DGG's comments seem to be directed towards a deletion discussion. Perhaps I'm just confused or misreading your statements? Could the two of you clarify: What are you suggesting with regard to the name of the category? CaveatLector TalkContrib 07:28, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I couched my comment as I did because the first response to the rename proposal began with "I'm not sure this category should exist at all..." which is another way of saying "possibly delete". I don't care much one way or the other about the exact name formation of the category (although honestly I find "people who identify as ex-gay" to be on the silly side) but the category should clearly be kept under some name. Otto4711 (talk) 09:12, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename since WP bends over backward before we label someone "gay", we whould do likewise with someone is labelled as "ex-gay". We should limit it to those who so identify and the title should reflect that choice. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:27, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We don't bend that far over backward (except of course for our perverse insistence that gay porn stars not be categorized as "gay porn stars". While WP:LGBT does not have a guideline specifically for categorizing someone as ex-gay, Wikipedia:LGBT#Guidelines outlines when the project will categorize someone as LGBT. I would think that the same general guideline (self-identification or reliable sourcing that the person is ex-gay) would apply. Otto4711 (talk) 03:50, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Otto, you were there for those porn star cats debate, so you should know where I'm coming from on this. If someone claims to identify as a "ex-gay" but his/her conduct (as reported in WP:RSes) is contrary to his/her claim, then why should we defer to their own claim; we don't for claims of messiah-hood, or as my grandma used to say "I'm an ex-smoker" between each cigarette "I quit 10 minutes ago". Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:16, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I support the renaming of this article. Since it is impossible to know the true sexual orientation of another person, I think the title "People who identify as ex-gay" is more accurate. --SeedFeeder (talk) 10:31, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support rename to Category:People self-identified as ex-gay. Indeed there are many who have flipped from ex-gay to gay and back again - ex-ex-ex-gays or something like that. The phrase pick a lane and drive comes to mind but I might be crabby at the moment. -- Banjeboi 11:07, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Pretty much all our identity categories are based on how someone identifies or is commonly identified, so it's redundant to have it in the title. We don't personally check, for example, whether someone is "really" an LGBT person, but it'd be silly to move that category to Category:People who identify as LGBT. Same with, say, moving Category:Communists to Category:People who self-identify or are commonly associated with Communism. --Delirium (talk) 11:17, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually we do. LGBT cats, along with religion cats have been singled out that people need to self-identify if they are BLP or compelling reliable sources that identify them as such. Being an ex-gay or an ex-ex-gay of 3x-gay is seen as controversial so strong clarity should be emphasized. In time, hopefully, these issues will melt away but since there is continual abuse on the cat - presumably from many newbies - this will aid in eliminating ambiguity. For experienced editors we could put a note on the cat page but those are regularly unread, especially by newbies. -- Banjeboi 22:25, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Delirium above, or delete better yet. — CharlotteWebb 21:04, 31 January 2009 (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:United States Senate elections, 2009
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 delete as empty. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:25, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete There will not be any Senate elections in 2009, and thus, this category will never be populated. – Zntrip 02:29, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per impeccable reasoning of nominator. THF (talk) 13:44, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- It seems a useless category, since I gather vacancies are not filled by by-elctions. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:34, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no need for a category for articles that will never by definition exist. The states fill Senate vacancies through gubernatorial appointment, not off-year elections. Otto4711 (talk) 09:18, 26 January 2009 (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.