< January 27 January 29 >

January 28

People by Taiwanese descent

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 15:11, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming:
Nominator's rationale: Rename. To follow other categories like Category:Americans of Dutch descent. impactF=check this 23:42, 28 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:Ancient Synagogues

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 rename.--cjllw ʘ TALK 03:07, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Ancient Synagogues to Category:Ancient synagogues
Nominator's rationale: Rename with correct capitalisation Ian Cairns (talk) 20:57, 28 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:Recipients of the Bronze Star medal

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 rename as capitalization error. Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:40, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Recipients of the Bronze Star medal to Category:Recipients of the Bronze Star Medal
Nominator's rationale: Rename, capitalizing "Medal" to match the title of the parent article Bronze Star Medal. Alansohn (talk) 20:29, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The official name of the medal is the Bronze Star Medal, as distinguished from the Silver Star. Oddly enough, I don't see the reason documented in the article; I guess I should start looking for a source to cite. Rklear (talk) 21:58, 28 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:Years in space exploration

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: withdrawn. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:16, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Years in space exploration to Category:Years in spaceflight
Note, this move request applies to all subcategories as well as the category itself
Added: Propose renaming Category:History of space exploration to Category:History of spaceflight
Added: Propose merging Category:Space exploration timelines into Category:Timelines of spaceflight
Nominator's rationale: Space exploration is a limited area of spaceflight. These categories are already being used to categorise articles related to other areas, unrelated to exploration. I am therefore suggesting that they be renamed to reflect this. Last year, WikiProject Space Exploration was renamed WikiProject Spaceflight, and the Space Exploration portal was merged into Portal:Spaceflight for the same reasons. It seems logical to do the same with these categories. GW… 18:54, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdrawn, see below --GW… 19:12, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I'm less concerned about the fact that only a few of the sub-cats have been tagged for renaming than I am about the fact that all of the parent categories (going up the "tree") use the term "exploration". Doesn't your rationale apply equally to all of those other categories? Why are you starting here, and how would it make sense to change these cats while leaving the others at their current names? Cgingold (talk) 19:11, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • 1) I was in the process of tagging subcats when you made that comment, all first level subcategories are now tagged, and I am about to check whether this affects any second level categories. 2) I have added Category:History of space exploration and Category:Space exploration timelines. I think that Category:Space exploration is okay, but it should become a subcategory of Category:Spaceflight, and all pages and subcategories in it should be evaluated to see whether they are supposed to be there. --GW… 19:42, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - A major advantage of using the term "spaceflight" in category names is that its meaning is relatively unambiguous and its use is generally uncontentious. In contrast it can occasionally be difficult for individual editors to clearly determine -- or for groups of editors to reach consensus on -- whether a given spaceflight mission should be categorised as a "space exploration" mission, or whether an article about a topic that doesn't directly involve spaceflight should nonetheless be included in a "space exploration" category. Categories with "spaceflight" in their names are thus easier for editors to use. At the same time, they might also be more likely to provide readers with what they expect, which would be a good thing indeed! (sdsds - talk) 21:06, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The point still stands that "space exploration" is not interchangeable with "spaceflight". Thus both category systems are valid and both should be retained separately and populated. There is nothing stopping any editor from creating and populating Category:Years in spaceflight without obliterating the "years in space exploration" category. The same goes for the other nominated category. If articles about spaceflight are incorrectly categorized under space exploration or vice-versa, that's an editing problem. Recategorize the articles, don't get rid of the categories. Otto4711 (talk) 00:15, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fine, withdrawn for now. I'll create a new set of categories, and remove anything that does not qualify as "exploration" from the current ones. I may bring this up again later (as a merge or delete request) if it becomes clear that the SE categories are underpopulated --GW… 19:12, 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:Ulaanbaatar

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) 22:28, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Ulaanbaatar to Category:Ulan Bator
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Article is under Ulan Bator, should be in sync. Gryffindor (talk) 14:33, 28 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:Wells

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 . Having said that, this category can be recreated to serve as a container category for the structures. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:20, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Wells to Category:Wells, Somerset
Nominator's rationale: Rename. A well is a hole in the ground used for extracting underground fluids such as water, oil or gas. The title Category:Wells suggests a category for such entities. (We already have Category:Water wells and Category:Oil wells, and it is a discussion for another day whether there should be an overarching category for all such wells.) In fact this category is meant for "articles associated with the city of Wells in the English county of Somerset". This is totally unintuitive and unexpected for the vast majority of readers. Hesperian 13:50, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As the main article on wikipedia for Wells is about the city in Somerset it seems sensible to have the Category:Wells also associated with the city. Perhaps Category:Well could cover the holes in the ground described above?— Rod talk 14:38, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, except I think that approach has always been there, just for cases liker this. Johnbod (talk) 14:37, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Could be, though I couldn't find any specific examples ... Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:08, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just want to be clear that my support for renaming is in no way based on HotCat -- I was merely pointing out that HotCat exacerbates the problem. Cgingold (talk) 13:03, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Out of curiosity, what are the "arguments against" that you can see? As far as I can tell, the only argument against is that the article is at Wells, and in response to that a number of people have indicated that the article should be moved too. I'm wondering if there are other arguments that I have missed here. Hesperian 13:05, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Arguments against - unnecessary effort (the nominator explicitly says there is no present need for a higher category for oil wells and water wells); category pages are generally seen in either the context of their parent category and the pages within them which should be sufficient which should make them fairly unambiguous; where does this end? (maybe ALL geographic categories should be disambiguated in their titles to avoid potential confusion ie Category:Gloucester and Category:Gloucester, Massachusetts. If nothing else the rule would be simpler, applied more consistently, and avoid all of this mess. It makes no sense to me to have different article and category names.)--Derek Andrews (talk) 14:44, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "the nominator explicitly says there is no present need for a higher category for oil wells and water wells" I most certainly did not say that. Hesperian 01:39, 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:Creation myths

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 15:13, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Creation myths to Category:Creation accounts, Category:Creation stories, or some other more NPOV wording.
Nominator's rationale: Posting as category for discussion - needs more NPOV wording (which neither lists them as myth or fact). 2000 years from now Christian/Muslim/(other contemporary religions') fundamentalist creation stories may be viewed more universally the same as Greek/Roman mythology, but currently a sizable minority of humans still believe them as fact. Genesis, etc, may very well be myths but it is not Wikipedia's place (or NPOV) to describe or categorize them as such. Such categorization also implies a POV/anti-creationism bias in articles themselves. (Note: I am not a creationist, but this is an obvious POV naming (whether intended as such or not) here) Outsider80(talk) 09:25, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutrality is defined as objectively as possible at WP:NPOV. A subjective definition like it gives the impression that WP is liberally-biased would be a impossible to work with. Cheers, Ben (talk) 01:34, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Myth is NPOV and appropriate in this case. This is an encyclopedia - its purpose is to educate. If people do not know how anthopologists, scholars of comparative religion, historians, and othe pople who study creation myths, do not know what scholars man by "myth" in this context, well, let's just explain it to them, as an enecylopedia ought to. This is not just a mater of semantics: what maks something a myth is not its truth-value, but its social function. The whole point of the study of creation myths is that scholas are relatively uninterested in whether the myth really occured or not, they are interested in social functions. In order to educate our readers about creation myths, we need to get them to understand that there is a more interesting question than "did Zeus really do all those things." When they can understand this more interesting question, they will really learn something important about creation myths. Calling them anyting other than myths defeats the whole point. Slrubenstein | Talk 03:34, 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:French politicians of the 17th century

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:14, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:French politicians of the 17th century to Category:17th-century French politicians
Category:French politicians of the 20th century to Category:20th-century French politicians
Category:French politicians of the 18th century to Category:18th-century French politicians
Category:French politicians of the 19th century to Category:19th-century French politicians
Category:French politicians of the 21st century to Category:21st-century French politicians
Nominator's rationale: Rename. The parent and most similar categories list the century first and then the topic. If this one is approved the remaining categories in this tree will need to be nominated. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:06, 28 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:Union Theological Seminary alumni

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) 22:30, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Union Theological Seminary alumni to Category:Union Theological Seminary (Virginia) alumni
Nominator's rationale: Rename. This category is intended for alumni of Union Theological Seminary & Presbyterian School of Christian Education in Richmond, Virginia. However, about half the current entries are about alumni of Union Theological Seminary in the City of New York, which lacks a category of its own (some eligible articles may be listed under Category:Columbia University alumni). Renaming would end this confusion, and permit creation of an appropriate second category, Category:Union Theological Seminary (New York) alumni. Rklear (talk) 06:35, 28 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:Former pupils of the Royal School Dungannon

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. Deletion can be discussed after the rename is there is a strong opinion about this, however it may be best to do that as part of a larger nomination. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:24, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Former pupils of the Royal School Dungannon to Category:Alumni of the Royal School Dungannon or delete as non-defining
Nominator's rationale: Rename or delete. Use "alumni" per similar WP categories and to avoid "former" vs. "current" issues. Or delete as non-defining. Notified creator with ((subst:cfd-notify)) Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:29, 28 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.
More