< January 4 January 6 >

January 5

Category:Cyclopses

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: round and round and round we rename. This time we'll leave a redirect. Kbdank71 15:12, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Cyclopses (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete Merge into Category:Cyclopes, the correct spelling. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:48, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: No, nobody would. This is because the proper plural for stadium (the building) is "stadiums", while the proper plural for the unit of length from which the word "stadium (the building)" derives would be "stadia". For instance: NFL teams play in many different "stadiums". Vs. The athlete ran several "stadia". They're two different words. CaveatLector Talk Contrib 06:36, 7 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:Pac biters

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:48, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Pac biters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete Seems to be an unencyclopedic category. Its name may refer to Tupac Shakur but the definition of the category is unclear and not explained in any of the articles. —Snigbrook 22:31, 5 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.

Songs by X

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, but only the ones that already exist as "blue-linked categories". Red-linked categories do not yet "exist" in that they have not yet been "created" (though articles may appear on them to show what the category would contain if created). I'm not going to have a bot create "renamed" categories from still non-existent categories because it will create categories with no parents. The ones that don't exist should be created and populated by editors as any new category would be. (Addendum (21.00 11 JAN 2009): This result also doesn't apply to Category:Songs by Edward Elgar, which wasn't properly tagged for this discussion and which was separately nominated at a later date.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:40, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've been asked to comment on individual category rename proposals. We really should consider them all together, so I do not keep getting one message on my user page every so often. It makes sense to have a uniform convention.

Propose renaming Category:Songs by Aaron Schroeder to Category:Songs written by Aaron Schroeder
Propose renaming Category:Songs by Abe Lyman to Category:Songs written by Abe Lyman
Propose renaming Category:Songs by Abner Silver to Category:Songs written by Abner Silver
Propose renaming Category:Songs by Al Jolson to Category:Songs written by Al Jolson
Propose renaming Category:Songs by Al Lewis to Category:Songs written by Al Lewis
Propose renaming Category:Songs by Al Sherman to Category:Songs written by Al Sherman
Propose renaming Category:Songs by Alec Wilder to Category:Songs written by Alec Wilder
Propose renaming Category:Songs by Amy Woodforde-Finden to Category:Songs written by Amy Woodforde-Finden
Propose renaming Category:Songs by Ann Ronell to Category:Songs written by Ann Ronell
Propose renaming Category:Songs by Archie Fletcher to Category:Songs written by Archie Fletcher
Propose renaming Category:Songs by Benny Davis to Category:Songs written by Benny Davis
Propose renaming Category:Songs by Bert Kaempfert to Category:Songs written by Bert Kaempfert
Propose renaming Category:Songs by Bert Lown to Category:Songs written by Bert Lown
Propose renaming Category:Songs by Betty Carter to Category:Songs written by Betty Carter
Propose renaming Category:Songs by Betty Peterson to Category:Songs written by Betty Peterson
Propose renaming Category:Songs by Bill Trader to Category:Songs written by Bill Trader
Propose renaming Category:Songs by Billy Duke to Category:Songs written by Billy Duke
Propose renaming Category:Songs by Billy Hill to Category:Songs written by Billy Hill
Propose renaming Category:Songs by Billy Mayhew to Category:Songs written by Billy Mayhew
Propose renaming Category:Songs by Billy Reid to Category:Songs written by Billy Reid
Propose renaming Category:Songs by Billy Rose to Category:Songs written by Billy Rose
Propose renaming Category:Songs by Billy Sherrill to Category:Songs written by Billy Sherrill
Propose renaming Category:Songs by Bob Hilliard to Category:Songs written by Bob Hilliard
Propose renaming Category:Songs by Bob Weir to Category:Songs written by Bob Weir
Propose renaming Category:Songs by Borney Bergantine to Category:Songs written by Borney Bergantine
Propose renaming Category:Songs by Buddy Feyne to Category:Songs written by Buddy Feyne
Propose renaming Category:Songs by Buddy Pepper to Category:Songs written by Buddy Pepper
Propose renaming Category:Songs by Carl Sigman to Category:Songs written by Carl Sigman
Propose renaming Category:Songs by Carole Joyner to Category:Songs written by Carole Joyner
Propose renaming Category:Songs by Charles Singleton to Category:Songs written by Charles Singleton
Propose renaming Category:Songs by Charles Tobias to Category:Songs written by Charles Tobias
Propose renaming Category:Songs by Chauncey Gray to Category:Songs written by Chauncey Gray
Propose renaming Category:Songs by Chilton Price to Category:Songs written by Chilton Price
Propose renaming Category:Songs by Chuck Willis to Category:Songs written by Chuck Willis
Propose renaming Category:Songs by Dave Bennett to Category:Songs written by Dave Bennett
Propose renaming Category:Songs by Dave Dreyer to Category:Songs written by Dave Dreyer
Propose renaming Category:Songs by Dick Charles to Category:Songs written by Dick Charles
Propose renaming Category:Songs by Dick Glasser to Category:Songs written by Dick Glasser
Propose renaming Category:Songs by Dolores Vicki Silvers to Category:Songs written by Dolores Vicki Silvers
Propose renaming Category:Songs by Dominic John to Category:Songs written by Dominic John
Propose renaming Category:Songs by Eddie Cooley to Category:Songs written by Eddie Cooley
Propose renaming Category:Songs by Eddie Miller to Category:Songs written by Eddie Miller
Propose renaming Category:Songs by Edgar De Lange to Category:Songs written by Edgar De Lange
Propose renaming Category:Songs by Edward Elgar to Category:Songs written by Edward Elgar
Propose renaming Category:Songs by Einar Aaron Swan to Category:Songs written by Einar Aaron Swan
Propose renaming Category:Songs by Ernesto Lecuona to Category:Songs written by Ernesto Lecuona

These only go through the E's, but I would extend the list to the whole set if I had the time and energy. -- BRG (talk) 22:03, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My question is, Why on earth did you create a number of brand-new categories that were tagged-at-birth for renaming? (I spotted three, I hope there aren't a lot more.) This is one of the strangest things I've ever come across on Wikipedia. Cgingold (talk) 15:37, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The category was created a long time ago, by simply assigning the song. As I thought I had made clear: when I categorized songs (through inadvertence) some were created as "Songs by X" and some as "Songs written by X." What you may not know is that when you categorize a page, it creates a new category that shows up as a red link, even though the category actually exists. It is only if you put something else (like a higher-level category) on the page that the link to that category goes to blue. So I don't know what you meant by "create a number of brand-new categories that were tagged-at-birth for renaming") -- BRG (talk) 18:55, 8 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:Montreal festivals

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 (no opposition and will match other categories). Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:36, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Montreal festivals to Category:Festivals in Montreal
Nominator's rationale: Rename. In keeping with parent categories. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:12, 5 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:Orthodox converts to Pagan religions

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 15:08, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Orthodox converts to Pagan religions (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete One article in category, too narrow Editor2020 (talk) 19:54, 5 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:Orthodox converts to Jehovah's Witnesses

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 15:07, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Orthodox converts to Jehovah's Witnesses (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete only one article in category, too narrow in scope Editor2020 (talk) 19:53, 5 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:Orthodox converts to Yehowism

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 15:07, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Orthodox converts to Yehowism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete Only one article in category, overly narrow. Editor2020 (talk) 19:47, 5 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.

People by 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. Kbdank71 15:17, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming
Category:1st century people to Category:1st-century people
Category:1st century people to Category:1st-century people
Category:2nd century people to Category:2nd-century people
Category:3rd century people to Category:3rd-century people
Category:4th century people to Category:4th-century people
Category:5th century people to Category:5th-century people
Category:6th century people to Category:6th-century people
Category:7th century people to Category:7th-century people
Category:8th century people to Category:8th-century people
Category:9th century people to Category:9th-century people
Category:10th century people to Category:10th-century people
Category:11th century people to Category:11th-century people
Category:12th century people to Category:12th-century people
Category:13th century people to Category:13th-century people
Category:14th century people to Category:14th-century people
Category:15th century people to Category:15th-century people
Category:16th century people to Category:16th-century people
Category:17th century people to Category:17th-century people
Category:18th century people to Category:18th-century people
Category:19th century people to Category:19th-century people
Category:20th century people to Category:20th-century people
Category:21st century people to Category:21st-century people
Category:1st century BC people to Category:1st-century BC people
Nominator's rationale: Rename. As adjectivals they all need to be hyphenated per this discussion. This is the first of a series of nominations. I'll be adding more nominations as time goes on. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:31, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wasn't aware of an "Anglo-American divergence" on this particular point. I didn't spot anything at WP:ENGVAR. Are you sure about this? Which way does it run? Cgingold (talk) 10:25, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think there is, except in people's imaginations. In the old discussion there was some suggestion that the British do hyphenate and the Americans don't, but there was no evidence (apart from anecdotal) to back up the "Americans don't" position. The Chicago Manual of Style says "phrasal adjectives" should be hyphenated when they precede nouns (see ¶5.92 in 15th ed.), so there's at least one major U.S. source that agrees with the "British" sources cited in the old discussion. Of course, it's easy to find examples where people don't do it because people generally have poor written English skills. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:04, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, if there is a difference, note that an American made the nomination. So if this is supporting the UK usage, so be it. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:05, 8 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.

Pakistani Cave Explorer & mountain climbers

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; I'm not an expert on merging articles, if someone else wants to take a crack at it, I'll restore the text. Kbdank71 15:20, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Pakistani Cave Explorer & mountain climbers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete contains only one page (Hayatullah_Khan_Durrani). That page will probably be speedied for self-promotion. This category is self-promotion too. Furthermore spelling issues.. Jasy jatere (talk) 19:05, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note While the article is tagged, it appears to be tagged incorrectly with the nominator's reasons, rather than a link to this page. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:23, 5 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:Soviet radio

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, although Tim is correct, this nomination does go against convention. Kbdank71 15:24, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Soviet radio to Category:Radio in the Soviet Union
Nominator's rationale: Rename, as it was done for Category:Soviet television. Timurite (talk) 18:29, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. the same with Category:Soviet media->Media:Radio in the Soviet Union, I guess. Timurite (talk) 18:32, 5 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:Persons connected to George W. Bush

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: upmerge and delete. As noted, we don't categorize people by people; if the connection is defining and notable, these articles belong in Category:George W. Bush. Kbdank71 15:05, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Persons connected to George W. Bush (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete Per WP:OCAT - Non-defining or trivial characteristic, Arbitrary inclusion criterion, Trivial intersection, etc. Lugnuts (talk) 18:19, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - well-defined and non-arbitrary. It is well-common to track connections of highly notable persons for various research, hence the category is useful. Timurite (talk) 18:34, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is "well-common"?! Can you find another category that does this? Why aren't people such as Tony Blair and Saddam Hussein in this category? A category should be a defining characteristic of the articles contained within it, not some mention in passing. Lugnuts (talk) 19:54, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How can it be "well-defined" when there is no definition provided?-choster (talk) 00:03, 8 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 Department of Energy personnel

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 15:00, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:United States Department of Energy personnel to Category:United States Department of Energy officials
Nominator's rationale: Rename for conformity with the other daughter categories of Category:United States federal executive department officials. Eastlaw (talk) 17:40, 5 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.

Law school professors vs. faculty

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) 06:35, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Cardozo School of Law professors to Category:Cardozo School of Law faculty
Propose renaming Category:Harvard Law School professors to Category:Harvard Law School faculty
Nominator's rationale: all of the other subcategories within the parent Category:Faculty by law school in the United States are in the form "Foo Law School faculty", with these two as the only exceptions. I'm not sure what nuance "professors" offers, but I see no reason not to match the other dozen schools in the parent category. Alansohn (talk) 17:34, 5 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:St. Ives artists

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) 06:34, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:St. Ives artists to Category:St Ives artists
Nominator's rationale: The period is redundant, and contrary to normal practice for British place-names. DuncanHill (talk) 16:19, 5 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:Swedish government agencies

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 14:59, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Swedish government agencies to Category:Government agencies of Sweden
(also, therefore Category:Defunct Swedish government agencies to Category:Defunct government agencies of Sweden)
Nominator's rationale: In line with other nation-specific categories. Articles contained also need changing as per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (government departments and ministers)... ninety:one 16:05, 5 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:Philosophy Comparisons

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, rename to fix capitalization. Kbdank71 14:54, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Philosophy Comparisons to Category:Comparative philosophy
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Slightly better, at least it has proper capitalization. Also, this needs better categorization itself. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:37, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kbdank71 15:02, 5 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:Transgender in film

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 per nom. If further discussion is desired to change "film and television", a broader CFD can be opened (or perhaps brought to the village pump). Kbdank71 14:58, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Transgender in film to Category:Transgender in film and television
Nominator's rationale: Rename - to bring the category in line with other similar categories (e.g. Category:AIDS in film and television) and to broaden the scope. Otto4711 (talk) 11:18, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Shouldn't that be "Category:Transgenderism in film and television"? CaveatLector Talk Contrib 17:25, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lead category is Category:Transgender and its various subcats use either "transgender" or in one instance "transgender and transsexual". I have no major objection to using "transgenderism" but I believe it ought to be done as a group nomination to include the subcategories. Otto4711 (talk) 22:04, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transgender is fine as the category page can state more clearly that transsexual et al is included or any other nuance. It's hard enough to keep transgendered out of articles so I'd rather err on simplification. -- Banjeboi 23:52, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Why "film" and "television", perhaps we need to start to look at the where the "space" is going. It is already here and in a few years there will not be "film" and "television", there will just be "video media", which broadcast, podcast, sharecast, hardcast, . . . ditto all such other categories. Most "film" ends up on "televisions" anyway. "film" and "television" may be "historical media categories"? Peet Ern (talk) 04:41, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Film and television" because those remain the two major forms of "video media". I'm not aware of a great deal (any, in fact) of "video media" relating to transgender issues that isn't either from films or television (which isn't to say it doesn't exist and I don't claim to be an expert on the subject). Including both film and television allows for the inclusion of those things that originate on television and not film. There are articles with names like Media portrayal of lesbianism so Category:Media portrayal of transgender may be where the category should eventually end up but I really haven't thought about it to that level of detail before this moment. Otto4711 (talk) 04:02, 10 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:People by sexual attraction

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:32, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:People by sexual attraction (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete Category does not serve any purpose in navigation. Grouping LGBT people, necrophiles and pedophiles together is questionable. (And since "sexual attractions" are about as varied as snowflakes, I also question the viability of this category. CaveatLector Talk Contrib 05:38, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the necrophiles and pedophiles could also go to Category:People by behavior That's where fictional pedophiles links up to. Obviously, LGBT is neither appropriate for categorization by medical condition or by behavior. Scarykitty (talk) 06:18, 5 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.

Categories:Soccer in South Africa

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 "football (soccer)" for at the very least, consistency between the South African categories. If it is desired to be just "football" or just "soccer" or (and now for) something completely different, we can do them all in another nomination. Kbdank71 17:11, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming
Nominator's rationale: as per wikip. practice to refer to association football in a South African context as 'soccer' ) as in Category:Soccer in South Africa. (An alternative may be to rename these and all others under this supracat page using the 'football (soccer)' disambiguate, for the governing body of the sport in the country is named the South African Football Association and most clubs refer to themselves not as 'soccer clubs' but as 'football clubs') Mayumashu (talk) 04:51, 5 January 2009 (UTC) Given the comments below, I have updated the nomination to use the 'disambiguate' 'football (soccer)' Mayumashu (talk) 01:45, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Again, the point though Peterkingiron is that 'soccer' is what is thre more commonly used term in South Africa, irrespective of what rugby union is called in the country. I wonder however more now if really 'football (soccer)', per Occuli, or even 'soccer {football)' should not be used. The impression I get from looking is that a significant minority of South Aficans use football (those decedent of British if not more). The same should be considered for Australia and New Zealand too, whose national associations have renamed themselves incorporating the term 'football' Mayumashu (talk) 00:16, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
will put the New Zealand pages up in the coming days. Australia too - note it s been Football Federation Australia since the end of 2004 - will post them too, at some point Mayumashu (talk) 02:31, 7 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.

American conservatives redux

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 17:30, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:African American conservatism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Democratic Party (United States) conservatism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:American protestant conservatism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:American Roman Catholic conservatism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Jewish-American conservatism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Republican Party (United States) conservatism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Scottish-American conservatism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete First of all, all of these categories are being used to categorize articles about people, so if you substitute "conservatives" for "conservatism" this gives you a far better idea of how the categories are operating in practice. This seems to be an end-run around the decision to delete Category:American conservatives, which has been made multiple times (the latest discussion found here). Whether this end-run has been deliberate or non-deliberate I don't know, but at the end of the day I suppose it's irrelevant: without a WP:DRV establishing a consensus to re-create, we shouldn't be re-creating Category:American conservatives or any other category that would be a direct subcategory break-down of it, which these are. In other words, if Category:American conservatives is not OK, why is Category:American Roman Catholic conservatism OK when it's used exclusively to house articles about people who are deemed by someone to be Roman Catholics who are "American conservatives"? Because of this, these are probably eligible in a borderline way for speedy deletion, in my opinion. But since it's not clear-cut, we can discuss them here.
In any case, these all suffer from the same fatal flaw as the deleted categories American conservatives, Gay conservatives, Former conservatives, Neoconservatives, Jewish American conservatives, and most recently Conservatives: there is no consensus means of determining who is and who isn't a "conservative", especially in American politics, and so categorization using this terminology is subjective and POV. I don't think attempting to repurpose them as non-people categories only is worthwhile at this point—though the option of re-creating them for that purpose could be left open. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:18, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Category:Jewish-American conservatism was also tagged, so I assumed you wanted it included in the list. Cgingold (talk) 08:27, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just to be absolutely clear, as I said above, any categories that are kept should only be on the basis that we clean out the bio articles and add a head note with a very stern warning not to use the category for people. Cgingold (talk) 12:30, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keeping on this basis would be acceptable; but do we really need the AA cat with two members, and the Jewish cat with four? (Does she lap meat and milk out of the same bowl?) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:02, 8 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:Protestant converts to Nation of Yahweh

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 14:40, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Protestant converts to Nation of Yahweh (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete Only member is the founder of religion. Editor2020 ([[User taltalk) 03:39, 5 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.

Assemblies of God 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: merge/delete per nom. While true, these are relatively new categories, nothing has been added to them other than the clergy subcats since creation. Not even John Ashcroft. Kbdank71 18:27, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:American Assemblies of God people to Category:American Pentecostals and Category:Assemblies of God people
Category:New Zealand Assemblies of God people to Category:New Zealand Pentecostals and Category:Assemblies of God people
Category:Samoan Assemblies of God people to Category:Samoan Pentecostals and Category:Assemblies of God people
Suggest deleting Category:Assemblies of God people by nationality (if the above were merged the only contents would be Category:Assemblies of God clergy, which is already in other appropriate categories)
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge to parent categories. Assemblies of God is one denomination within Pentecostalism. The nationality sub-categories of Category:Pentecostals by nationality and the category Category:Assemblies of God people are not large enough to justify break-down of by specific denomination and by nationality at this point. Perhaps the breakdown of the American Pentecostals is justified, but I want more input on that. (These are more creations by User:EstherLois, FYI.) Notified creator with ((subst:cfd-notify)) Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:29, 5 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:Prominent JD/MBAs

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. the wub "?!" 01:13, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Prominent JD/MBAs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Categorization by academic degree, which is not defining; similar categories have been deleted in the past. Creator has also created a list, which should be sufficient (although I don't see how it could ever come close to being "comprehensive", even for people with WP articles). Notified creator with ((subst:cfd-notify)) Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:13, 5 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.

Rename of some pages Category:Particular sport players by nationality

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 the "by country" cats to "by nationality" (per nom), no consensus on adding "by nationality" to the others, noting problems with the Snooker players category. I suppose this does not stop anyone from being bold and creating, for example, Snooker players by nationality and moving into it only the appropriate cats, leaving Snooker players as a supercat (would that be an uppercase meow?) Kbdank71 18:21, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming
Nominator's rationale: these three pages are listed under supra-category page Category:Sportspeople by sport and nationality. (The supra-cat page's other 42 linked pages are named 'by nationality'). The cue sports pages here likely need to be restarted once renamed as most of what they list is for this supra-cat page but a little is meant for Category:Sportspeople by sport page - till now they have been acting a dual purpose pages. (It is not part of this nomination, but I wonder if the name of this supra-cat page (and a few other related pages) should use 'sports players' (and if/where necessary 'sport players') instead of 'sportspeople' as the sub-cat nearly all the lists are of playing participants and not coaches, officials etc. Views?) Mayumashu (talk) 02:12, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: On your last point, I concur, and have been thinking along the same lines for several years. "Sportsperson" is far too general a term in that context. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 12:10, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I think on the "sportspeople" vs. "player" point, his entire point is that the former is broader and that this is therefore problematic or at least potentially problematic for categorization purposes. The (specific) subcats do not mesh well with the ([over-]general) parent. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 12:26, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. And the confusion that it brings about is largely the point. The 'by country' ones are not listing by country where these sportspeople play or have played, as the name may suggest, but, presumably, by the country for which they have citizenship - this naming is too ambiguous for catting purposes. The ice hockey page goes about it actually by listing not by country where they play or citizenship but by place of birth, although easier to track, is sth. that is utterly non-defining (pure trivia), as GoodOlfactory has pointed out at several different times. Mayumashu (talk) 00:29, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's a nice summary—I agree that this confusion is really what the nomination is seeking to resolve. It's kind of a perfect example of why they need to be changed. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:03, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Which is what I say in my 'nomination rationale' that the cue sport pages will need to be restarted (or as you say reinstated). I agree not to suggest changing 'pool' to 'pocket billiards' as the supracat page is Category:Pool . Mayumashu (talk) 19:09, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK - I now understand the 'restart' bit. Occuli (talk) 00:09, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
PS: I have to observe that the precedential value/harm of this CfD is truly immense. The nominator only mentioned a few sports categories, but it could potentially affect every single human category on the system that does not yet have a "by nationality" subcat.
PPS: The "dual nature" of these categories is (at least in the case of pool and snooker and other cue sports) by design (mine; I do most of that cat. maintenance); there simply isn't enough of an overwhelming number of nations present to necessitate (in my view) a "by nationality" system of subcats. I do not object to one, only to doing it in the backwards manner proposed here.
  • Addl. comment: I am not even going to touch the "nationality" issues raised here, as most of them are not relevant to my topics'/projects' concerns (no one is a pool player "for" Germany or Azerbaijan, they are simply from there, in one relevant sense or another the same way an actor or chemist is). I agree that the concept as applied here raises issues. Four of them, specifically: What constitutes a "nation" for WP "nationality" purposes (see nation, state, nation-state, country, etc.)? What constitutes "nationality" itself for WP purposes - self-declaration(s), citizenship(s), birthplace, place(s) of residence? What does it mean to play "for" or "representing" a particular "country" or "nation" - is there an objective definition? Lastly, how does one "qualify to" or "officially" play for or represent a country/nation/whatever - is this quantifiable either? Messy. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 12:05, 16 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:Interest (emotion)

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:Interest (psychology). This could have gone either way, (delete or rename), but there was really not a lot of strong, ahem, emotion on what to do. There was some agreement that it could work with a rename . Kbdank71 14:22, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Interest (emotion)

Interest is not an emotion. It is a cognition. The items in this category are a grab bag of articles. —Mattisse (Talk) 01:52, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. It should be undestood here that the original 'main article' was named Interest (emotion) and began thus: "Interest is a feeling or emotion that causes attention to focus on an object or an event or a process." It was later moved by Mattisse, the deletion proposer here, under the name Interest (attention) and the beginning was changed by Mattisse to: "Interest is the focusing of attention on an object or an event or a process." I am of the opinion that these changes by Mattisse were made in good faith but are not appropriate. As to the problem with the weird expression "Interest (emotion)", I suggest that we might use something like "Interest (psychology)" for the category and for the main article for now... I object to the reduction of affective phenomena to cognitive phenomena. --Robert Daoust (talk) 22:39, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah, thank you, I didn't look into that, but that certainly helps me understand what's going on here. I've stuck my comment and will consider this again. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:09, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does anyone have reliable sources that interest is considered an emotion? Generally, in psychology, interest is considered a cognitive function related to attention. It would help if this issue were cleared up. The references I looked at, although they mentioned "interest" and "emotion" in the same article, to consider interest an emotion would be WP:SYN. —Mattisse (Talk) 00:02, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What about a standard dictionary definition of interest? See for instance Merriam-Webster: "a feeling that accompanies or causes special attention to an object or class of objects". Or Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary: "Excitement of feeling, whether pleasant or painful, accompanying special attention to some object". Could it be that there is a problem generally, in contemporary or American or perhaps cognitive (ex behaviorist?) psychology, when interest and even emotion is considered a cognitive function? Should a general encyclopedia cover the topic of mind only from the perspective of such a psychology? Is there not a better way to deal with the affective than what we find now under the category emotion? --Robert Daoust (talk) 01:43, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That is fine if this category is for popular culture or something similar. As long as you keep it out of psychology, I don't care what your references are. If it is to be a category for articles in psychology, then dictionaries, text books and the like are not reliable sources. See Reliable sources (medicine-related articles). (Dictionaries give the "popular usage". Wikipedia already has a dictionary for those sorts of entries.) —Mattisse (Talk) 01:59, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, then just google 'interest psychology emotion' and you get in second place Exploring the Psychology of Interest, where you can read: "Anyone interested in emotions will find this book on the emotion of interest immensely interesting! If you are among those who question the status of interest as an emotion, this book will convince you. This very real emotion not only exists, but also plays a major role in shaping our lives. This book goes a long way toward documenting what I have long believed. Of all the emotions, interest has the greatest long-term impact across the life span."--Carroll E. Izard, PhD, Trustees Distinguished Professor, Department of Psychology, University of Delaware. --Robert Daoust (talk) 16:56, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That reference is good. Do you have the book, as the blurb makes it sound like this writer is the first or one of the first to consider interest an emotion? It would be better to have more references and an actual description of the connection. The blurb is very vague. Therefore, it would be difficult to set up inclusion criteria for the category Interest (emotion). Certainly, not all interest is emotion. I do not think you will find wide support for that. —Mattisse (Talk) 23:47, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, and I hope you see what I mean, the very much more important question that is at stake here is how Wikipedia deals with the emotional or the affective in psychology. It looks like if there was no branches of psychology dealing with it (see category: Branches of psychology). This staggering problem is well illustrated by the fact that the article Mind is under category: Cognitive science, as if feeling or emotion was not as (or more!) fundamental than cognition in the psychological study of mind. --Robert Daoust (talk) 19:10, 11 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.

rename to Categories:Expatriate football (soccer) 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 result of the discussion was: rename. Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:30, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming
Nominator's rationale: the accepted wikip. disambiguate for association football with category pages that do not pertain to any particular country or nationality is 'football (soccer)'. Mayumashu (talk) 01:50, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, only for ones that are country non-specific Mayumashu (talk) 00:31, 6 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:Companies listed on the SWX Swiss Exchange

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 14:14, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Companies listed on the SWX Swiss Exchange to Category:Companies listed on the SIX Swiss Exchange
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Exchange changed its name from SWX to SIX in September (media release here). Gr1st (talk) 18:04, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:25, 5 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:Squash

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 Grutness...wha? 01:09, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Squash to Category:Squash (sport)
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Article is at Squash (sport); Squash is a dab page. An alternative idea may be to move the article page, since it could be argued that the sport is the main topic with this title (that would certainly save a lot of work, including the nomination of the dozen or more subcategories of this category!) Grutness...wha? 00:50, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ach. On second thoughts, given that 48 of the first 50 ghits are for the sport, chances are it's the primary topic. I'll change the article name. Grutness...wha? 01:09, 5 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