< July 22	July 24 >

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 (now split out per below). Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:52, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Ancient and medieval physicians to multiple categories

Nominator's rationale: Split to Category:Ancient physicians or Category:Medieval physicians. Odd grouping that would better map to the existing parents after a split. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:58, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There was relatively little progress in medicine in the Middle Ages in any of the Eurasian cultures, and it makes sense to keep bthese together. Johnbod (talk) 16:53, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If you look at the subcategories by country they are commonly paired with one for Ancient and another for medieval. Also categories are for likes. What do these have in common, other then predating modern medicine? Vegaswikian (talk) 18:31, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, just exactly that. In fact most (Arab, English, Croatian etc) have only medieval, some (Greek, Roman, Indian) only ancient, & a few (Jewish, Egyptian) have both. All seems reasonable to me. Johnbod (talk) 23:00, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well in reading Middle Ages, it sounds like medieval is only used to describe a period of time in Europe. If that is correct, anything that was not related to European science should not be considered medieval. Given that, including Asia or Africa under medieval would seem to be totally inaccurate. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:34, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Medieval" is acceptable in global contexts to describe the Islamic world, where obviously there is no "ancient" option as such (for the culture, not the areas where the culture happened), and rather less so for India and the Far East. But this search shows many academic books using the term, & even in their titles. Johnbod (talk) 12:52, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Until very recently, there were in fact only four subcategories shown (Ancient Greek, Ancient Roman, Byzantine and Medieval Persian), all other subcategories having been created by me last week, and names removed from the parent category and allocated to one or more of the subcategories. After initially creating combined subcategories (“Ancient and medieval”) for Chinese and Egyptian, I realized that, in most instances, it would be more helpful to divide the categories between “Ancient” and “Medieval”, and this was done in all subsequent instances. I believe that the Chinese and Egyptian should also now be divided between “Ancient” and “Medieval”. Although I do not have particularly strong feelings on the issue, I do believe that it is more helpful and informative to keep the combined parent category of “Ancient and medieval” - for example, “Byzantine” includes both and it would be unhelpful to divide it. In addition, the list of subcategories is not presently particularly long and is unlikely to grow substantially in the future. Furthermore three of the subcategories currently shown are empty (“Ancient and medieval physicians in Egypt”, “Medieval Syrian physicians” and “Ancient physicians in Persia”), having been created by me in error, and should now be removed - the "in Egypt" subcategory is the subject of a delete discussion - see below. (Two other empty categories were removed a day or two ago.) Davshul (talk) 07:44, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are those who would classify anything Byzantine as medieval. When do the Chinese Middle Ages start and end? Johnbod (talk) 15:35, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- I can see a case for splitting out "ancient" and "medieval" into separate subcats, leaving only those which are "ancient and medieval" listed here directly. Otherwise I see on case for change. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:40, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: are the duplicates "of" and "in" fully nominated for CFD? Or are they due for speedy deletion? Peterkingiron (talk) 16:59, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note -- The only subcategory ("of Egypt") that contained both ancient and medieval physicians now contains only medieval physicians (and a discussion was initiated on 1 August 2009 to rename the category "Medieval physicians of Egypt"), as all ancient physicians were moved to a new category "Ancient physicians of Egypt". Accordingly, if it is agreed to split the category, this could be more easily achieved.Davshul (talk) 23:22, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note. I just created two subcategories one for ancient and the other for medieval. In doing this several of the articles involved have many ancient or medieval parent categories. This was the only one that was combined. Nothing else attempted to create a relationship between ancient and medieval. I also moved the two misnamed subcategories, based on their content, into the appropriate newly created parents. I'll note that there are active CfRs for these to fix the issue with the name. I'll also point out that in doing this, I ran into several empty categories where the contents were likely moved to fix naming problems. Someone probably needs to look at those and simply delete them. So I guess the question now is, if we find a home for the single article in this category, do we need this extra level of navigation? Vegaswikian (talk) 23:46, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the points raised by you - (1) Both empty subcategories are subject to a request for speedy deletion; (2) the single article in this category has been given a new home; (3) one of the lists renamed by you and place by you in the category "Ancient physicians" was incorrectly renamed - it should be renamed "List of medieval Persian doctors", not "List of ancient Persian doctors" (as it contains no ancient doctors, all being medieval or even later), and should then be moved from the "Ancient physicians" category to the "Medieval physicians" category; and (4) I see no need for this level of navigation. Davshul (talk) 07:35, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe that I renamed List of ancient Persian doctors. If this article is not correctly named, fell free to rename it. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:43, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have now renamed the List of Persian doctors to List of medieval and pre-modern Persian doctors. Will you now be deleting this category, as an unnecessary level of navigation?Davshul (talk) 12:26, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can't. Another admin will need to take that action. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:39, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and not split as nominated. Now this is simply an unnecessary level of navigation. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:41, 8 August 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.

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. --Xdamr^talk 13:55, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. None of the subjects in the article is notable enough for an article. Given the short life of the CD-i, there seems to be no chance of this ever having anything in it. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 22:57, 23 July 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.

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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:27, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete? The closing admin's remarks at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_July_15#Category:Films_feautring_orphans and comments made at other CfDs suggest to me that there may be support for deleting. It's not a view I share -- I think it needs to be pruned rather than killed -- but based on comments like this I think it's time this category finally went to CfD. Is there something fundamentally wrong with the Films by topic cat, or just the way it's applied, without sufficient rigor? It would seem to be a bona fide part of the Category:Media by topic and Category:Works by topic trees, so why does it seem to enjoy so little support from some editors (and admins?). Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:05, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep People need to learn to use the category talk pages and really enforce what articles are in each category (for example, is Frankenstein a topic worthy of being listed up top?). That mean doesn't wholesale collapse of the entire thing, just time actually spent on organization. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:18, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Film subject is a rather defining characteristic, and one that we use to meaningfully group similar films for navigation purposes. Alansohn (talk) 22:22, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – there's nothing wrong with the principle. Some of the topic subcats seem on the trivial side but that is a matter for individual cfds (as has been happening). Occuli (talk) 22:26, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- This is a legitimate categorisation scheme. It may need pruning of trivia, but that is no reason for wholesale deletion. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:41, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - people keep saying that the principle is fine or it needs pruning, but know it'll never be done. This won't get deleted now, but if it ain't pruned or fixed soon it really ought to go next time around. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:54, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Alansohn - defining characteristic of the film. Lugnuts (talk) 07:30, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - have removed some entries such as Frankenstein mentioned above. Most of the ones removed are already in a subcategpory or should be in a subcategory. Most of the problems with this category are duplication where one or more categories should go into a subcategory. This category should be kept for significant topics which appear across more than one film genre. Cjc13 (talk) 19:57, 24 July 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.

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) 22:25, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:J. Malucelli Futebol players to Category:Category:Sport Club Corinthians Paranaense players

Nominator's rationale: Rename. This category needs to be moved to match the main article's name (the main article was recently moved to the current club name, Sport Club Corinthians Paranaense). Carioca (talk) 21:31, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support Rename to match new title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 22:24, 23 July 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.

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) 22:25, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:OC#SMALL. There are only two articles that I believe belong in this category, and they're already included in Template:X-Men film series. The other articles categorized here are for composers who at one point composed a piece for an X-Men film, but about half of these biographical articles do not describe the X-Men credit as particularly notable, or defining. Does WP:OC#PERF not apply to film composers, as well? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:06, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - composers and other creative professionals are not properly categorized by their projects and without these incorrectly included articles there's not enough to warrant the category. Otto4711 (talk) 22:17, 23 July 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.

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) 22:23, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: This only contains a single article. TTN (talk) 20:33, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator and WP:Overcategorization (which go hand in hand). Debresser (talk) 20:49, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Small category, unlikely to grow. — Σxplicit 01:32, 24 July 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.

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 (also empty at close). Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:22, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Inappropriate use of category space. Categories should not be used to keep track of article requests. Ricky81682 (talk) 20:06, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment 1632 users are misusing the article talk pages as a pseudo wikiproject and have established many weird wikiproject type workspaces/pages in normal articlespace. 76.66.192.64 (talk) 04:58, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, to be fair, most of this is years old, and there seems to be one user in particular who did a lot of it. However, weeding it out takes quite a while. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:15, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Was this created before the change in how redirects are displayed was made? If so, you can now tell when looking at a category which entries are redirects and which are real articles. So is this still needed? Vegaswikian (talk) 08:01, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom, inappropriate use of category space. Axem Titanium (talk) 14:40, 31 July 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.

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 to Category:VeggieTales. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:21, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: This only has one article and some images, so there is no need for it. TTN (talk) 18:39, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seems a valid categorization for the images, isn't it? Powers ^T 19:02, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While images are often categorized, it seem fairly useless to do so for five images. The images should probably be removed from the article anyway, as they certainly could be replaced with an image the shows multiple characters. TTN (talk) 19:18, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Category:VeggieTales - no need for a separate category for the list article and handful of images, which themselves should probably be deleted in favor of a single group image as noted. Otto4711 (talk) 19:41, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as Otto. All the articles on characters appear to have been merged into one list (which contains all the images. Accordingly there is nothing to categorise. The list article is tagged as WP:OR, but this seems inappropriate, since the sources are the films described. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:45, 23 July 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.

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) 22:20, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: The latest three film category created by User:Lg16spears; completely unnecessary category for three films that are not even in a related series, just featuring the character. Overcategorization and far too narrow. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 17:33, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree per nominator, and per recent discussions here. Debresser (talk) 17:49, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:09, 23 July 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.

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/merge. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:54, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming

Category:8th-century astronomers to Category:8th-century astrologers/astromoners
Category:15th-century astrologers and Category:15th-century astronomers to Category:15th-century astrologers/astronomers
Category:16th-century astronomers to Category:16th-century astrologers/astronomers

Nominator's rationale: as per comments on astrology and astronomy that say that there was no absolute distinction between the two until during the 17th century. Mayumashu (talk) 15:11, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Commment If we agree to this, we should make redirects from both "xth-century astronomers" and "xth-century astrologers" to "xth-century astrologers/astronomers". But I am not happy about this idea. Such a complex name. Debresser (talk) 17:49, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - if we are going to have astromoners in the first, then surely it should go with astrogolers. I'm fairly sure I've seen a recent discussion getting rid of "/" in names, as it is easily confused with subfolder (or whatever the name might be). Would it not be easier to pick one and put them all in it up till 1600? Or use 'astrologers and astronomers' per astrology and astronomy? Occuli (talk) 18:33, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. My thinking is that these be renamed to Category:xth-century astrologers since that is how they were classified. Starting in the 17th century there is a division, so at that point we would start using two categories. There is no need for a slash in the name. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:03, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Classifying Nicolaus Copernicus as an astrologer seems perverse, somehow. Powers ^T 20:39, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - But from several TV shows I have watched, yea TV is not always reliable, they were considered as astrologers for many years. It was not until later that the two diverged. So astrologers is the correct classification. Now if we want to somehow classify astrologers who were later recognized as astronomers, that could be an option. Don't know how that would be handled. Maybe a companion list article with citations to explain the exceptions? Vegaswikian (talk) 21:34, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all as astronomers, merging as necessary. Astrology was merely the use to which they put theri astonomy. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:47, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Peterkingiron - we wouldn't call pre-modern doctors quacks because they invoked Zeus or the ether or used leeches and discussed humors to help cure folks, either. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:41, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. And so with the 15th-century ones, merge Category:15th-century astrologers into Category:15th-century astronomers, and for each astronomer page make a note that the two, the science and the quackery, were not separate Mayumashu (talk) 17:06, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No since Category:15th-century astrologers is a correct one. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:07, 27 July 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.

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) 22:16, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. This meets the majority of the criteria for WP:Overcategorization. It's a darn small category, at any rate – and if it expands we'll have a precedent for things like Category:Nazi existentialists (Heidegger), Category:Marxist-Leninist composers (Khachaturian), and Category:Zionist/socialist playwrights (Sholem Aleichem). PasswordUsername (talk) 14:39, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree per size argument. Debresser (talk) 17:46, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Trivial intersection of profession and ideology. Jafeluv (talk) 22:32, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete occupation by political bent is a bad way to categorize Category:Liberal skydivers and Category:Anarchist librarians just sound wrong. Way wrong. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:44, 23 July 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.

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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:59, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Per WP:OC#SHAREDNAMES, articles should not be categorized by their titles: "Avoid categorising by a subject's name when it is a non-defining characteristic of the subject, or by characteristics of the name rather than the subject itself." That a word came from Italian is normally not at all relevant to the subject of the article. Powers ^T 13:07, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand the nominator. Could you rephrase that, please? Debresser (talk) 17:46, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Rephrasing: WP:OC#SHAREDNAMES says "Avoid categorising by a subject's name when it is a non-defining characteristic of the subject, or by characteristics of the name rather than the subject itself." Therefore, articles should not be categorized by their titles. The simple fact that a word is of Italian origin is not generally relevant to the subject of an article identified by that word. Powers ^T 19:03, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the article is about the word of the title, then it is OK. Eg Con brio is an article about the phrase, whereas Ferrari is an article about a car manufacturing company rather than about the word Ferrari. Ferranti is another example. This brings to mind Category:Italian surnames. (There are many others in Category:English words and phrases of foreign origin.) Occuli (talk) 19:48, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Keep - I think the nominator is misunderstanding WP:OC#SHAREDNAMES. That proscribes categorizing things that have no relation to each other beyond a name in common together. See here for many examples, the most recent of which was for people with the nickname "Hurricane". The language of origin of a word is a strongly defining characteristic of the word and linguistics is certainly a topic of encyclopedic interest. See Category:English words and phrases of foreign origin. Now, these categories should be restricted to articles that are actually about the words in question and should not be applied to every article that happens to have a name from that language, so some cleanup is definitely in order. Otto4711 (talk) 19:50, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm going to nominate Con brio for deletion. I doubt there are any articles-about-words in this category worth keeping under WP:NAD. Powers ^T 20:29, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a strong defining characteristic of the words in question, part of a substantial overall parent Category:English words and phrases of foreign origin. Besides, if Otto says keep what else is needed. And now the delete/keep ratio is no longer infinite. Alansohn (talk) 20:27, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another shining example of the civility that you demand from everyone else. Otto4711 (talk) 20:30, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Come on now here. Try and smile. It was actually a little funny, you know. Let's not be too serious over here at Cfd. Debresser (talk) 20:47, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But let us be fair. Otto has an excellent record when it comes to keeping LGBT, vegetarian and also fictional character categories, so 'infinite' is a jibe too far. I still await the opportunity to choose between 'keep per Otto' and 'delete per Alansohn'. Occuli (talk) 18:56, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Yes, Italian origin is a defining characteristic of words, but encyclopedia articles are supposed to be about concepts. The language of origin of the word we use to refer to a particular concept is not something we should be categorizing by. Powers ^T 20:51, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I did not understand the reason to delete, but do understand the reasons mentioned by previous editors to keep. Apart from that, I have learned, while being a teacher, that if I don't understand a pupil's answer, it is more than likely to be worng. :) Debresser (talk) 20:47, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you perhaps explain what you don't understand about my statements? Is the grammar confused? Too much jargon? What? Powers ^T 20:49, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for many of these things, they have categories like Category:Italian food and such...that influenza comes from the Italian word has little to do with illness and Sign of the horns is a loan word from Italian - hmmm...? Seems to be a grouping of words of some similar origin, which has been deleted before; we deleted Category:Cities named Antiochia, where those places being named after Hellenistic kings had much more in common than Influenza, Pizza, and Sign of the Horns, and other articles categorized in this baby. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:52, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Yes, I think the nominator has misunderstood WP:OC#SHAREDNAMES. (I know, because I was once on the wrong side of this very question, with churches named for patron saints, or some such category). Category:English words and phrases of foreign origin is an entirely different kettle of fish. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:39, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or rename is this Italian words used in French? or Words loaned from German used in Italian etc? 76.66.192.64 (talk) 04:59, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Okay, I realize that WP:OC#SHAREDNAMES primarily focuses on subjects whose only association is that they share a name. But my contention is that that guideline, as well as the general guidance on the WP:CAT page, strongly suggests that articles should not be categorized by their titles. The name of a thing is an incidental attribute, and not an "essential, 'defining' feature" as required by WP:CAT. For example, what if we moved Timpani to Kettledrum (currently a redirect)? Would we then remove Category:Italian loanwords from the article? If we would, then it's obvious that the article doesn't belong in that category, isn't it? Powers ^T 12:13, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Powers and had also been seeking an example (I tried Autostrada but it isn't a redirect). This is a category for words, not topics, and belongs in Wiktionary. This is Category:Articles whose names are Italian loan phrases. Occuli (talk) 14:49, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In answer to this point, a number of the items in the German loanword category (for example) are re-directs ( I’m not arguing for it, just observing) so the answer may well be "No".Moonraker12 (talk) 13:57, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Hm... LtPowers, can you explain me why did you choose "Italian loanwords" and not "Spanish" or "French"? Un chien andalou (talk) 13:47, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I only noticed the category when it was added to Timpani. Powers ^T 15:10, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I’d say Keep ( if this discussion is still open). Being a loanword is (one of ) the defining characteristics of a word; it seems reasonable to categorize them in that way, particularly on pages that focus on the word or phrase itself. And WP:OC seems concerned with reducing clutter; quite a few of these loanword pages only have one or two categories, so clutter isn’t really a problem there. Also, we have 20 loanword categories already, so deleting Italian seems unduly selective. Moonraker12 (talk) 10:59, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Your last objection is hardly fair; I couldn't very well have nominated all of them at once. I mean, I could have, but it would have made the discussion needlessly complex. Powers ^T 14:13, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Are you thinking that all the loanword categories should go, then? Does a decision to “delete" here set a precedent for the rest?Moonraker12 (talk) 13:51, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Further comment: if we delete, where would they be moved to? To “English words of foreign origin"? In light of my previous point, that could rapidly become a very large, unwieldy group.Moonraker12 (talk) 14:10, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - I don't know if I would delete the other categories, as I haven't looked at them. I suspect, though, that yes, they should go, as articles are not to be categorized by their titles. "Timpani", the topic of our article by that name, are musical instruments; they are not words of Italian origin. As such, there's no need to move articles anywhere. Powers ^T 13:44, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Oh, please... timpani is an Italian loanword, timpano (the singular form) means eardrum. The "musical instruments" argument doesn't make sense... are you telling me that "ocarina", "piano", "tempo", "pizza" or "cappuccino" aren't loanwords because they are musical instruments/food/etc? Un chien andalou (talk) 14:40, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        No, I'm saying that the word "timpani" is not the subject of our article by that name. Powers ^T 15:43, 4 August 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.

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 for now. Honestly, I don't know what to do with cases like this. The consensus on what to do with WP:DASH in category names is at a standstill. By default here I'm matching to the category name per the comments below to that effect. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 10:03, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:IRT Broadway-Seventh Avenue Line stations to Category:IRT Broadway – Seventh Avenue Line stations

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Change to an en dash in correspondence with IRT Broadway–Seventh Avenue Line, after WP:MOSDASH. Tinlinkin (talk) 10:13, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know about the guidelines, but I am in favor of normal characters. Debresser (talk) 17:44, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support Rename As much as I hate these damn en dashes, I am in support of observing Wikipedia guidelines, especially ones set in the real world where more than a handful of people participate. I will fully support any effort to reconsider this policy, but will respect it until it is overturned. Deliberate ignorance of these guidelines only adds disruption by creating arbitrary differences in naming. Alansohn (talk) 20:18, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rename — I have no objection to en-dashes within articles, but might well support a ban on them in article names. Until there is such a ban, my view is that category names should match article names (with the occasional addition of a disambiguator). And IRT Broadway-Seventh Avenue is wrong, as the hyphen needs spaces unless there is an avenue called Broadway-Seventh. Occuli (talk) 11:25, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note. A discussion usage of the hyphen was completed at the MoS talk page on July 14. The result of that discussion was to remove the use of the hyphen from image file names and to include the requirement to use the hyphen in category names at this time. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:56, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per updated WP:DASH. I will note that I just updated the MoS today based on the archived talk discussion. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:58, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I'll respect that decision. Is Category:IRT Broadway - Seventh Avenue Line stations acceptable? As noted by Occuli and by the experience I have gained on the use of dashes in my time on Wikipedia, Broadway-Seventh Avenue (as a hyphen or en dash w/o spacing) is incorrect typography. On a side note, as the guidelines on en dashes change relatively frequently, they drive me crazy (and also lead to higher maintenance). Some time ago, I proposed to "correct" en dashes to hyphens in article names to because the MoS said so, only to have them reverted back to en dashes shortly after through a different argument. Tinlinkin (talk) 09:16, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - - Yes, that would. I'll also add the the change has been at least temporally reverted while everyone goes back to the archive to reread the discussion. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:35, 30 July 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.

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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 10:05, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Alumni of Bournemouth School to Category:Former pupils of Bournemouth School

Propose renaming Category:Alumni of the Arts Educational Schools to Category:Former pupils of the Arts Educational Schools

Propose renaming Category:Alumni of City of Bath Boys' School to Category:Former pupils of City of Bath Boys' School

Propose renaming Category:Alumnae of Cheltenham Ladies' College to Category:Former pupils of Cheltenham Ladies' College

Propose renaming Category:Alumni of The City School (Sheffield) to Category:The City School (Sheffield)

Propose renaming Category:Alumni of Easington Community Science College to Category:Former pupils of Easington Community Science College

Propose renaming Category:Alumni of Quarry Bank High School to Category:Former pupils of Quarry Bank High School

Propose renaming Category:Alumni of the Royal Ballet School to Category:Former pupils of the Royal Ballet School

Propose renaming Category:Alumni of the Royal Naval School to Category:Former pupils of the Royal Naval School

Propose renaming Category:Alumni of Silverdale School (Sheffield) to Category:Former pupils of Silverdale School (Sheffield)

Propose renaming Category:Alumni of Tapton School to Category:Former pupils of Tapton School

Nominator's rationale: Rename all. The term "alumni" is not used in British English below university level and is inappropriate for schools. Other entries in Category:People by school in England use either "Former pupils of..." or "Old Somename" (where one exists). Renaming will bring these categories inline with their fellows. Timrollpickering (talk) 09:36, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - a problem with this is that school children in the UK are no longer called pupils but 'students' (my wife teaches at an 11-16 school and they are all students, and mostly egregious; and few do much studying). I agree that the average UK school child will not know an alumnus from an abacus, and that 'alumni' was not used at university level in the UK until fairly recently (since the 1970s, when I was a 'graduate of Foo', not an alumnus). (I thought 'Former Pupils of Foo' was a formal term in some cases, in lieu of 'Old Fooians', eg this one.) 'Old boys/girls of Foo' was another common phrase. Occuli (talk) 10:10, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- This is an established WP convention. Alumni is used in respect of universities. The convenion for schools is "old boy/girl", but is not an attractive one. For the most prominent schools we have "Old Etonians"; "Old Westminsters"; "Old Edwardians" for the former Stourbridge Grammar School; etc. I would deplore neologisms for the old boys of every high school. I thus beleive the present solution is the best one. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:38, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I said alumni is used for universities but for schools the bulk of the categories are "former pupils" - the mix is not a solution at all. Timrollpickering (talk) 00:16, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are quite a number of UK secondary schools in the first 100 hits in this google search, so the word alumnus is gaining acceptance at secondary level. We could alternatively change 'former pupils' to alumni - a couple of years ago the England school categories were either 'Old Fooians' or 'Alumni of', and there were few 'former students'. Occuli (talk) 02:02, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep We're better off if we use a single term, and the fact that User:Peterkingiron confirms that this use is acceptable clinches it for me. Alansohn (talk) 01:16, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. While alumni is beginning to be used for universities, it do not think it used for schools in the UK. I suggest however, that the term "Former students of Foo School" be used. --Bduke (Discussion) 02:05, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete any below university level - people are rarely defined by the high school-level school they attended. Otto4711 (talk) 16:41, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose deletion - which school a person went to can be a key defining characteristic the British class system. Timrollpickering (talk) 22:47, 8 August 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.

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; was still empty at close. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:51, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. This category is empty and name duplicates Category:Ancient and medieval physicians of Egypt. 89.138.186.208 (talk)

Agree. Debresser (talk) 17:42, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question Is it possible to set up a permanent redirect of sorts? I know there are some category where bots automatically move articles from one to the other. That may be a better solution here than straight deletion. Ray^Talk 18:03, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the parent Category:Ancient and medieval physicians primarily uses "of" rather than "in" as a standard. The proposed category is both out of synch with the standard and empty. Alansohn (talk) 20:23, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator Both the "of" and "in" categories were created by me last week, the latter inadvertently. Davshul (talk) 07:51, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Seems like a mistakenly created category.Pectore^talk 00:00, 29 July 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.

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) 21:50, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. It'll never be up-to-date. Why would anybody wanting to check whether a town's been Street-Viewed check Wikipedia rather than Google Maps? Any discrepancy will just prompt people to disparage Wikipedia as inaccurate and out-of-date. And finally, what meaningful connection is there between the Street-Viewed towns? Bazj (talk) 13:46, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, this is a really bad idea. Powers ^T 14:06, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As a non-defining category. All these places are notable BEFORE street view came along. Lugnuts (talk) 17:21, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Powers. Debresser (talk) 17:41, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Keeping categories up-to-date is not a valid excuse for deletion. The relevant issue is that it is not a defining characteristic of these places. I can't imagine that there are too many articles that will identify anywhere that they are included in the Google Street View feature. Alansohn (talk) 20:21, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While I know that it's going to be a long time before they actually get there, at least in principle the goal is to eventually have the entire world covered — and we don't need a category scoped that broadly. Plus since they're adding new places to the list all the time, this is effectively unmaintainable. Bearcat (talk) 22:06, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above reasons, but suggest possibly listifying. Grutness...wha? 01:29, 25 July 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.

July 23

Category:Ancient and medieval physicians

Category:Cancelled CD-i games

Category:Films by topic

Category:J. Malucelli Futebol players

Category:X-Men music

Category:Jimmy Neutron characters

Category:1632 series redirects needing articles

Category:VeggieTales characters

Category:Green Lantern films

Category:8th-century astronomers

Category:Nazi composers

Category:Italian loanwords

Category:IRT Broadway-Seventh Avenue Line stations

People by school in England

Category:Ancient and medieval physicians in Egypt

Category:Locations visible on Google Street View