< March 30	April 1 >

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:Local fraternities and sororities. Kbdank71 13:17, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:List of Local Fraternities and Sororities to Category:Local fraternal organizations

Nominator's rationale: Rename. To support the distinction between categories and lists, and to make the capitalizations comply with the MOS, and to more closely match the parent category. Stepheng3 (talk) 21:01, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Category:Local fraternities and sororities; RSE is a collegiate society. -choster (talk) 23:25, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sounds good to me. Good catch, Choster. --Stepheng3 (talk) 21:19, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Category:Local fraternities and sororities per choster. The category creator most likely did not know that category titles need not start with "List of"—the only exceptions being categories intended to contain lists only, which should be titled Category:Lists of (Topic) (e.g. Category:Lists of fictional characters). Kudos to Stepheng3 for engaging the category creator at his/her talk page. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 22:16, 1 April 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 to Category:Computer icons Erik9 (talk) 17:04, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Icons to Category:Icons (computing)

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Right now mixes religious and computer icons indiscriminately. New name matches article: Icon (computing). Perhaps there is also a need for a category Category:Religious icons although the article for the religious ones is just at icon. --Kevlar (talk • contribs) 20:41, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename but to Category:Computer icons (see below) - Way overdue. You gave me a bit of a scare, Kevlar. I thought that ALL of the articles about both sorts of icons were lodged in this category. Thank goodness that turned out not to be the case, as the vast, overwhelming majority of the religious ones (and there are a considerable number) are properly categorized -- under Category:Iconography and its sub-cats. So we won't be needing Category:Religious icons. Btw, just to be sure, I checked to see if there was a Category:Avatars that was also being misused; fortunately there isn't. What joker came up with these terms?? (He/she obviously gave no thought to the havoc they would one day create for online encyclopedias! :) Notified creator with ((subst:cfd-notify)) Cgingold (talk) 22:21, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per ~~nom~~ Vegas below, moving some to Category:Eastern Orthodox icons, NOT Category:Iconography, which is not about icons, though EOI are a sub-cat of it. Adding a note pointing to the other category would be sensible. Actually I'll move them now. - done; cat can just be renamed. Johnbod (talk) 01:37, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Computer icons. This is what the article lead uses and is the name that has been in use for eons. If this rename goes through, the article should be renamed to match. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:26, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Right you are, VW. (Now why didn't I think of this?) I'm switching my support to this name. Cgingold (talk) 06:32, 1 April 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. Kbdank71 13:16, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:X-ray sources to Category:Astronomical X-ray sources

Nominator's rationale: Rename. There are many types of X-ray sources, such as an X-ray machine, etc. This category only deals with astronomical ones. 76.66.193.69 (talk) 19:44, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom - Another very obvious rename. (like Icons, above) I'm amazed this one hasn't already accumulated a bunch of wrongly categorized articles. Notified creator with ((subst:cfd-notify)) Cgingold (talk) 22:30, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. --Stepheng3 (talk) 21:22, 1 April 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. Kbdank71 13:16, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete — Categories are vague to most readers, and there probably will not always be sources to identify each musician as having significant cannabis-related lyrical content. Ibaranoff24 (talk) 19:14, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Notified creator with ((subst:cfd-notify))) Cgingold (talk) 22:51, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Thanks for the notification, Cgingold. Sourcing is not a problem, Ibaranoff24. Check the references in their wikipedia articles. Nothing vague at all. Bob Marley, Snoop Dogg, Peter Tosh, Cypress Hill, Willie Nelson, Kottonmouth Kings. The music should have significant cannabis-related lyrical content. People and groups should not be put in the categories just because they have used cannabis. We have Category:Cannabis activists if all they have done is promote cannabis significantly, but not significantly in their lyrics. --Timeshifter (talk) 00:01, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - "cannabis musician" does not appear to be in widespread usage outside of Wikipedia and mirror sites. What these categories amount to are Category:Musicians who are known to smoke marijuana and Category:Musicians who sing about marijuana. We do not appear to categorize people on the basis of the recreational substances in which they indulge and I see no reason to start with weed. We also don't categorize performers on the basis of the subject matter of their work (which would lead to unimaginable category clutter) and, again, no reason to start with pot. Otto4711 (talk) 00:51, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See: http://www.google.com/search?q=cannabis+musician - See the result that mentions this: "a PhD theses on cannabis and music" - It is not just the subject, but the effect of the substance on the history of music. Check out:

YouTube: Cab Calloway - Reefer Man

http://www.google.com/search?q=Louis+Armstrong+marijuana

YouTube: Louis Armstrong,.. "Muggles" --Timeshifter (talk) 18:47, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is a difference between "cannabis and music" and "cannabis musician". YouTube is not a reliable source for anything, and even if it features videos of musicians singing about spliffs that does not lend credence to the notion that "cannabis musician" as a concept is encyclopedic. Otto4711 (talk) 21:11, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete so the creator has told us that this category is for musicians whose "music [has] significant cannabis-related lyrical content." We don't category singers by their topics otherwise we'd have insurmountable difficulties and meaningless categories: Category:Automobile musicians - those whose lyrics have significant car-related lyrics; Category:Love musicians, Category:Sadness musicians, Category:God musicians, not to mention Category:Fucking musicians. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:01, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But they are not a topic in the news as is cannabis lyrics. Rap music, reggae music, hiphop, etc.. See:

http://www.google.com/search?q=cannabis+lyrics+music+rap+reggae --Timeshifter (talk) 18:36, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Otto. Although we do categorize artists by genre, we do not categorize them "on the basis of the subject matter of their work". I can think of two reasons for this (category clutter and categorization on the basis of non-defining characteristics), but both are related to the fact that artists can and do write/sing/paint about multiple (i.e. tens or hundreds) of subjects. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 22:25, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Otto. Inclusion criteria is vague- is one ode to reefer sufficient to make you a cannabis musician, or does it have to be x% of songs? What about songs with ambiguous lyrics? Not to mention the fact that nearly every rapper or reggae artist would end up in this category... --Clay Collier (talk) 10:21, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I can see this is a losing battle. I am changing the categories of the more well-known cannabis activist musicians to Category:Cannabis culture. This will remove from cannabis categories the vast majority of musicians who have a few songs that mention cannabis, but are not particularly known for this outside their core audience. For example; this will eliminate most of the generic rap and reggae musicians who aren't really notable for this above any of the rest. --Timeshifter (talk) 17:27, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per deleters. Johnbod (talk) 14:01, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Black Falcon, because its THE argument.--Cerejota (talk) 03:22, 4 April 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 Category:Yangzhou cuisine no consensus on Category:Jiangsu cuisine. Kbdank71 13:20, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - small categories, unlikely to expand. Otto4711 (talk) 19:11, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Of course they can expand. there are many dishes to add for all regional chinese cuisines. DGG (talk) 22:26, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yangzhou is not a region. It is a city. Otto4711 (talk) 22:43, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Jiangsu cuisine category, as it is one of the eight main traditional regional cuisines of China (see Chinese cuisine). Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 03:39, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral on Category:Jiangsu cuisine (per HongQiGong's comment), but delete Category:Yangzhou cuisine as overcategorization (Yangzhou is a city in Jiangsu province). –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 22:29, 1 April 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: upmerge to Category:New England cuisine. Kbdank71 13:14, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - items included are in no way specific to Boston and the likelihood that there are sufficient dishes to warrant the category is unlikely. Otto4711 (talk) 19:08, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep And there will be others. DGG (talk) 22:29, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How exactly is a submarine sandwich defined as cuisine of Boston? Otto4711 (talk) 22:40, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep / Rename to Category:Cuisine of Boston to match parent article for Boston, where state is not included. There are ample articles in existence to fully populate the category. Any issues regarding inclusion of specific entries should be raised and discussed elsewhere. Alansohn (talk) 03:56, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Um, if nothing that's in the category can be considered defined by a specific association with Boston, and if no other dishes can be identified as being defined by a specific association with Boston, there's no need for the category. So, again, how exactly is a submarine sandwich defined as cuisine of Boston? Otto4711 (talk) 06:43, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Other articles have already been added to the category, rebutting your already weak argument. If you have an issue with a particular entry being in the category, deal with it elsewhere, such as discussing at the article's talk page. The existence of a questionable entry as an excuse for deletion is always a rather poor argument. Repeating it multiple times doesn't make it any stronger. You can do better. Alansohn (talk) 17:46, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So then, you're unable to answer the question? Got it. Otto4711 (talk) 17:54, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I've added Boston cream pie and Boston baked beans (not much of an article, there), which pads out the category a little. Maybe not enough.--Mike Selinker (talk) 23:32, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Of course if someone can explain how the two entries meet the definition of cuisine, 'cooking traditions and practices, often associated with a specific culture' I'm open to changing my opinion. And yes, I will be removing one of the two entries since it is a dab page which should not be in this category and gives no hint that any of the uses may be cuisine related. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:56, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I will not oppose an unmerge as suggested below. Then cleanup the parent as needed. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:43, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am no expert in American cuisine, but perhaps a merge to Category:New England cuisine would work? If doing so would not be technically inaccurate (is Boston cream pie part of the cuisine of New England?), then I see little reason to retain a category for just one or two articles. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 23:23, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think this is a good suggestion. To expand on it, drop the city categories with the exception of a very few, New Orleans may be a good example but I'm not sure if that would hold up. Make the parent Category:Regional cuisines of the United States and then have children categories for appropriate regions. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:05, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - We already have Category:American cuisine by region but it's at the moment largely duplicating the cuisine by city structure. Otto4711 (talk) 04:06, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thanks for finding that. It has been cleaned up, but there are two categories that need looking at. Clearly one needs a parent and the other is PR, not sure what to do with that one. Many of these city categories include restaurants, but I don't see how all of the restaurants in a city are about cuisine. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:58, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge to Category:New England cuisine per BF, which itself probably needs some thinning. Generally I agree with Vegas above on these city categories. Johnbod (talk) 04:18, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Black Falcon. Wicked good chowda. --Clay Collier (talk) 10:24, 2 April 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. Kbdank71 13:11, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Crimes to Category:Crime by type

Nominator's rationale: The text at beginning of "Crimes" is "This category includes articles on types and specific instances of crime". Articles on types of crime is exactly what "Crime by type" contains. These two categories appear have the identical function. While "Crimes" has many more entries, the merge is proposed into "Crime by type" as it has a more specific name. 69.106.242.20 (talk) 18:13, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose there are many articles that descibe crimes that don't neatly fit into the crimes by type. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:36, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Crime is typed for us by its definitions - in criminal codes - very difficult for a crime to not have a type. Those articles "that don't neatly fit" belong in other categories. "Perfect crime", for example, is also categorized as Criminology. "Perfect crime" did not meet the definition for "Crimes" - it is not a type of crime and not a specific instance. I think this is typical of the "don't neatly fit". For those articles that meet the defintion, the two categories are identical in function. Thanks 69.106.242.20 (talk) 20:40, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose – Category:Crime by type is supposed to be a subcat scheme for Category:Crime (ie no or very few top-level articles); like Category:Crime by country. (I'm not entirely clear what the distinction between Category:Crimes and Category:Crime is, in practice. Genocide is in the former for instance.) Occuli (talk) 18:44, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm lost here. Both "Crimes" and "Crime by type" are subcats of "Crime". Would appreciate some help to understand your view. Thanks, 69.106.242.20 (talk) 20:40, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Look at say Category:Ships, Category:Ships by type (a subcat scheme for individual ships, one of several schemes 'Ships by XXX'), Category:Ship types (a cat for articles about types of ships). Occuli (talk) 13:01, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose There are indeed articles in this category that would not fit into "Crimes by type", such as Orgnaized crime, or Felony. DGG (talk) 22:29, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Inside job was my poster child article. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:03, 1 April 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. Tiptoety ^talk 04:39, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. The category is based on the original research: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Motif of harmful sensation (2 nomination) and therefore inclusion into this category cannot be based on any reliable sources. - 7-bubёn >t 16:55, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the article will undoubtedly end up deleted or renamed. DGG (talk) 22:23, 31 March 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. Kbdank71 13:22, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Number-one singles in Albania

Category:Number-one singles in Costa Rica

Category:Number-one singles in Greece

Category:Number-one singles in Hong Kong

Category:Number-one singles in Hongkong

Category:Number-one singles in Israel

Category:Number-one singles in Lebanon

Category:Number-one singles in Moldova

Category:Number-one singles in Peru

Category:Number-one singles in Singapore

Category:Number-one singles in Slovakia

Category:Number-one singles in South Africa

Category:Number-one singles in Taiwan

Nominator's rationale: As these countries don't get official singles chart, there is no official number-one hits. These categories seem to have been created to promote some artists such as Modern Talking and should be deleted. Europe22 (talk) 16:32, 31 March 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. Kbdank71 13:24, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Category:Student clubs and societies (new subcat of Category:Clubs and societies, Category:University and college organizations, and Category:Student culture). "Student society" is far too narrow in US English to reflect the intended contents of the category, but "Student organizations" is unusual in UK English; I propose this name as a compromise based on the parent Category:Clubs and societies. Resubmission of my botched nomination of March 9, which provides a lengthier rationale.-choster (talk) 14:35, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not all student organizations are clubs and societies. --99.140.242.28 (talk) 20:50, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think all student organizations could be defined as such, even if they are not described as such. Or can you provide an alternative term that is well-understood in both US and UK English? -choster (talk) 23:33, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The separate lists are individually relevant and not synonyms . A division by type of activity is particualrly relevant. DGG (talk) 22:24, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- From student society: "A student society or student organization is an organization, operated by students at a university, whose membership normally consists only of students." So either Category:Student societies and Category:Student organizations need to be merged because they mean the same thing, or the distinction between the two needs to be clarified and a massive cleanup undertaken. I don't understand at all what you mean by "division by type of activity"; I'm not proposing to flatten the subcategories, simply to make them available in one place.-choster (talk) 23:33, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If these categories are merged/renamed, then most of their subcats will also have to be renamed. This will impact dozens of categories. At the present time, the subcats are not tagged. --Stepheng3 (talk) 20:37, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The only branch where "societies" is ambiguous is Category:Student societies by country, within which even Category:United States student societies is populated with what, in the U.S., would in fact be termed student societies. The main problem lies in the reduplicative parent categories.-choster (talk) 04:28, 3 April 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:Memorial Cup winners. Kbdank71 13:26, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: The category consists only of two players and is made redundant by the far more widely used Memorial Cup winners category. Orlandkurtenbach (talk) 05:48, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Category:Memorial Cup winners. Thanks for pointing out the redundancy. --Stepheng3 (talk) 19:08, 2 April 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. Kbdank71 13:27, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:White South Africans to Category:South Africans of European descent

Nominator's rationale: follow standard naming pattern for such cat pages Mayumashu (talk) 03:40, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unnecessary race/ethnicity category. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:39, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the current title and the new title might seem superficially similar but suggest different things. Afrikaners are all white-skinned but consider themselves fully African and not in any way "European". Standarization is great and all but individual countries have different conventions (official or popular) on how to classify people. --Kevlar (talk • contribs) 20:46, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They would certainly agree they are "of European descent" surely? Johnbod (talk) 23:06, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Wasn't "White" one of the 4 official racial designations under Apartheid?—"White", "Black", "Coloured" and "Indian"? I'm not sure that this is what the category is trying to capture or not, but there is Category:Coloured South Africans. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:04, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Official racial category in the area in the past, and a very significant one historically. DGG (talk) 22:25, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
keep This is the correct name for these South African people. Encyclopedias should reflect the 'facts on the ground', not try to make things 'standard'. Standard for who? The WP renaming gods? Hmains (talk) 03:50, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (exceptionally). In view of the recentness of apartheid, the designations of South Africans into 4 ethnicities remains appropriate. Many of the whites are of families settled for hundreds of years; this is thus not the usual case of an expatriate community. Coloured will need subcategories such as Cape Malays. Whites will need to have Africaaners as a subcategory, and Black South Africans may been to be split by tribe - Zulu, Xhosa, etc. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:28, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak rename per nom. One advantage of this is that Category:Coloured South Africans could go as a sub, I imagine. Johnbod (talk) 23:06, 5 April 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: Withdrawn by nominator. Non-admin close. Cgingold (talk) 22:42, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Roma to Category:Romani people

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Redundant categories, merge into the one with the main article name. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:42, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support nom. Mayumashu (talk) 03:28, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The category descriptions of the two categories indicate that Category:Roma is a general topic category whereas Category:Romani people is supposed to be a list category for individual biographies. I am not sure whether the intended difference is worth maintaining, but it's probably worth noting. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 05:18, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly Oppose - On no account should these categories be merged! As Black Falcon has already explained, these categories are intended to encompass very different things. Thank goodness that the distinction has been properly captured, unlike all too many similar categories. This does, however, highlight a pervasive problem with use of the inherently ambiguous term "people" that has resulted in these fundamentally different kinds of categories being conflated as though they were interchangeable. As I have suggested more than a few times previously, this confusion would be virtually eliminated if we used the word "individuals" instead of "people" for the bio categories. Cgingold (talk) 06:26, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

People vs. persons Really, it should be "[Ethnicity] persons" for individuals and "[Ethnicity] people" for the nation. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:30, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - per the sagacious analysis of Cgingold. Occuli (talk) 11:38, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - per Cgingold. Johnbod (talk) 12:30, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw This may have been a bad idea, due to the pervasive misuse of "people" on Wikipedia. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:31, 31 March 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.

March 31

Category:List of Local Fraternities and Sororities

Category:Icons

Category:X-ray sources

Category:Cannabis musicians

Cuisine

Category:Cuisine of Boston, Massachusetts

Category:Crimes

Category:Motif of harmful sensation

Category:Number-one singles by country

Student groups

Category:Memorial Cup champions

Category:White South Africans

Category:Roma