< September 5	September 7 >

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Rename Category:Burmese playwrights to Category:Burmese dramatists and playwrights. --Xdamr^talk 22:03, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Burmese playwrights to Category:Burmese dramatists and playwrights

Nominator's rationale: Rename. To match parent category Category:Dramatists and playwrights by nationality and sister categories for other nationalities. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:42, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy rename per argument of nominator and speedy criteria 34. Debresser (talk) 11:24, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Rename to match standard. Alansohn (talk) 20:48, 7 September 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 Category:Former members of the Legislative Council of Hong Kong to Category:Members of the Legislative Council of Hong Kong. --Xdamr^talk 22:04, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Former members of the Legislative Council of Hong Kong (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge to Category:Members of the Legislative Council of Hong Kong. We don't generally use separate categories for former and current members of an organisation. It would, however, probably be a good idea to create a new subcat Category:Members of the Legislative Council of British Hong Kong or similar. -- Necrothesp (talk) 22:00, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Upmerge as nom. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:23, 7 September 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 Category:Former Government officials of Hong Kong to Category:Government officials of Hong Kong. --Xdamr^talk 22:11, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Former Government officials of Hong Kong (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge to Category:Government officials of Hong Kong. We don't generally use separate categories for former and current members of an organisation. It would, however, probably be a good idea to create a new subcat Category:Government officials of British Hong Kong or similar. -- Necrothesp (talk) 21:55, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Upmerge as nom. I agree the suggested subcat would be useful. The end of British colonial rule marks a major change for Hong Kong, and it would be appropriate to mark this with a separate category. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:25, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge and create new category as suggested. - Fayenatic (talk) 20:46, 7 September 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 Category:Second Boer War killed in action to Category:Military personnel killed in the Second Boer War. --Xdamr^talk 22:10, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Second Boer War killed in action to Category:Military personnel killed in the Second Boer War

Nominator's rationale: Per the convention of Category:Military personnel killed in action by war. (Category creator notified using ((cfd-notify)).) –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 18:50, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support rename... but isn't there an ambiguity regarding military personnel who died in the war but not KIA? civilian dead can go to top level Category:Second Boer War casualties. NVO (talk) 20:41, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, there is, but I think that would need to be resolved at the level of the parent category. The description for Category:Military personnel killed in action indicates, despite the name, the category also includes military personnel would died of wounds.
    If there is consensus here, I could draft a group nomination to rename the subcategories of Category:Military personnel killed in action by war from Category:Military personnel killed in (War) to Category:Military personnel killed in action in (War). –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 22:00, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I actually meant non-combat deaths, from cholera to court-martial. NVO (talk) 11:35, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oh, I see... You're right, it is ambiguous. If one adheres to the scope set out by the category title, then non-combat deaths could be included; if one follows the example of Category:Military personnel killed in action, then only combat deaths would be included. Since it seems that this needs to be resolved at the top-level category, I have initiated a discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 September 7#Category:Military personnel killed in action. –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 20:50, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. I think that the categories should continue to include those who died of wounds as well as those technically killed in action (it seems utterly pointless to make a distinction between those killed outright and those who died later - they were all killed in war), so it's probably the top-level category that should be renamed to Category:Military personnel killed by war. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:18, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nominator. Debresser (talk) 11:22, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - but there may be a difficulty over Boer casualties of the period, since the Boer forces were essetnially irregular, so that the civil/military distinction may not be easy. It may be necessary to have a subcategory for Category:Boer personnel killed in the Second Boer War to deal with this problem. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:29, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Rename to match standard format. Alansohn (talk) 20:49, 7 September 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 Category:Political positions of vice presidents of the United States to Category:Political positions of Vice Presidents of the United States. --Xdamr^talk 15:48, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Political positions of vice presidents of the United States (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Only has four entries, and three of them are completely redundant to Category:Political positions of United States presidents. Purplebackpack89 (talk) 18:42, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. The category for mayors only has five entries, all of which are redundant for other categories. The governor category is entirely redundant also. Just because the category only has a few entries does not mean it is useless and unnecessary. Kuralyov (talk) 19:21, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • — Note to closing admin: Kuralyov (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:14, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neither of them are that blatently redundant. I'm saying small size + 75% redundency to one existing category = toss it. Also would note that all the mayors are much more notable for being something else, like Senators or candidates for high office. Probably case for deletion of that as well Purplebackpack89 (talk) 19:32, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep but rename to Category:Political positions of Vice Presidents of the United States, to match capitalization of parent category and article. Expansion of this category's contents for all VPs should be assumed, presuming that the "political positions of Joe Foo" article structure is valid. Postdlf (talk) 06:29, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Political positions of Vice Presidents of the United States to match title of parent article as pluralized. Alansohn (talk) 20:50, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as unnecessary. Failing that Rename, since when I saw this CfD I thought it meant "political position" as in positions they held other than (i.e. before or after) their position as Vice President! It's a highly confusing category title. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:32, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The article only has one article that is not redundant to Category:Political positions of United States presidents, and that one is already in Category:Political positions of United States presidential candidates, 2008 and Category:Political positions of United States Senators. Jafeluv (talk) 15:49, 17 September 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:

• Category:Divisions by country to Category:Divisions (military formations) by country
• Category:Divisions by type to Category:Divisions (military formations) by type
• Category:Divisions by war to Category:Divisions (military formations) by war

--Xdamr^talk 15:51, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming

• Category:Divisions by country to Category:Divisions (military units) by country or Category:Divisions (military formations) by country
• Category:Divisions by type to Category:Divisions (military units) by type or Category:Divisions (military formations) by type
• Category:Divisions by war to Category:Divisions (military units) by war or Category:Divisions (military formations) by war

Nominator's rationale: Category:Divisions was renamed to Category:Divisions (military units) per CfD 3 Dec 2008—a discussion that yielded unanimous consensus for renaming, but no less than 4 different renaming options. I am currently working through the 'Divisions (military units)' category tree, and so would like to reopen discussion on the question of naming. While "Divisions (military units)" is rather unwieldy, at least one participant in the 3 Dec 2008 discussion noted that "Military divisions" or "Divisions (military)" could be understood to refer to branches of the armed forces or to military administration, rather than to actual military units. If a clear consensus emerges, then I will go ahead and nominate the other categories in the tree that require clarification (not all of them, but a significant number). –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 18:22, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: I notified the members of WikiProject Military history in order to hopefully prompt broader community discussion. –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 18:25, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• This seems fine given that the parent category has been renamed along these lines. Divisions are properly "formations" rather than "units", if I'm not mistaken; but I'm not sure if the distinction merits lengthening the name. Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 18:34, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I noticed that Military organization#Commands, formations, and units describes divisions as being "formations", but the article Division (military) defines a division as "a large military unit or formation", so I found it a bit confusing. I am adding the "formations" option to the nomination and keeping the "military units" option per your concern about length. –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 18:45, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Indeed, divisions are 'formations' rather than 'units.' I agree with Kirill; typing all that out when you want to change/add a category seems unwieldy, but we should go with the (military formations) option. Buckshot06(prof) 10:30, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Since the article is at Division (military) would it not be best to use that terminology in the category name? It makes it a little less long-winded and won't confuse those people who aren't military pedants (I am by the way - it's a formation!). -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:28, 9 September 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 Category:Literary devices playing with meaning to Category:Literary devices. --Xdamr^talk 22:08, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Literary devices playing with meaning to Category:Literary devices

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge At the CfD to merge sister category Category:Literary devices playing with meaning, there was agreement that the "playing with" construction really had to go. I think it's particularly awkward to have a category for the artful use of language itself so poorly worded. Anyway, now that the cat for the sounds of words has been settled, at least for now, all the meaning devices can simply be upmerged, IMO. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:19, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge The awkward wording adds nothing: less is more. There are also some oddities in there such as Mondegreen which is a mishearing rather than an authorial device. AllyD (talk) 18:02, 7 September 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 Category:Anzac class destroyers to Category:Parker class leaders. --Xdamr^talk 22:05, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted from Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_August_29#Category:Anzac class destroyers for further comment. --Xdamr^talk 13:29, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Anzac class destroyers to Category:Parker class leaders

Nominator's rationale: Rename. To bring in line with ship class article at Parker class leader. Note: The one reliable source I have access to matches the name of the article and does not mention the Anzac name. Further, the article itself—for what it's worth—specifically calls the "Anzac class" name erroneous. — Bellhalla (talk) 05:04, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• comment shouldn't that be category:Parker class destroyer-leaders like other destroyer subtypes as DEs etc. ? 76.66.202.213 (talk) 05:36, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: The article should either say Parker class destroyer leader or Parker class flotilla leader, not leader by itself, or should be renamed Parker class destroyer and rely on the leader quality to be explained in the text. Once that's sorted, this category question will follow in step. Me, I think Parker class destroyer and Category:Parker class destroyer make the better combination, but I'm not elbow deep in naval article organization. Binksternet (talk) 22:07, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Other than having the "Parker" in it somewhere, I'm totally open to whatever else it should say. For comparison we have the following with similar Royal Navy classes:
    • For the Faulknor class, identified in the article as "flotilla leaders", we have Faulknor class leader and Category:Faulknor class destroyers
    • For the Thornycroft type, identified in the article as "destroyer leaders", we have Thornycroft type leader and Category:Thornycroft type leaders
    • For the Admiralty type, identified in the article as "destroyer leaders", we have Admiralty type destroyer leader and Category:Admiralty type leader (listed separately at speedy to make it plural)
  • For the two Soviet classes identified as "destroyer leaders", we have (supporting your suggestion, Binksternet):
    • Leningrad class destroyer and Category:Leningrad class destroyers
    • Tashkent class destroyer (but no corresponding category, yet)
  • — Bellhalla (talk) 13:00, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Aha, I thought there would be more uniformity, but there isn't. Clearly, all the categories should hew as closely as possible to the article name of the class of ship. The problem, then, is the wide variance in article names. I'm still a fan of just "destroyer" instead of any kind of this or that leader, but these are your babies, Bellhalla. What do you want for them? Binksternet (talk) 15:41, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• 'Support Rename to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 20:51, 7 September 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 Category:Agosta 90B class submarines to Category:Agosta class submarines. --Xdamr^talk 22:06, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Agosta 90B class submarines to Category:Agosta class submarines

Nominator's rationale: Rename to match the name of the main article Agosta class submarine, which discusses the thirteen members of the class, not just the three built to the "Agosta 90B" design. (The only submarines built to the newer design are/should be categorized at Category:Khalid class submarines.) Bellhalla (talk) 13:14, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nominator. Debresser (talk) 11:20, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• 'Support Rename to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 20:52, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename Per nominator - this seems very sensible Nick-D (talk) 12:04, 8 September 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: Speedy Delete. WP:CSD#G11 - Advertising or promotion. --Xdamr^talk 13:42, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Watch RTE outside Ireland (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Appears to just be spam. Davebushe (talk) 11:45, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete not even a category, just a spam text which would qualify easily for article-deletion inserted as a category. AllyD (talk) 11:52, 6 September 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 22:15, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Mertozoro (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: An example of a personal userspace category, which have extensive precedent for deletion. Editors wishing to keep track of pages in their userspace should create a list in userspace or use the Special:PrefixIndex function. (Category creator notified using ((cfd-notify)).) –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 06:15, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 07:04, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nominator. Debresser (talk) 11:20, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP articles do not have "individual authors", even though they may largely be the work of one person. Therefore, they should not be tagged as "by" any one. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:33, 7 September 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 22:16, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Trainboy12 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete - Category for an individual user, which have extensive, unanimous precedent for deletion. User should use the prefix index to keep track of userspace pages instead. VegaDark (talk) 05:41, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 07:04, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nominator. Debresser (talk) 11:19, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP articles do not have "individual authors", even though they may largely be the work of one person. Therefore, they should not be tagged as "by" any one. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:33, 7 September 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 Category:Museums in New York County, New York to Category:Museums in Manhattan. --Xdamr^talk 22:07, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Museums in New York County, New York to Category:Museums in Manhattan

Nominator's rationale: Merge. New York County is Manhattan, except the latter term is better known. brewcrewer (yada, yada) 05:07, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Want to add the subcategories? Vegaswikian1 (Talk) 05:17, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I guess. Its just last time I tried nomming categories and subcategories, I found it too confusing, so I figured that someone will come along and do it for me. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 05:26, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Rename to use borough rather than county in NYC. Alansohn (talk) 00:23, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. The parent category with which it is to be merged is already correctly named. Jim.henderson (talk) 01:33, 8 September 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 Category:Divisions of the Military of Colombia to Category:Divisions of Colombia as an interim measure, for consistency with parent category, pending cleanup of overall category tree. --Xdamr^talk 15:53, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Divisions of the Military of Colombia to Category:Divisions of Colombia

Nominator's rationale: Per the convention of Category:Divisions by country. (Category creator notified using ((cfd-notify)).) –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 04:52, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. Note also:Category: Divisions of the Indian Army.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 05:31, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm working on an overall cleanup of the Military divisions category tree and will be making a number of nominations over the coming days. Before I do that, however, I may need to nominate a few higher-level categories in order to discover which naming conventions make the most sense to editors. –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 05:45, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - this seems to be a step in the wrong direction. Category:Divisions by country needs 'military' in it for clarification, much as Category:Divisions of India needs 'administrative' or similar. There is also Category:Divisions in Kuala Lumpur. Indeed there is Category:Divisions (country subdivision) not to mention Category:Administrative divisions. Occuli (talk) 17:36, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that the category needs "military" in the title, but not in this way. A general nomination of Category:Divisions by country and the other subcategories of Category:Divisions (military units), which I am currently drafting, is needed. –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 18:02, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • See #Category:Divisions by country. –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 20:00, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete useless intermediate category with 1 member, which can be upmerged. Johnbod (talk) 23:04, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• REname to Category:Divisions (military units) of Colombia, but in view of a discussion today (above) that may become "military formations". Peterkingiron (talk) 18:36, 7 September 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 Category:Olympic villages to Category:Olympic Villages. --Xdamr^talk 22:08, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Olympic villages to Category:Olympic Villages

Nominator's rationale: Rename per Mr. Nitpicky here, but according to the main article and category contents, Olympic Village is a proper noun, in which case our guidlines call for Title Case. While there isn't much use of the term in plural form, a Google search for Olympic Villages does indicate that a correction is in order. Rename? Get a life? Hang my head in shame that this is what I'm doing on a Saturday night? You decide. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:11, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename and shame on nom :)--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 05:34, 6 September 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 15:56, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Biota of the West Bank (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Bad cat name politically, ecologically and botanically. Not likely to be populated and contents are better categorised elsewhere. See alsoWikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_February_5#Category:Biota_of_the_West_Bank -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 01:42, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or merge into Category:Biota of the West Bank [Category:Biota of Israel] per previous discussion.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 05:35, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge into itself? I think there is a typo there somewhere. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 06:41, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The previous CfD being used as a precedent for deletion seems to have closed as keep. It is quite usual to publish books on fauna and flora by political divisions, so whether it may be in a sense illogical, it matches how the outside world categorizes things. (I'd say that the reason they are so published in usually national interest--as publishing does go by national boundaries--or sometimes, subsidies, or assumptions based on institutional location. An example deliberately from another geographic area is for Illinois 972 books. Getting closer, there's [hhttp://www.worldcat.org/search?q=Fauna+Jordan&qt=owc_search] for Jordan. And for this particular topic, there's [1] . Subsuming it into "Israel" is a political assumption that we should not be making. DGG ( talk ) 08:32, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The CfD was a keep "until better idea is found". The library results that you quote are not valid since they contain all sorts of spurious entries. I am not doubting the presence of publications on the biota in specific policical regions. It is just that this cat is a case over overcategorisation. It is doubtful that it will be populated by very many entries. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 08:48, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. In my view the category is without merit. I get the impression that the previous nomination miscarried on political correctness grounds. Hesperian 11:54, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for 2 reasons: 1. there are only 2 articles here 2. anything growing in the West Bank will also grow in other, adjacent parts of Israel, so this category is non-defining. Debresser (talk) 11:18, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose -- these biota (and flora and fauna) by country categories cause great difficulties, because generally political boundaries are not biological ones. My preference would be to upmerge both to soemthing like Category:Biota of the Levant or Category:Biota of Middle East. However the latter would need to be split by climatic zones. The proposal is not acceptable in principle, because the West Bank is not part of Israel, merely territory occupied by it. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:43, 7 September 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. Jafeluv (talk) 12:56, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Ecology by region (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Inapprop name. All the sub-categories are also up for deletion. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 00:01, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question just why is it an inappropriate name? DGG ( talk ) 08:22, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ecology is the study of ecosystems and does not end at political borders. Ecology has often been confused with environment (biophysical) or environmental issues. WP should avoid confusing readers. The contents of the category can be moved to more appropriate categories. The category is not likely to be populated since the more approp Category:Environment, Category:Natural history exist. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 08:40, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• This is a difficult one. Ecology of the North Cascades is a reasonable article,and does not misuse the term ecology. It would be acceptable to put it into a United States-related ecology-related category, but I agree with Alan that the category name Category:Ecology of the United States is problematic. Nonetheless such a category would be acceptable under a better name, and this essentially validates Category:Ecology by region. Hesperian 12:26, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually Ecology of the North Cascades does misuse the term ecology. I should have actually looked through the article. Though the title is plausible, it does not match the article content, which contains very little ecological material. A better example might be Ecology of Banksia, which certainly is an ecology article. Since Banksia is very nearly endemic to Australia, it would be reasonable to put it into a category for Australia-related ecology-related articles. This validates Category:Ecology by region. However it has become clear to me that we currently don't have any region-specific ecology-related categories that are actually being used correctly. Therefore delete. Hesperian 00:08, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There are different uses of the term "ecology" (which, perhaps thanks to the nom, are not properly explained at that article) and this is a POV effort to suppress use of one of them. Is this a repeat nom? I feel I've been here before. Johnbod (talk) 14:22, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm pretty sure that the term "ecology" has only one meaning amongst those who actually know what it means. But I might be mistaken; can you please tell me what uou understand ecology to mean in this context? Hesperian 23:55, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Compare the current WP:POINTY lead of ecology with what it used to be. Johnbod (talk) 02:28, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • As I understand it, "what it used to be" is a load of utter bollocks that completely misses the point of what ecology is. What you called "the current POINTY lead" is better. I still prefer my concise definition given below: "Ecology is the study of how organisms relate to their environment". Hesperian 23:50, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Often used for environment. See eco-. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 01:49, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • How people use "eco-" is how people use "eco-". It is not how people use "ecology". Hesperian 23:50, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- Strictly ecology is the study of the balacne of nature eco=equal (Greek). As long as "region" means a climatic region, there is no reason why this category should not exist. The problem comes when it is a purely political or administrative region. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:46, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Having an ecology by region category makes better sense than for political entities but considering the derth of other categories and possibility of low, arhh, population (ecology pun!!), of this category I don't think it needs to exist. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 21:30, 7 September 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. Jafeluv (talk) 12:50, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Ecology of the British Isles (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Inapprop name. Contents are already batter categorised elsewhere. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 23:59, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question just why is it an inappropriate name? DGG ( talk ) 08:22, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ecology is the study of ecosystems and does not end at political borders. Ecology has often been confused with environment (biophysical) or environmental issues. WP should avoid confusing readers. The contents of the category can be moved to more appropriate categories. The category is not likely to be populated since the more approp Category:Environment, Category:Natural history exist. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 08:40, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• But the British Isles are not a political entity, or were so for only little more than a century? This category is bracketing several significant subcategories and surely needs more definition of an alternative set of categories if it is to be replaced. AllyD (talk) 12:12, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• About the politics - well I just did a generic cut'n'past thing. THere is already alternative categories, some of which I mention above. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 20:12, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• OK, so your first reply to DGG's query was misleading in its political reference. But this is still not looking like a properly formed proposal for this particular category. What are you proposing other than its erasure? (By contrast, I see that your previous proposal for dealing with the category: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_June_1#Category:Ecology_of_the_British_Isles did actually propose a dispersal to deal with the articles in the category.) AllyD (talk) 17:41, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Alan. The way this category is being used is completely inappropriate for its name. Ecology is the study of how organisms relate to their environment. I see precisely zero articles in this category that are related to ecology.

Wikipedia does have a few geography-specific ecology articles; for example Ecology of the North Cascades. Therefore it is not unreasonable for us to have a category for British Isles-related ecology-related articles. However "Ecology of the British Isles" would not be an appropriate name for such a category. "Ecology in the British Isles" would be an improvement, but still clumsy. As far as I can tell, the only way to fix this is to depopulate it, redefine it, and rename it. It's a case of George Washington's axe. Delete. Hesperian 12:42, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – cfd is not really suited to this sort of discussion. Perhaps WP:ECO should discuss this and make recommendations. (There were quite a number of articles including the word 'ecology' but Liefting was going round renaming them. I have no idea whether this has general support.) Occuli (talk) 14:49, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree and I did notify WP:ECO about at least some of the ecology cfd's. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 20:12, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Why are cfd's not suited for these discussions? -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 20:14, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • If CfD doesn't want to talk about this, then the alternative, which may well be a better way forward, is to remove the category wherever it is being used incorrectly—something you are entirely at liberty to do without discussion—and to see what you are left with. If, as I suspect, you end up with an empty category, then speedy deletion is appropriate. Hesperian 00:02, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I suspect that Occuli was suggesting addressing the fundamental point as to whether the proposition's underlying definition of "ecology" is consensually supported rather than suggesting an indulgence in category-emptying outside CfD. AllyD (talk) 17:41, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Perhaps a reasonable compromise if some people strongly want to lose the word "ecology" would be an adaptation of Alan Liefting's June 1st 2009 CfD proposal (which I referenced above): disperse the articles currently under Category:Ecology of the British Isles between Category:Natural history of the British Isles and Category:Environment of the British Isles, avoiding the "United Kingdom" political unit. Then with new homes for all, the current category could be removed? AllyD (talk) 17:47, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- Strictly ecology is the study of the balance of nature eco=equal (Greek). As long as "region" means a climatic region, there is no reason why this category should not exist. The problem comes when it is a purely political or administrative region. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:48, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep in the absence of a clear proposition for replacement. AllyD (talk) 18:17, 13 September 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 Category:Gastronomy-related organizations to Category:Gastronomical societies. --Xdamr^talk 22:12, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted from Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_August_27#Category:Gastronomy-related_organizations for further comment. --Xdamr^talk 23:02, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Gastronomy-related organizations to something?

Nominator's rationale: Merge. Don't know what to do with this one. I ran into it when Landry's Restaurants was added to it. Some of the parents seem odd to me (Category:Gastronomy, Category:Organizations by subject and Category:Medical and health organizations) since this categorizes Category:Food-related organizations as medical and health organizations. So we probably need to do something, the question is what? Vegaswikian (talk) 07:03, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vegas, if a parent category is obviously moronic, just remove it! Johnbod (talk) 14:49, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• If the articles exist, rename to Category:Gastronomical societies - we have Txoko and Confrérie de la Chaîne des Rôtisseurs so there's two. Are there other such societies that are notable and have articles? Remove the medical and health parent and the food-related organizations sub-cat. Clearly restaurants should not be categorized either as gastronomical societies or as "gastronomy-related organizations", whatever they may be. Otto4711 (talk) 07:17, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. OCAT at this time after cleanup. If recreated use Rename to Category:Gastronomical societies. for the name with an introduction defining what should be included. Changing from merge since after cleanup the category is simply too small. Vegaswikian1 (talk) 05:31, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tag needs updating, and directing here. Johnbod (talk) 14:59, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tag points to the old discussion (27th), which in turn points to here. --Xdamr^talk 00:05, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That was a merge, but deletion is now proposed. Johnbod (talk) 00:07, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete pending new articles per above.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 05:37, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Now 7 specialized societies etc; they took 2 minutes to find, so there probably are many more. Actually this is a more valid cat than the dubious parent Category:Gastronomy, which should be improved or merged to Category:Cuisine. I have removed the ridiculous medical category and added Category:Food-related organizations, the obvious merge target. Rename per Otto is ok; it might exclude one college. Category:Dining clubs (27 of them) might be added, though arguably that is more Category:Drinking-related organizations in many cases. Johnbod (talk) 14:49, 6 September 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.