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) 02:17, 15 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Propose renaming Category:CW network subchannel-only affiliates to Category:The CW Television Network subchannel-only affiliates

Propose renaming Category:CW cable-only affiliates to Category:The CW Television Network cable-only affiliates

Propose renaming Category:CW network affiliates to Category:The CW Television Network affiliates

Propose renaming Category:CW network shows to Category:The CW Television Network shows

Propose renaming Category:CW Television Network to Category:The CW Television Network

Nominator's rationale: per main article —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:58, 7 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Rename It does makes sense at this point. Robert Moore 23:06, 7 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[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) 21:37, 15 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Films released as part of BFI Flipside Strand (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: I have no idea what the "Flipside Strand" (note there is no article for this) is, or why films released under it should have their own category. Other categories setup for films released by distribution companies have also been deleted as being adverts. Lugnuts (talk) 17:41, 7 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Judging from the included articles, it's not for distribution companies for theatrical releases, but rather a line of DVD releases, and I agree with the long-standing consensus that such categories are trivial. So delete. If it's a notable line, ala The Criterion Collection, then someone will eventually write an article and include a list. postdlf (talk) 02:50, 8 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[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, default to keep. -Hemlock Martinis (talk) 21:59, 15 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Philosophers of art to Category:Aestheticians

Nominator's rationale: Per main article, List of aestheticians —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:29, 7 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Keep on the whole, for clarity. Aesthetician is not a common word, & too liable to be mistaken for Anaesthetician. Johnbod (talk) 05:16, 11 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Or an esthetician. --Pnm (talk) 00:09, 13 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Move Category:Philosophers of art to Category:Art Philosophers, Create Redirect from Category:Aestheticians to Category:Art Philosophers. --vgmddg (look | talk | do) 23:41, 14 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[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 19:02, 21 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Hawai'i-related articles not in Hawaiian English to Category:Hawaii-related articles not in Hawaiian English

Nominator's rationale: I don't prefer it, but the English-language Wikipedia uses "Hawaii" not "Hawai'i". Alternate suggestion: delete as Hawaiian English is not mandatory or unique enough to be necessary for Hawaii-related articles. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 15:05, 7 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Keep: It is entirely relevant in context. - Gilgamesh (talk) 15:19, 7 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete per nom. It is not mandatory for Hawaii-related articles to use Hawaiian English, just as it is not mandatory for UK-related article to use British English. If there is no consensus to delete, then I think the best option would be to rename per nom (see e.g., Category:Hawaii, Category:Hawaii articles by quality) and convert to a talk page category added via ((WikiProject Hawaii)). -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 17:04, 7 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A misleading parallel; it is in fact "mandatory for UK-related article to use British English" in practice - can you point to any UK-only articles that aren't? Johnbod (talk) 05:21, 11 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

They may be in practice but does that mean that doing so is mandatory? I don't think it does. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:39, 15 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Rename to something else But not sure I follow. I do agree that using apostrophe to aproximate the ʻOkina is not exact. Hawaiian English, however, right now redirects to the Creole language known as "pidgin" or properly "Hawaii Creole English". Articles except the one on that language itself should use HCE. See for example Category talk:Hawai'i-related articles not in Hawaiian English and Template talk:Nothaweng (the template that puts articles in this category). Both of the proposed names are very confusing. I think (but am still not sure?) that when Gilgamesh created the template back in 2005, "Hawaiian English" was really meant as shorthand for "the orthography of the Hawaiian Language accepted among modern scholars intended for English speakers", which uses ʻOkina and Kahako to indicate to English speakers how to pronounce the word. But every month or so someone comes along and claims that "Hawaiian English" means the removal of those symbols, since English words do not use them. That would be exactly the opposite of the intent, as I understand. To be more accurate, something like Category:Hawaii articles using simplified orthography might represent this.

Unsigned??

No, it was signed by me, below. Sorry for the confusion of two paragraphs. Glad you could still read it. To reiterate, I think what is meant is "English Hawaiian", that is, the orthography of the Hawaiian language intended for English speakers. The other issue is that the articles do not necessarily need to be "Hawaii articles" (articles about Hawaii) although they generally are. So maybe just "Articles with simplified Hawaiian language orthography" would be more succinct. W Nowicki (talk) 03:12, 13 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I do not think that "Hawaiian English" is meant to mean "the variety of English spoken in Hawaii" since in formal speach and writing it is essentially American English with a few exceptions (e.g. "rubbish" vs "garbage"), and in more casual conversation it is a mix of American and Hawaiian Creole English. So the usual Wikipedia English guidelines apply: use American English except of course for Hawaiian language words. W Nowicki (talk) 00:26, 9 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• The unsigned comment seems sensible. Johnbod (talk) 05:21, 11 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

For that matter, it might be quicker to just fix the five articles in this category to use the modern orthography and delete the category? I have already done much of it, and no new ones were added recently. W Nowicki (talk) 03:12, 13 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete per Black Falcon. Also I, for one, don't want Louisiana-related articles to be written in creole to satisfy the minority of people from that area who might understand the article better because of that. According to our article on Hawaii language there are only 2000 native speakers and 27,000 total speakers - a fraction of the population of the state. Basically, writing Hawaiian articles in "Hawaiian English" is to cater to a minority rather than increase the readability of the articles to the majority of the readers not only worldwide, but even in the location in question. Thus, I would oppose any articles written in Hawaiian English, let alone there be some sort of "cleanup" category like this intended to specifically change articles to be written in Hawaiian English. VegaDark (talk) 23:40, 19 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete per Black Falcon. Are there any Hawaii-related articles in Hawaiian English? It may be mandatory for UK-related article to use British English, but I think that we don't want to go down the path of clean up categories for each dialect of the English language for each dialect-related article. Feel free to continue using English words of Hawaiian origin in the articles. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 02:52, 20 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No, nobody was advocating that, which is why I thought that the category was mis-named. We should use typography for Hawaiian language words as intended for English language speakers. For example, articles about Chinese language people should use spellings that are intended for English language speakers (perhaps in addition to the Chinese characters). Articles about French people use French accents, Vietnamese use Vietnamese diacritics, etc. W Nowicki (talk) 00:27, 21 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[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 19:15, 21 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Player Tour Championship to Category:Players Tour Championship

Nominator's rationale: To match parent article. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 08:50, 7 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Comment - Note that Players Tour Championship actually refers to it as "Player Tour Championship" in the opening paragraph. Either that should be fixed (and this rename should go through), or the article name needs to be changed to match the category. I haven't the slightest clue which term is more proper. VegaDark (talk) 06:34, 18 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Fixed. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 13:46, 21 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[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 per no objections and to match parent article. Kbdank71 19:16, 21 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Player Tour Championship 2010/2011 to Category:Players Tour Championship 2010/2011

Nominator's rationale: To match parent article. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 08:49, 7 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[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. The discussion leans toward delete, but not quite enough.--Mike Selinker (talk) 03:31, 13 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Jewish inventors (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. A classic case of overcategorization.

Wikipedia:Overcategorization states

1. If a substantial and encyclopedic head article (not just a list) cannot be written for such a category, then the category should not be created;
2. Likewise, people should only be categorized by ethnicity or religion if this has significant bearing on their career.

Bulldog123 07:42, 7 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note some of the previous discussions, 2009-06-15 and 2008-08-20. Also review the AfD discussion for the list here. Vegaswikian (talk) 08:13, 7 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Keep – AFAIK there has never been any consensus to delete (or indeed to keep) these Jewish-occupation categories (with which Bulldog123 seems obsessed) as there is generally much sound and fury on both sides. I was amused to note an argument that as the list has been deleted the category should go too, a neat reversal of the standard deletion argument at cfd (there is a list/template/article-qua-navigation-hub so the category can be deleted). Occuli (talk) 14:46, 7 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Unfortunately, AFAIK, there is no policy called WP:MYAMUSEMENTATTHEREVERSALOFASTANDARDDELETIONARGUMENT. FWIW, the Individuals who constantly re-list [1] and re-create this category (with SPA accounts it would appear: [2]) after numerous confused AfDs and CfDs often leading to deletion or listification... seem to have the obsession, not me. Bulldog123 20:39, 7 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Keep As an appropriate intersection that has been the subject of multiple reliable and verifiable sources using the intersection as a means of categorization. Alansohn (talk) 17:08, 7 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Where? Bulldog123 03:19, 11 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete - Per WP:CATGRS, the category is not a valid group-subject intersection.

As an intersection of religion and occupation, the category is unambiguously inappropriate.

"Categories should not be based on religion unless the belief has a specific relation to the topic."

As an intersection of ethnicity and occupation, it is also not valid.

"Dedicated group-subject subcategories ... should be created only where that combination is itself recognized as a distinct and unique cultural topic in its own right. ... [I]f the category's head article could never be anything more than a bulleted list of individuals who happen to meet the criteria, then a category is not appropriate."

The category does not reflect a "distinct and unique cultural topic", and it seems doubtful to me that Jewish invention could be a substantial head article.

For what it's worth, no other ethnicity or religion is paired with this occupation—e.g., Category:Christian inventors and Category:Aymara inventors did not and do not exist. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 18:29, 7 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Comment Also worth noting that according to this 2009-06-15, this category should have been deleted after the list was created. That the list was recently deleted (by a virtually unanimous !delete), by no means, necessitates that this category should remain. Bulldog123 21:18, 7 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Also this was added to the listify queue at CfD in June of 2009 which should have resulted it the category being deleted once the listity was finished which it was on November 10, 2009. Since I removed the entry, I can not explain why the category was not deleted. But I normally list these in the queue to let the bot have at it. In reviewing my edits around then I can not see where I added this to the queue. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:40, 7 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Just found the reason why the category was not deleted: the CFD was overturned at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 October 26. postdlf (talk) 18:25, 14 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • As I said, this cat has been maintained by disruptive users (usually for WP:POINT reasons) for a long, long time now. [3]. That was just one of many instances. We finally have a real opportunity to get rid of this OCAT and SYNTH trivia without agenda getting in the way... Bulldog123 11:33, 16 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Davshul (talk) 22:47, 7 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Procedural delete. It has been listified, so per the previous 2009 discussion it should have been deleted. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:59, 8 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The list was just deleted at AFD; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Jewish inventors (third nomination). So the original consensus for deleting this category can no longer be relied upon, given that it was predicated upon its information being converted to a list. postdlf (talk) 02:58, 8 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Good heavens ... I think I may take this as a sign that the very topic is deemed by consensus to be non-notable, let alone a category for it. I haven't read anything above to convince me otherwise, but I'm willing to delay judgment to see what reasons may be given for keeping. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:45, 8 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • I've never liked these categories; intersecting every ethnicity with every occupation just creates a big mess in the category system with very little informational gain, given the inability of categories to source, annotate, and organize. But none of that applies to lists, which don't burden entries by their very existence like category tags do on articles, and which are not mutually exclusive in the same way that categories on the same subject trip all over each other. And I think the deletion of the categories will just get a lot more resistance if lists are not available as an alternative format of documenting the information. Not very productive. postdlf (talk) 17:31, 8 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        • I don't know why you think deleting a list will sprout a category. I haven't really seen that trend (especially for ethnic-intersections). This specific category has a flaky history. Sockpuppets and SPAs ([4]) were maintaining it... so whenever the list was deleted, the category would spring up, and whenever the category was deleted, the list would spring up. It's a unique history, not a "common" trend. Bulldog123 03:19, 11 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
          • It's more that not having listifying as an option will make a lot of people more reluctant to delete a category in the first place. postdlf (talk) 13:46, 11 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
            • I understand you're worried about precedent, but I don't really see how this could somehow stop people from making "listification" CfD closes. Some things are appropriate for lists and some things aren't. Bulldog123 10:03, 13 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Another note. I believe that the list was one of the AFD nominations that resulted in one user being blocked for canvasing. That discussion is here. While not directly affecting this, editors should be aware of issues that may have affected the outcome. Vegaswikian (talk) 09:02, 9 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• True, but canvassing to keep the list, not delete it. Bulldog123 11:35, 16 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Keep -- This is an ethnic category, quite as much as a religious one. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:38, 16 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete per Black Falcon's analysis which seems to counter any argument there might be to keep, at least in category form. VegaDark (talk) 06:41, 18 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep. Nominators rationale for deletion: "people should only be categorized by ethnicity or religion if this has significant bearing on their career." Nominator apparently assumes that Judaism as a religion or being of Jewish ethnicity had no bearing on any of those categorized. That's an assumption that is quite dubious. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 04:40, 19 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Nominator assume that it doesn't, Brewcrewer assumes that it does. My reason for deleting is based on policy and a lack of reputable sources confirming said notability requirement. Your reason for keeping is based purely on opinion. You've provided nothing to legitimize that it does. Bulldog123 15:58, 19 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Yes, I assume that of the 100+ listed in the category, atleast for a few of them, their ethnicity/religion has a significant effect of their career. You have every right to consider that assumption nonsensical, but it's your creditability that's on the line. At the end of the day, you have an unsupported assumption and I have an unsupported assumption, the difference is you are using your unsupported assumption to argue for the deletion of a category. We don't delete categories based on unsupported assumptions, especially dubious assumptions. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:33, 19 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Actually, we don't keep categories based on unsupported assumptions - such as your assumption that "atleast [sic] for a few of them, their ethnicity/religion has a significant effect on their career." Bulldog123 22:56, 20 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete, per WP:OCAT. Non-notable intersection. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:22, 19 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete. "If a substantial and encyclopedic head article (not just a list) cannot be written for such a category, then the category should not be created;". No such article exists, and even the list was deleted as a non-notable intersection, so I can't see keeping the category at this stage. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:17, 19 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There's plenty of sourcing for an article. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 23:44, 19 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

So why doesn't one exist? The list article was deleted as a non-notable intersection. Those arguments seemed to lose out at the AFD. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:11, 20 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why doesn't one exist? That's a ridiculous question, no offense. Why didn't any of these articles exist yesterday? --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 01:06, 20 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's not a ridiculous question—this category has constantly come up for discussion over the course of a number of years now, and yet no one has ever seen fit to write an article about it? Maybe the lack of the article should tell us something. If someone thinks an article could be written, the obvious solution to this issue is to write an article and see if it survives AFD. If it does or doesn't, then that's an easy answer to whether the category should exist or not. (Someone did see fit to make a list, and it was deleted as a non-notable intersection; I think we need to take that into consideration as well.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:35, 20 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The first (and only) relevant book on your supposed proof of notability link uses wikipedia as its sole source [5]. Bulldog123 19:17, 20 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not true. On the first page of hits there's a clear secondary source.[6] There's plenty more, but this is just to point out that your statement is incorrect.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 20:02, 20 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No, there aren't "plenty more." There are "plenty more" instances of a word match, not a relevant intersection. I can put words in quotes and search google books too, getting all kinds of nonsense results Bulldog123 22:48, 20 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The difference is you get more then 10 times the results with 'Jewish inventors,' and indeed a fair number of the 100+ sources discuss the intersection and it's not just a "word match", as you incorrectly claim. Thus, it's notable.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 03:19, 21 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

5,390 google results for "gay eskimo." Somebody better start that article. And regarding the dubious claim: "a fair number of the 100+ sources discuss the intersection" ... Perhaps you mean the astonishing academia of contentless swill like this, with Chapters entitled Famous Jewish Mothers (and Some Famous Jewish Men, So They Don't Write Me Kvetchy Letters). (I presume List of Jewish mothers is legitimized as well). Or perhaps you mean the enlightening discussions found in this, where your only hit comes from the paragraph: The Romanians think before anything else of the enjoyment of life. The Hungarians dream, invent and study. Many of the *word match!* Jewish inventors *word match!* are Hungarians. Or perhaps the four sentences here which provide absolutely no information other than to vomit out four inventors and their inventions (one of them inexplicably a gentile). Or you might be referring to your word match here... with the single sentence Bate, in the end, is incapable of reconciling his appreciation for the honesty and reliability of Jewish scribes of the consonantal text with his utter contempt for Jewish inventors of the vowel system. Or maybe this meaningless match, or this one, or this one.... Fact is, not a single one of those sources provide anything even close to a discussion, and you can continue to whine that they do, but anybody can take a look for themselves. Are we through with this game or do you want to desperately push on? Bulldog123 05:45, 21 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Seriously—why doesn't someone who supports this category volunteer to write a lead article about Jewish inventors? We need to get out of the theoretical world of what could or could not be done. If we had an article it would give us a much better idea about what to do about corresponding categories like this. Judging from the AFD on the list article, it would be very difficult. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:24, 21 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Keep. Per Occuli and Peterkingiron.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:03, 20 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete. If the topic is not notable enough for a list, it certainly isn't for a category. And per BF. --Kbdank71 19:07, 21 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete per BF and others. OK, it is an ethnic and religious intersection. However, no one has made any attempt to show how being Jewish is defining for these inventors. What in their ethnic background makes them unique as inventors? I suggest that the closing admin read the last AfD. The reasons for deleting there mirror those being offered here. Since the case for deletion is pretty much the same in both places, how can we reach different decisions? Also the AfD had much broader input then this discussion so that should also be considered here. Also to be considered is the fate of categories like Category:Jewish figure skaters. Is this any different then that? The AfD discussion besides being clearly behind deletion did not suggest using a category as a replacement. So if this is deleted, then maybe the bouncing between list and category will end with the same fate for both. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:03, 3 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[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. This doesn't seem to be the place to start this discussion.--Mike Selinker (talk) 03:31, 13 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Propose renaming Category:World War II Japanese tanks to Category:World War II tanks of Japan

Nominator's rationale: See below. Thought I'd give a small taste of some of the other categories that needed renaming. Marcus Qwertyus 07:03, 7 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• I'm not sure what to think about this one, to be honest, but I think it would be better to start with the subcategories of Category:Military equipment by conflict (which perhaps should be renamed to Category:Military equipment by war) and then work down through the category tree. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 17:35, 8 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[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. This isn't a nomination of the categories in question. Those will need to tagged and nominated for consensus to emerge.--Mike Selinker (talk) 03:31, 13 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Military aircraft by war to Category:Military aircraft of the ...

Nominator's rationale: Thought I'd consolidate this nom as one big one. I'm only trying to rename the subcategories. Rename subcategories either: Military aircraft of the [enter war name here], or Aircraft of the [enter war name here]. See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 September 22. There are hundreds of other categories that need renaming but I'm not yet up to the task yet of cleaning them up. I'll try to round up as many as I can in the coming weeks. Marcus Qwertyus 06:59, 7 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rename – I was the category creator, long ago, and have no objections (I’m not terribly involved in this; was just a little cleanup) – proposed convention seems to be the WP standard, so sounds good. Thanks Marcus!

—Nils von Barth (nbarth) (talk) 07:10, 7 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Erronious Nomination - This makes sense, but this is an incorrect nom. You tag each category to be renamed, then make them into a single entry here with multiple listings; as it is, this looks like you want to rename "Military aircraft by war". Also, these changes can be C2C speedied, and I'll nom them as such - suggest this nom be "withdrawn". - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 07:53, 7 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• And 21 categories in this tree are now at WP:CFDS for a C2C to "X of Y" format. The subcats that go "War aircraft of Country" should probably stay that way. - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 08:12, 7 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And it seems they'll be moving here for full discussion. Will handle that in the morning. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:58, 8 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[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. There is consensus for change but no consensus as to what. No prejudice against another nomination to rename.--Mike Selinker (talk) 03:31, 13 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Autoloaders to Category:Tanks with autoloaders

Nominator's rationale: Rename. The parent article is Autoloader; however, the category is filled with tanks that use the device, not the devices themselves (which, I suspect, would be unsuited to articles independently - and despite the category being in Category:Firearm components. Therefore I propose it should be renamed to this, more accurate and less ambiguous, name. The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 06:11, 7 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Support "vehicles with autoloaders" or something. The Mobile gun System has an autoloader but is not a tank. I wonder if this encyclopedia has any articles about autoloader systems lurking in it. If there are then the the category should be retained for that purpose.Marcus Qwertyus 07:11, 7 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Rename The obvious rename should be to the article name (Autoloader); or to Category:Guns with autoloaders (pedantic I know but it is the gun that has the autoloader not the tank); or to Category:Autoloader (gun). P.s. nice to see a category with a clear and precise specification. Twiceuponatime (talk) 09:16, 7 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The catch is that it's the tanks, not the guns, that are in the category, otherwise I'd agree with you. Of course, some of the guns themselves may be notable enough for articles... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:23, 7 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • You can take any gun and put an autoloader on it. Marcus Qwertyus 19:48, 7 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Rename, although I'm reluctant to support Category:Tanks with autoloaders as several of these are SP artillery, not MBTs. I'm also rather puzzled by any sort of heavy artillery being categorized so directly under firearms, along with smallarms. Andy Dingley (talk) 02:57, 14 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Rename parent article and category. Being more inclined towards computers, when I hear the word "autoloader", I generally think of "autoload". The parent article's title should be disambiguated. --vgmddg (look | talk | do) 23:37, 14 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[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 all. Kbdank71 19:11, 21 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Wikipedians by ethnic or national descent (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Nominator's rationale - Delete all - This is a fairly recently created category tree that I believe consensus has previously decided shouldn't exist based on a unanimous similar nomination of "Wikipedians by ancestry" categories here. Even if you can't agree that ancestry and descent are substantially similar, the reasons for deletion for each type of category are identical. The last nomination brings up some important points about this type of category, and why they are not appropriate for Wikipedia. To quote a good summary for deletion by Black Falcon in a discussion related to these categories,

quote|User categories are intended to be navigable groupings of users on the basis of characteristics that can facilitate encyclopedic collaboration; they are not intended to be used merely as bottom-of-the-page notices for self-identification or groupings for the purpose of social networking or social or political identity-building. Categories grouping users by descent (a passive association) do not facilitate encyclopedic collaboration, since they do not reflect any encyclopedically relevant ability, activity, interest, knowledge, or skill. They do not even categorize by any sort of active identification (which could tenuously be linked to interest) but exist merely as directories of users by shared ancestry (Wikipedia is not a genealogical directory).

The primary reason for deletion, of course, is that this category tree violates WP:USERCAT in that it does not "aid in facilitating coordination and collaboration between users for the improvement and development of the encyclopedia." As mentioned above, user categories are intended to exist based on their ability to group users into categories for the purpose of improving the encyclopedia. Just as with your ancestry, however, you cannot choose your ethnic or national descent, so categorizing users by this feature is utterly irrelevant when it comes to interest in collaborating on topics related to that national or ethnic descent. Since there is not necessarily a link between users with a particular descent and an interest in collaborating on topics related to that descent, this category scheme violates WP:USERCAT. Users with such an interest are more than welcome to create a category such as Category:Wikipedians interested in collaborating on topics related to x, with x being the ethnicity/nationality of their choice- but to actually classify users based on their own personal ethnic or national descent is meaningless when it comes to grouping users for collaborative purposes. I'll take the time to mention right now that this nomination in no way is against self-identification of what descent someone is by way of a userbox, it's only the categories I am concerned with since, unlike userspace, user categories are not subject to the same leeway userspace is. Finally, before anyone supports keeping these categories, I'd like them to answer this question: What enyclopedia-benefiting purpose could there be in specifically seeking out users in Category:Wikipedians of Welsh descent? Moreover, is there any encyclopedia-furthering reason to specifically go seek out users in Category:Wikipedians of Welsh descent vs. a category titled Category:Wikipedians interested in collaborating on topics related to Welsh descendancy? I would submit that there is no such benefit, and would withdraw this nom if someone can come up with a legitimate one. VegaDark (talk) 01:35, 7 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Rename: Change name to Category:Wikipedians by national descent to strictly limit subcategories to descent from nations. This category is certainly no less legitimate than Category:Wikipedians by ethnicity and nationality. I suspect that if this category and its ilk are deleted, users will just find less appropriate categories to express their national descent.  Buaidh  14:52, 7 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete per VegaDark's very comprehensive nomination. In reply to Buaidh's points above: (1) Limiting the scope to national descent does not address any of the core issues mentioned in the nomination. (2) Comparing with Category:Wikipedians by ethnicity and nationality is an "other stuff"-type argument. In addition, there is a significant difference: the "by ethnicity and nationality" tree categorizes by active identification whereas this category tree groups users by passive genetic association. So, regardless of the legitimacy of the other tree, this one is less useful. (3) If less appropriate categories are created, then they too can be deleted. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 16:57, 7 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  By "less appropriate categories", I mean subcategories of Category:Wikipedians by ethnicity and nationality. I am a United States citizen of Scottish (among many other nationalities) descent. I can state definitively that I am an American Wikipedian and that I am a Wikipedian of Scottish descent. In lieu of Scottish descent, I can also claim to be of Scottish ethnicity, although nothing other than the kilt in my closet would lead an acquaintance to think that I am Scottish (a closet Scotsman, perhaps.) I can even claim to be of Scottish nationality, even though I am not a citizen of the United Kingdom. Are the members of Category:Scottish Wikipedians Scots by national residence, national citizenship, ethnicity, nationality, or all the above?

  My ex-wife is a naturalized citizen of the United States, born in Germany, the daughter of a Hungarian citizen and a Polish citizen, who claims to be Native American. National citizenship and national descent can be easily determined. It is a slippery slope when we let users choose whatever ethnicity or nationality they wish to be today. Yours aye,  Buaidh  18:03, 7 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  In the context of classifying biographical articles, it is important to pursue the utmost precision. In the context of classifying users, I would much rather know what you consider yourself to be (today) rather than what your great-great-grandparents were a century ago. In any case, this discussion is about the categories specifically (i.e., about creating groupings of users) not about "let[ting] users choose" their ethnicity, nationality, or ancestry/descent in general—there are userboxes which account for many of the combinations you mention, and users can use them to offer as much or as little detail as they want. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 18:39, 7 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Keep in Clear Defiance of Current Policy: The repeated re-appearance of these cats suggests that the consensus is eroding that WikiPedia should not have social networking aspects, at least among editors at large. WP:Ignore RevelationDirect (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:32, 8 December 2010 (UTC).Reply[reply]
  • This is the first time that most of these particular categories have been created. Even if we count these "descent" categories as a continuation of the "ancestry" categories, which is reasonable, then this is merely the second time in many years that these categories have been created. Quite simply, there has been no "repeated re-appearance".
    Also, have you considered the implications of the argument that repeated recreation is indicative of a shift in consensus? Users have been creating/inserting and recreating/reinserting spam, BLP violations, vandalism and POV-pushing for a longer time and with much more frequency than these categories. By your reasoning, that fact should be taken as an indication that "consensus is eroding" that Wikipedia should not contain spam, BLP violations, vandalism and POV-pushing.
    -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 17:24, 8 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • No Harm: But all of those things have a negative impact. If someone puts a silly category on their User page, who does that hurt? It doesn't harm the reader experience of actual articles. It doesn't harm my user page. It doesn't prevent my ability to reach out to those editors on their talk page. (I could see imposing some size limits on user pages to limit impact on Wiki servers though.)RevelationDirect (talk) 03:16, 10 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • The "no-harm" argument is always inherently weak, really, since it completely ignores the question: Is it useful? In addition, I do not believe that the "no-harm" argument even applies in this case. The user category system is a tool that can be used for collaboration (I've used it many times to request help with translation, sourcing, template coding, and other tasks) and allowing excess clutter (i.e., categories which do not help collaboration) makes the tool less effective. In addition, something which is fairly harmless in one or two instances (e.g., spam in userspace, POV-pushing in userspace, a blog in userspace) is not necessarily harmless once a precedent is set to allow it in general—which is one reason for the existence of a policy such as WP:NOT#MYSPACE. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 18:23, 10 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        • My younger coworkers (for good and bad) are much more integrated with social networking and come to websites with very different expectations than I do. I'm concerned that by keeping an old, heavy-handed policy on User Pages, we are discouraging younger editors from participating. Given the broader issue of the declining number of active editors, making more people feel welcome is useful.RevelationDirect (talk) 03:31, 11 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete per nom and guidelines. There is no real use for these that facilitates co-operative building of the encyclopedia. Just because a handful of editors have thought that their userpage is akin to their facebook page is not a good reason to keep these. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:52, 8 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  The general public makes little distinction between being of Irish ethnicity and being of Irish descent. I suspect this question will arise many times in the future.  Buaidh  14:38, 9 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  There are currently 964 Wikipedian user pages in these categories. While these categories appear to be in violation of the ancestry decision, they are nonetheless popular. Whether or not the limited nature of national descent makes these categories acceptable exceptions should be determined soon. Yours aye,  Buaidh  16:55, 10 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  That is an unsupported conclusion. Consider the case of Category:Wikipedians of Welsh descent. The userbox has been in use since 2006, yet this change two months ago is what caused c. 200 pages to appear in the category. In a similar way, this one caused the population of Category:Wikipedians of Ecuadorian descent. In other words, the userboxes—not the categories—are popular, and these categories exist only because a handful of editors (no doubt in good faith, not knowing the history of the descent categories) recently added category code to a few userboxes. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 18:01, 10 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  I'm in the process of removing the option for these national descent categories from several hundred of my templates. I'm not really certain this will significantly reduce the membership in these categories. Should the decision be made to retain these categories, I can always restore them later. Yours aye,  Buaidh  18:42, 10 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  I think you're right that it won't significantly reduce membership. Your expansion of the user interest userbox series took place fairly recently, and so it's unlikely that very many users already are using the templates. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 19:40, 10 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete all per a very well-reasoned nom. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 03:02, 20 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete all nom said all there is to say. Bulldog123 16:17, 21 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[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. (I think we can only assume that the anonymous comments here came from the same person, and that person was also responsible for creating some of the subcategories referred to.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:13, 15 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Watersheds to Category:Drainage basins

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Simply to change from an ambiguous name that is used worldwide to a more specific name that conforms with what is included in the parent Category:Basins. A follow on proposal may be needed for the subcategories. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:00, 7 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Rename to Category:Drainage basins. I am one of those for whom watershed means the top of the hill that separates the drainage basins. Twiceuponatime (talk) 09:20, 7 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support renaming Watersheds is ambiguous. Kmusser (talk) 19:13, 7 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• KEEP: The scope of the category is well-defined and not ambiguous, and the term Watershed is valid for this category regardless of the word's hominimic meaning, which can be distinguished from the sibling category by Template:Distinguish that links to Category:Water divides. In any case, the less-verbose term 'watershed' is more appropriate than the verbose synonyms 'drainage basin' and 'catchment basin' (cf. structural basin). 71.207.116.124 (talk) 18:34, 9 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

RELIST: This discussion needs ended immediately as it is an attempt to rename an entire tree, not just the highest parent category, but the 100s or even 1000s of categories for geographic areas that use the term "Watershed" -- to which this dubious rationale applies -- have not been tagged for renaming. For example, the nominated category lists 19 articles, subcategories, & commons categories which would need renamed if this semantic rationale wins the CfD popularity vote (as well as all the "watershed" articles in those subcategories-- plus their "watershed" grandchild subcategories --- plus the "watershed" articles). Moreover, no discussion was performed at [[Talk:Category:Watersheds]] for this broad rationale that applies to the entire tree, so when sufficient pre-CatDelete discussion has taken place (e.g., at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rivers) and/or hatboxes for a sufficient set of the multitude of articles and categories have been placed, then this discussion can be added to a future Talk:Categories for Deletion page with a FULL nomination regarding naming categories with the valid name "watershed" to something else. 71.207.116.124 (talk) 18:34, 9 December 2010 (UTC) — 71.207.116.124 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Reply[reply]

• Welcome to Wikipedia. The process which you describe is actually how CfD works. A top-level category is discussed at CfD, and, if it gains consensus to be changed, then the child categories are tagged for renaming through WP:CFDS. Note the discussion on the 8th with regards to subcats of Category:Military equipment by conflict, for instance: if the categories mentioned there gain consensus for renaming, after that change is made, their child categories will be tagged for speedy renaming, which involves a 48-hour period for objections to be heard. If objections are made, then the categories in question are taken to full CfD for further discussion. Discussion with regards to renaming categories, however, is not carried out on Talk:Category name pages, or in "hatboxes", it's carried out right here, just as it is being carried out right now. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:37, 9 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• did you forget to place your vote? 64.134.243.46 (talk) 21:30, 9 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• No. But since you asked, Support renaming. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:46, 9 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• >50 Keep votes: The grandchild categories in the Category:Watershed tree that use the name "watershed" total 15 in the Categories named for watersheds (Category:Chesapeake Bay Watershed through Category:Wabash River Watershed), 1 in the Watershed of the Atlantic, 2 in Watersheds of North America, 8 in Watersheds of the Arctic Ocean, & 35 in Watersheds of the United States; so that's at least 51 creators who voted to use "Watershed" when they created the categories. 64.134.243.46 (talk) 21:30, 9 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

-- and none of the grandchild categories use the term "drainage basin" or "catchment" basin! 64.134.243.46 (talk) 21:30, 9 December 2010 (UTC) — 64.134.243.46 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Reply[reply]

And Wikipedia does not work that way. (Not to mention, those child categories you brought up? They're the entire thing that started this whole mess.) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:46, 9 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

One wonders if it is time for a sock check? Vegaswikian (talk) 21:51, 10 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And should some user with no opinion wanted to create a category for the category tree, (s)he would simply follow the already existing pattern. So creating more such categories is no indication of supporting that name. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:30, 14 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:09, 15 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Propose merging Category:Socialist Party of America by state with Category:Socialist Party USA by state

Nominator's rationale: State pages in both cats cover both the Socialist Party and SPUSA incarnations of the state parties. Best merge into State Socialist parties of the US or Socialist parties of US states etc.--Dudeman5685 (talk) 02:58, 7 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Support Merging: Both articles cover multiple parties as you suggest.RevelationDirect (talk) 03:15, 8 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[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.