< June 2 June 4 >

June 3

Category:People from Neftchala

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:  Relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 June 14. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 14:05, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:People from Neftchala to Category:People from Neftchala Rayon
Nominator's rationale: for disambiguation and wider application. Neftchala city is located within Neftchala Rayon and there is only one bio linked to this page. Moreover the parent category is Category:Neftchala Rayon Mayumashu (talk) 23:05, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Left For Dead members

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:  Relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 June 14. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 14:05, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Left For Dead members (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Redlink band per Left for dead. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:03, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Gay politicians

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: keep. — ξxplicit 23:49, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Gay politicians to Category:Openly gay politicians Category:Category:Openly gay politicians
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Seems more appropriate Purplebackpack89 16:42, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rap, the criteria to be added to the category "Gay politicians" is basically to be openly gay Purplebackpack89 23:40, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Native American settlements

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 all. Courcelles (talk) 01:15, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Native American settlements to Category:Native American populated places
and its subcategories:
Category:Chumash settlements to Category:Chumash populated places
Category:Costanoan settlements to Category:Costanoan populated places
Category:Esselenian settlements to Category:Esselenian populated places
Category:Iroquois settlements to Category:Iroquois populated places
Category:Salinan settlements to Category:Salinan populated places
Category:Serrano settlements to Category:Serrano populated places
Category:Tongva settlements to Category:Tongva populated places
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Wikipedia talk:Categorization/Categorising human settlements and Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 April 17#Category:Settlements. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 14:21, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Grand Prix before Formula One

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:Pre-World Championship Grands Prix. I could argue that we should use "Grand Prix races" rather than a French plural, but that would probably suggest a more global change.--Mike Selinker (talk) 18:43, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Grand Prix before Formula One to Category:Pre-Formula One Grands Prix
Nominator's rationale: The current name is grammatically incorrect. Another possible alternative would be Category:Grands Prix before Formula One. DH85868993 (talk) 12:30, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Makes sense. Support.  Dr. Loosmark  12:44, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Against. Or at least not to this name. What is the purpose of this category? While the World Championship started in 1950, Formula One is much older. The name should either be Pre-1950 or Pre-World Championship. Factual correctness is also important. --Falcadore (talk) 12:56, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
While I think the suggestion makes sense and I do think the category should change names, I think Falcadore's ideas for a new name would be better. John Anderson (talk) 21:28, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:American Formula One drivers at Indianapolis 500 1950-1960

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. — ξxplicit 19:43, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:American Formula One drivers at Indianapolis 500 1950-1960 to Category:to be determined by consensus
Nominator's rationale: Whilst I’m happy with the idea of a category for drivers whose only participation in the World Drivers’ Championship was at the Indianapolis 500 races between 1950 and 1960, I wonder if there might not be a better name for it. DH85868993 (talk) 12:10, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Some background information for those who may not be completely familiar with the topic:
  • from 1950 to 1960, the Indianapolis 500 was a round of the World Drivers’ Championship (which has been known as the Formula One World Drivers’ Championship since 1981).
  • Unlike the other races of the Championship, which were run to Formula One regulations, the Indianapolis 500 races were run to a different set of regulations and hence were not “Formula One races” per se.
  • Most of the drivers who raced in the Indianapolis 500 races between 1950 and 1960 did not race in any other rounds of the World Drivers’ Championship.
  • There are actually about 100 such drivers (despite the fact that the category currently contains only two).
  • Until recently, these drivers were included in Category:American Formula One drivers, until they were removed, without prior discussion, by an IP editor, leading to this discussion at WP:F1.
  • Some editors object to these drivers being included in the Category:Formula One drivers tree, on the basis that the races in which they competed were not Formula One races.
  • Other editors (myself included) are happy to live with the inaccuracy, for the sake of consistency with external sources (which often include these drivers in “Formula One driver” lists) and understandability by non-experts.
  • Regarding their nationality, all the drivers who actually started the 1950-1960 Indianapolis 500 races (but didn’t contest any other rounds of the WDC) were American. However, there would almost certainly have been numerous other drivers who attempted unsuccessfully to qualify for one or more of the 1950-1960 events, some of whom may be non-American. So if the non-qualifiers are included in the category (per WP:F1 convention) there might be some non-Americans.
  • The corresponding category for racecar constructors whose only participation in the WDC was at the Indianapolis 500 between 1950 and 1960 is Category:Formula One constructors (Indianapolis only).
DH85868993 (talk) 12:12, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Short works

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) 04:03, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Short works (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: What makes these "short"? Clearly, a short film is shorter than a feature-length, but a music single isn't a "short album"; it's a single. The inclusion criteria are necessarily widely subjective. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:15, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:31, 3 June 2010 (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.

Buddhist Patriarchs

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 all. — ξxplicit 23:49, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Buddhist Patriarchs to Category:Buddhist patriarchs
Category:Chan Patriarchs → Category:Chan patriarchs
Category:Seon Patriarchs → Category:Seon patriarchs
Nominator's rationale: Rename. In Buddhism, "Patriarch" is not ordinarily capitalized except in proper names (e.g. the Sixth Patriarch). See usage in Lineage (Buddhism). Pnm (talk) 05:23, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Notes taking

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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 17:26, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Notes taking to Category:Notetaking
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Per main article and related category Category:Notetaking software. Pnm (talk) 04:35, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Buddhist women

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. Category:Buddhism and women covers the subcategories adequately without requiring every article on a Buddhist female to be categorized in one spot. Also, the opposing editor brings up a good point: Category:Jewish women does look similarly suspect, and should probably be merged to Category:Judaism and women before several thousand articles end up in there.--Mike Selinker (talk) 10:50, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Buddhist women (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Is it particularly notable that some women are Buddhists or that some Buddhists are women? I don't see why this category exists. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:28, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Women in Buddhism and ordination of women in Buddhism give good historical and present-day perspectives on why the category is notable.
Category:Jewish women offers a different and possibly more useful scope. --Pnm (talk) 04:42, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category is up from 35 to 60 articles. --Pnm (talk) 06:04, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Category:American Muslim Women discussion. Also support deleting other categories which intersect religion and gender--TM 11:54, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Reading Wikipedia:Cat gender#General makes me think changing the scope to "Women notable as Buddhists" is the right way to go. ("Inclusion must be specifically relevant to at least one of the subject's notable activities and an essential part of that activity, but is not required to be an exclusive interest.") Gender has a specific relation to the topic of Buddhism (per links above).
According to the discussion on Category:American Muslim Women, it was deleted based on being a triple intersection, which this category is not. --Pnm (talk) 05:02, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I just noticed that another related category was created today: Category:Buddhist priestesses. I think it's too similar in scope to Category:Buddhist nuns. I posted a note at User talk:Hmains. --Pnm (talk) 05:17, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And Category:Buddhist abbesses. --Pnm (talk) 05:21, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I created this category for the same reason as the Category:Jewish women and Category:Christianity and women exist. Traditionally religion has been male dominated and so there are many readers interested in the role of women in various religions. Unless the nominator is also proposing deletion of Category:Jewish women and Category:Christianity and women I suggest they consider withdrawing their nomination. I would support changing the scope to women notable as Buddhists. --Dakinijones (talk) 11:04, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:The Simpsons travel episodes

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. — ξxplicit 23:49, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:The Simpsons travel episodes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. It's a very vaguely defined category with a far too specific focus. The category seems to define "travel episode" as those in which the family visits a foreign country, but there are numerous episodes in which the family travels to other places that could also be considered a "travel episode". -- Scorpion0422 01:39, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's because Wikipedia is not a fan site. To find such information, you should go to a fan site, not a general encyclopedia. Also, it should be noted that there was previously a Traveling in The Simpsons article, but it was deleted via afd. -- Scorpion0422 01:08, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Articles containing explicitly cited English language text

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:Articles containing explicitly cited English-language text. Update: We attempted to do this rename but honestly, it was just too much of a headache because adding the hyphen required an amendment to Template:Lang, which of course resulted in the other language categories that use that template having the hyphen added to them, and many users got really worried about this. So if any user wants to propose that the hyphen be added, this category and the subcategories of Category:Articles containing non-English language text must be nominated together. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:57, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Articles containing explicitly cited English language text to Category:Articles containing explicitly-cited English language text
Nominator's rationale: Grammar —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:06, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well if you want to but I don;t see it's grammar. Google hist for explicitly-cited - this cat, fro "explicitly cited" lots. Rich Farmbrough, 08:34, 3 June 2010 (UTC).[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
More