< May 17	May 19 >

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:National League (cricket). — ξ^xplicit 01:28, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:National League to Category:National League (cricket) or Category:Pro40

Nominator's rationale: Rename. "National League" alone is quite an amibiguous term, and if kept this category name would need disambiguation. National League (cricket) redirects to Pro40, so perhaps that would be the correct name for the category? I'm not sure. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:20, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Category:National League (cricket). Categories need to be named more formally, explicitly, with more self-evident meaning (given a choice). Mayumashu (talk) 01:23, 19 May 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.

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 May 27. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:54, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Simian characters in comics to Category:Gorilla characters in comics

Nominator's rationale: The main article is Gorillas in comics, and nearly all the many articles there in are already gorillas (mostly modified with a human-level mind). Even the so-called Monkeyman and O'Brien and Grease Monkey are really about gorillas, not monkeys. This will also let it fit under Category:Gorillas and Category:Fictional apes much better. (Monkeys are not apes.) ^{şṗøʀĸɕäɾłäů∂ɛ:τᴀʟĸ} 22:19, 18 May 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.

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 and rename to Category:Businesspeople in the telecommunications industry. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 23:08, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

Category:Businesspeople in telecommunications (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Redundant to the older Category:Businesspeople in the telecommunication industry. I don't really mind which is kept; some of the subcategories of Category:Businesspeople by industry use the 'X industry' name, and others don't, so there's not much help there. But one of these categories should be merged into the other. Robofish (talk) 21:31, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I propose merging to the older category, even though it's longer, in that I suppose the phrase "in telecommunications" could be misinterpreted as a including representations of businesspeople in telecommunications. Yes, I know. But it's my half-assed rationale, damn it. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:50, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, I see that the main is Category:Telecommunications. So the rename should also have the "s", as in Category:Businesspeople in the telecommunications industry, no? If so, that would be a merge and rename. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:50, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge and rename Agree with above (despite length of new category title!) Hugo999 (talk) 01:54, 23 May 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.

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. — ξ^xplicit 01:28, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:People of Native Hawaiian descent and Category:Native_Hawaiian_people

Nominator's rationale:Redundancy Maile66 (talk) 20:10, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Two differents things - the first group are not ethnically 'Native Hawaiian', but have the ancestry, and the second group are ethnically 'Native Hawaiian'. Mayumashu (talk) 01:25, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Isn't ethnicity and ancestry the same thing? How can you have one without the other? Maile66 (talk) 01:27, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ethnicity is the group you belong to culturally, that you share language, religion, cuisine, customs, etc. and ancestry is having lineage to an ethnicity that your predecessors had but that you do not. Someone with German ancestry who is American does not, due to their ancestry anyway, speak native German, etc. where someone of German ethnicity (or nationality) does. (language is the usually the first indicator and another is self-identity). Of course for some individuals it is hard to say which is 'truer'.

• Comment How can Wiki users make a distinction between these two? Users should not have to decide on undefined splitting of hairs on category names. Looking at what's on those lists, users have not figured out any difference. It's becomes "Pick A" or "Pick B", with no way to tell the difference. Either change the name of one category, or merge them. Maile66 (talk) 13:50, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The 'default setting' so to speak is 'people of Fooian descent', since someone of an ethnicity is almost always of that ethnicity's descent. There are certainly some bios where the reader can't tell based on the info given. But to lump the two together under either name would be quite non-informative and misleading for many individuals thus described. Both have elaborate category trees Category:People by ethnicity and Category:People by ethnic or national descent. I suppose combining the two trees could be done Category:People by ethnicity or ancestry, Category:American people of German ethnicity or ancestry, Category:Russian people of Tatar ethnicity or ancestry, Category:People of Native Hawaiian ethnicity or ancestry etc. I think I would support it, but it would be quite an undertaking. (By the way, I changed your 'Merge' statement to 'Comment' as the way it was looked as if a different contributor had made the comment. [The convention on this project page is for a WP contributor to state 'merge', 'keep', 'support', 'delete' etc once and to use 'comment' for additional comments' - the nominator automatically opens with a statement.] Although a discussion is not a vote, that different contributors contribute to a discussion with agreeeing views undoubtedly adds weight to an argument.) Mayumashu (talk) 14:10, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the crux of it for me: Users are of unknown abilities. Working through the maze of Wikipedia trees in and of itself can be confusing. Rename one or the other so the user is not so easily confused. It's not working as you see the categories, in the presently worded state. And if it's not working, what's the point of keeping it "as is"? Wouldn't that be counter productive for Wikipedia itself? Maile66 (talk) 14:35, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. The problem identified by Maile66 is a real one, and it is widespread throughout these categories. I don't see an easy solution. Ideally, we would just be able to agree that the issue is so beset by problems that we could just delete all the "national or ethnic descent" categories. But users seem so enamoured with these categories—which I don't really understand, perhaps it's a matter of national/ethnic pride or something—that I think that solution would be unlikely. Given that, I'm not sure if it's a good idea to pick off and delete one here and one there. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:41, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Just as a general comment here as to sticking the word "Native" in front of a cross section of people, I would think the confusion possibilities are endless. As far as I know, in Wikipedia, when selecting a category, there is no Right-click option to bring up a "What's This?" explanation box. If you say "Native Texan" or "Native Californian", that simply means someone who was born in those states and has no ethnic implications. If you say "Native Hawaiian", it could mean that, or culture, or bloodlines. Etc.etc. Maile66 (talk) 23:03, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • My understanding is that that issue is usually resolved by the existence of articles. We have Native Hawaiians, which could/should be the main article in the category. Ideally, this "main article" will be right at the top—perhaps even linked to in a category definition. We don't have articles for Native Texans (a redirect to Texan) or Native Californians—which suggests that no category should exist for these concepts. That said, you are correct that in this case the main article system doesn't really distinguish between the two concepts as the categories try to—both Native Hawaiian people and people of Native Hawaiian descent are discussed in Native Hawaiians. Which is yet another reason to believe that the problem you've identified is a valid one, IMO. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:08, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• keep Category:Native Hawaiian people for ethnic Hawaiians; delete Category:People of Native Hawaiian descent as serving no purpose; keep People from Hawaii as the parent for Category:Native Hawaiian people and everyone else from Hawaii, just as we have for all U.S. states We do not distinguish anywhere in WP degrees of ethnicity; if a person is 100% or 10% ethnic Hawaiian, then they are 'Native Hawaiian'; just like Native Americans and so on. Neither do we distingish among degrees of Hawaiianness, based on who was born there, how long they lived there and so on. Such distinctions serve no useful purpose, are not supported by article content and would always be wrong Hmains (talk) 03:41, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• keep both for now, until we get a nomination to delete all the "descent" categories. Otherwise we're just cherry picking. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:06, 25 May 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.

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:Anglicanism in New Zealand. Since it came in so late in this discussion, the name of the Primate category should be discussed in a new nomination. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 23:05, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

Propose renaming Category:Anglican Church of New Zealand to Category:Anglican Church in Aotearoa, New Zealand and Polynesia

Nominator's rationale: Rename. The official name of this church is Anglican Church in Aotearoa, New Zealand and Polynesia. Suggest renaming the category to match the main article. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:45, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - However, there are other Anglican denominations in NZ that are not in communion with the ACANZP (and therefore Canterbury). While they don't yet have NZ-specific articles, we still need to allow for their inclusion in an appropriate category. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 09:50, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Then it would be called category:Anglicanism in New Zealand (perhaps under category:Anglicanism by country) and the "Church in A, NZ, & P" would be a sub-cat, (which should also go under category:Anglican denominations. --Kevlar (talk • contribs) 23:33, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment (nom). Given the circumstances, I think renaming to Category:Anglicanism in New Zealand would be a good idea. There is an argument that that in fact was what was intended, since a subcategory is Category:New Zealand Anglicans, and not all New Zealand Anglicans are members of the Anglican Church in Aotearoa, New Zealand and Polynesia. I think it's better at this stage to have the broader category rather than the more specific one that I proposed. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:08, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ξ^xplicit 19:40, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Category:Anglicanism in New Zealand and change its main article, per above remarks. We could rename Category:Anglican Primates of New Zealand (a classic Pastorwayne creation) while we are in this vicinity (to Category:Anglican archbishops of New Zealand). Occuli (talk) 20:02, 18 May 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.

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 2010 MAY 31 CFD. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:05, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Russian painters from Saint Petersburg to Category:Painters from Saint Petersburg

Nominator's rationale: standard pattern is e.g. Category:Actors from Chicago, Illinois etc. Moreover, not all painters from Saint Petersburg have been Russian (either as citizens or ethnically) Mayumashu (talk) 16:27, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I'm dubious about this. It's by the same guy who had "Leningrad School of art" deleted recently, & wrote a book on the subject. A quick sample showed actually none born there (though one infobox erroneously said one was), though all seemed to have been trained & lived there. Mind you I'm dubious about Category:Actors from Chicago, Illinois too. Johnbod (talk) 01:08, 21 May 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.

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 to "Sierra Leone Creole (X)" (except the "language" category).--Mike Selinker (talk) 01:43, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming/merging

• Category:Krio Organizations to Category:Sierra Leone Creole organizations (1)
• Category:Krio establishments to Category:Sierra Leone Creole establishments (2)
• Category:Krio diaspora to Category:Sierra Leone Creole diaspora (3)
• Category:Krio history, Category:Krio history books, and Category:Krio historians to Category:Sierra Leone Creole history (4)

(:Propose keeping

• Category:Krio language, as the article is at Krio language) (5)

Nominator's rationale: to disambiguate Krio while matching these category pages to the article page Sierra Leone Creole Mayumashu (talk) 00:14, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ξ^xplicit 06:00, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support most of these, but change 'Krio' throughout to 'Sierra Leone Creole' as the parent category is Category:Sierra Leone Creole. So support (1), (2), (3); (4) becomes merge Category:Krio history to the duplicate Category:Sierra Leone Creole history, rename Category:Krio history books to Category:Sierra Leone Creole history books, and Category:Krio historians to Category:Sierra Leone Creole historians; (5) becomes rename Category:Krio language to Category:Sierra Leone Creole language. Some redirects could be left. (4) could be an upmerge but the various other parents (eg 'Historians') are not covered by the nom. [There are more in Category:Sierra Leone Creole people which are tagged but not listed.] Occuli (talk) 13:21, 18 May 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.

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 as part of a larger category scheme.--Mike Selinker (talk) 01:40, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Doping cases in shooting (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Single item category:

The page in the category should be added to List of doping cases in sport CrimsonBlue (talk) 05:40, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep As part of a wider-scheme of Category:Doping cases in sport. Lugnuts (talk) 17:21, 18 May 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.

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 07:17, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Crosby, Stills & Nash (and Young) albums to Category:Crosby, Stills, Nash & Young albums

Nominator's rationale: Per main article, Crosby, Stills, Nash & Young. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:09, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per article. There are also Category:Crosby, Stills & Nash (and Young) songs and Category:Crosby, Stills & Nash (and Young) members (with 4 articles, no prizes for guessing which ones). Occuli (talk) 10:48, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all per article— but do we really even need Category:Crosby, Stills & Nash (and Young) members? How about Hall & Oates members? ^{şṗøʀĸɕäɾłäů∂ɛ:τᴀʟĸ} 19:48, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename. Just because a category's contents are obvious doesn't mean it's invalid.--Mike Selinker (talk) 04:12, 25 May 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.

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: Convert to DAB category. I have created the required Category:Point Blank (hip hop group) albums and Category:Point Blank (band) albums. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:21, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Point Blank albums (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Convert to dab for albums by Point Blank (band) and Point Blank (hip hop group) —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:34, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - and create Category:Point Blank (hip hop group) albums and Category:Point Blank (band) albums for its 2 articles. Occuli (talk) 11:20, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Blackjays1 (talk) 02:05, 20 May 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.