< May 19	May 21 >

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. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 20:26, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Songs written by Tim James (songwriter) to Category:Songs written by Tim James (country music songwriter)

Nominator's rationale: There seems to be some confusion between the two Tim Jameses. The Tim James who wrote these country music songs is not the same person as Tim James (music producer). However, I found several articles that were linking to the country music songwriter instead of the pop producer/songwriter. I have renamed the country music songwriter's article from Tim James (songwriter) to Tim James (country music songwriter), and suggest that the category be renamed accordingly, since both Tim Jameses are songwriters. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 18:11, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support, but with a comment. The nominator has moved the Tim James article so it coincides with his proposed change to this category. As I have argued before, it is impossible to write a country song but you can arrange a song as a country song or any other genre, that there is a completely different aspect to writing and arranging music should not be ignored by WP. Therefore "country music songwriter" is misleading. However, as the nominator points out there are two Tim Jameses at WP and it confused me sorting these two out with what they wrote and didn't write and at least this proposal should help show a little difference between the two TJs. If I can think of a better separation I will come back and oppose the proposal, chances are, I won't. --Richhoncho (talk) 18:25, 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.

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 to get rid of Category:American football in the United States by state, but the situation has changed slightly since the nomination began, since one of the participants here has (tsk tsk) created the proposed Category:American football in the United States while this discussion was ongoing, and Category:American football in the United States by state has been made a subcategory of the new category. I'm not sure if this state of affairs makes everybody happy or not, but certainly Category:American football in the United States by state could be renominated for deletion if the situation is still viewed by some as unsatisfactory. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:00, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:American football in the United States by state to Category:American football in the United States

Nominator's rationale: Rename. No need for the 'by state' qualifier and dropping this would better follow the form of the other members in Category:American football by country. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:53, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rename with no prejudice to recreation if needed. (Eg Category:Baseball in the United States has numerous subcats including Category:Baseball in the United States by state. Much of Category:American football should be moved to Category:American football in the United States.) Occuli (talk) 12:52, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep perfectly legitimate cat. This could easily be expanded. Also Category:American football in the United States is not the sole parent for these cats they are also placed in sports cats for each state. Similar cats in other sports Category:Soccer in the United States by state Djln 90.200.56.157 (talk) 11:45, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (for now) as a subcategory of Category:Sports in the United States by state, which contains several similar categories (i.e. Foo in the United States by state). -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 21:57, 15 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.

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. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 20:28, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Western Association of Schools and Colleges to Category:Schools accredited by the Western Association of Schools and Colleges

Nominator's rationale: As it stands, the category name is unclear and misleading. I propose that the category be renamed to clarify what it's for, and a new Category:Western Association of Schools and Colleges be created for articles directly related to the Western Association of Schools and Colleges, if necessary. TorriTorri(^talk/_contribs) 05:25, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support - based on the fact that WASC is not a "supraorganization" it is an accrediting body. This is a good category to have.Greg Bard 19:41, 28 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:9/11 conspiracy theories. Creating an Alternative views of... or Criticism of... subcategory or parent category, or implementing some other system of organization, is left to editors' discretion and good judgment (and, perhaps, consensus reached through preliminary discussion). Regarding the ability of readers to use the category—a topic which was raised close to the end of the discussion—I will note that the category currently contains about 20 pages, so some reorganization may have taken place already. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 22:09, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Alternative theories of the September 11 attacks to Category:9/11 conspiracy theories

Nominator's rationale: Should be renamed to match the name of the primary article, 9/11 conspiracy theories. Prezbo (talk) 04:36, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Sounds reasonable. I cannot see any reasons why the present name should be kept. There may be a history to this, but for now I'm all for the name change. __meco (talk) 06:32, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is indeed some history to this - please see my remarks below. Cgingold (talk) 01:58, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – this was discussed last year at cfd (no consensus). Occuli (talk) 13:02, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support rename to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 04:01, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Recycling in Action - Rather than tire myself out writing a new response to this perennial proposal, I'm just going to repost an updated version of what I said last time:
Oppose proposal plus Comment: Interesting -- it's exactly one year to the day since the last previous CFD for this category. At that time, only one other editor supported the nominator's proposal to rename to Category:September 11, 2001 conspiracy theories, with most (including myself) expressing concern about using such a POV term for the name of the category. While I personally would agree with the use of that common parlance descriptor for most of the articles, that doesn't change the fact that it's a POV term, and thus out of place as a category name. It also is neither fair nor accurate to label every serious challenge to the official view of 9/11 as a "conspiracy theory". Moreover, as one editor wisely pointed out, the official view of 9/11 is itself a "conspiracy theory" of a different sort.
Alternate proposal: That said, I'm not entirely happy with the current name. Ideally, I would like to see this Renamed to Category:Alternative views of the official accounts of the September 11 attacks. Cgingold (talk) 01:58, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The main article says that "9/11 conspiracy theories allege that the September 11 attacks in 2001 were either intentionally allowed to happen or were a false flag operation orchestrated by an organization with elements inside the United States government." What are the articles in this category that you think don't fit this description? NPOV doesn't mean being nice to everybody. The articles in this category are about conspiracy theories and there's nothing biased about the category calling them that, just like the main article does.Prezbo (talk) 02:11, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's a fair question, especially since it's been quite a while since I checked in on any of this stuff. (The last CFD on this category was nearly 2 years ago.) It looks to me like there are a lot more articles that can fairly be described as being about "9/11 conspiracy theories" than there were the last time I looked, but probably only the same few articles that fall short of that zone and would not belong in the category if it is renamed. To answer your question directly, the following three articles would be mis-categorized as being about "9/11 conspiracy theories": The Terror Timeline, 9/11: Press for Truth, and September 11 attacks advance-knowledge debate. So to my mind, the question that remains is whether the existence of a Category:9/11 conspiracy theories would serve as a POV magnet that would encourage some editors to keep putting those few articles back in the new category. Cgingold (talk) 04:35, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Alternate proposal, continued - It seems to me that the obvious solution here is to Keep the existing category and use it as a parent for Category:9/11 conspiracy theories, leaving the articles I named (and any others that may come along) where they are. Better yet, Rename (as I proposed above) to Category:Alternative views of the official accounts of the September 11 attacks. Cgingold (talk) 10:54, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I would still argue that "alternative views" is too vague a category to be useful, especially if there will only be a few articles in it. Having an "alternative views" category wouldn't prevent arguments from taking place over whether or not those articles belong in "Category:9/11 conspiracy theories," so what's the advantage? If they don't belong in "Category:9/11 conspiracy theories," then they can just go in the main 9/11 category.Prezbo (talk) 17:54, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I also just want to mention that these articles aren't well-served by the current situation, since I think many readers will assume (as I did) that "alternative views" is just a polite euphemism and everybody in the category is a conspiracy theorist.Prezbo (talk) 20:21, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with dumping these articles into the head category is that there is so much there already that it's not terribly useful -- it needs more organization, not less. Another possibility would be to rename this cat to Category:Criticism of the official accounts of the September 11 attacks, with the new Category:9/11 conspiracy theories as a sub-cat. Cgingold (talk) 00:21, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think having 100 articles in a category is that bad.Prezbo (talk) 05:04, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe not if it's a pretty homogeneous category, but in a category like this, with a very wide array of articles, anything more than say 40 unsorted articles is too unwieldy to be very useful for the average reader. Cgingold (talk) 11:16, 28 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 as suggested by nom. delldot ∇. 15:27, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Boxing venues in Las Vegas to Category:Boxing venues and Category:Sports venues in Las Vegas, Nevada

Nominator's rationale: Merge. Single entry category. I'm unsure of the utility of this category. If it is needed, it can be recreated as Category Boxing venues in the Las Vegas metropolitan area which happens to be the correct location for the sole member. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:44, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

support. Boxing shows are just one of many functions of these halls and stadiums. Listing all of these functions makes no sense, then why pick just one? East of Borschov (talk) 05:30, 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.

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 as suggested by nom. delldot ∇. 15:37, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:2008 boxing fights to Category:Boxing fights and Category:2008 in boxing

Nominator's rationale: Merge. Right now this is the only by year boxing fights categroy. Upmerge to both parents to make navigation easier. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:15, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Double up-merge per nom; no need to break down fights into fights per year, when the "years in boxing" catgories are sufficiently small and easily navigable to allow the fights from each year to be found anyway. Bencherlite ^Talk 10:24, 27 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: no consensus, though an immediate renomination may be useful in light of the outcome of the recent proposed move discussion regarding the article 2012 phenomenon. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 06:25, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:2012 millenarianism to Category:2012 apocalypticism

Nominator's rationale: I am pretty sure this is the intended title for the subject matter. Millenarianism is a specific brand of Christian apocalypticism, which 2012 apocalypticism has nothing to do with. The point is about "end of the world" not 'end of some millennium.' Greg Bard 02:04, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:2012 phenomenon, since 2012 phenomenon seems to be the main article (2012 millenarianism redirects there). Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:31, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose "2012 phenonmenon" as 2012 is an Olympic year... (hence phenomenon for London) 70.29.210.155 (talk) 05:21, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Phenomenon" = Olympics? You've lost me on that one. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:20, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Millenarianism seems to be the English word for the phenomenon, and it is related to a epochal change in a calendar (the Mayan one). And apocalypticism is also a Christian tinged word. 70.29.210.155 (talk) 05:21, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's not. The word is "apocalypticism." Millenarianism is a specific kind of apocalypticism, not appt. to this cat.Greg Bard 20:02, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Millenarianism is apocalupticism related to a rollover in a calendrical cycle; it has even been applied to the rollover of centuries. The Long Count of the Mayan Calendar rolls over, hence it is appropriate to call it "millenarianism". 70.29.210.155 (talk) 04:10, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The word "millenarianism" is of Christian origin but it's commonly used in reference to other brands of religious and political thought. Maybe it should be changed to "Category:2012 phenomenon" but "millenarianism" isn't any worse than "apocalypticism."Prezbo (talk) 05:53, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's worse because it is not accurate. Millenarianism is a specific brand of Christian apocalypticism that is not appropriate here. Greg Bard 20:02, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's not true. "Millenarianism" (like "apocalypticism") was originally a Christian term but has been widely used in reference to other groups for at least 50 years. Here are some examples.[1][2][3][4]Prezbo (talk) 00:07, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I don't see anything wrong with moving it to "2012 phenomenon," after all that's the name that the article's editors have chosen. The meaning of the phrase will be clear in the context of the articles that the category will appear in.Prezbo (talk) 00:34, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
With respect, you are incorrect. "Millenarianism" is a term with presumptions that are not appropriate to make. "Apocalypticism" is the correct term because it describes a belief that there will be a catastrophe, without any other inappropriate presumptions. They are NOT synonyms, and why anyone would PREFER the loaded "millenarianism" over neutral "apocalypticism" in this case makes no sense whatsoever, despite your references. Greg Bard 02:24, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really prefer it, I just don't see the utility of renaming the category when academics have been using the term "millenarianism" in exactly this way for half a century. Anyway "2012 phenomenom" would be better than either, there's no reason to second-guess the editors of the main article (which is a GA).Prezbo (talk) 02:33, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – should it not be '2012 Phenomenon' or even 'The 2012 Phenomenon' (title case)? This would distinguish it from other phenomena in 2012, such as the Olympics. Occuli (talk) 16:19, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty sure "phenomenon" won't work as too general. (However, I consider the attempt at a more general counter-proposal to make sense -- it just doesn't work in this case.) 2012 apocalypticism is a perfect fit, so I don't see the need to go as general as "phenomenon."Greg Bard 20:02, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still not getting this Olympics = phenomenon idea. Who ever refers to the Olympics as a phenomenon? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:28, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So you don't see that the Olympics, elections, and dandruff are all phenomena that will occur in 2012, and therefore it is a preposterously vague term to use for this category? Greg Bard 22:34, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, the Olympics is not commonly referred to as a "phenomenon". This is the first place I have ever heard them referred to as such. Could you point me to a source that uses this curious construction? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:03, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What is wrong with Category:December 21, 2012? Does that have any problems? It is after all what the category is about from the introduction. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:26, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Or even Category:December 21, 2012 predictions? Beeswaxcandle (talk) 08:01, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - this nomination has basically gotten completely out of control. The proposal was to put the category consistent with other apocalypticism categories. NO, niether "millenarianism", nor "millenialism" are appropriate AT ALL. Just why anyone thinks that is more appropriate than the proposed "2012 apocalypticism" is beyond me, and I have ststed my reasons. "Phenomenon" is not appropriate either, because (obviously) there is no "2012 phenomenon" there is only a belief about a catastrophe happening to end the world, and that scholars call "apocalypticism" (whether it is religious or not).Greg Bard 02:19, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename -- The present name is unsatisfactory, since it is not about the end of a 1000-year period, either that of a calendar or of Revelation 20. The proposal is to change the category to match the main article, which would be alright if the article title were appropriate. How about renaming the article to 2012 end of epoch or something similar and the category to match. This is about the Mayan (or mesoamerican) calendar. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:25, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That is an interesting direction. If you look in Maya calendar you find the following Misinterpretation of the Mesoamerican Long Count calendar is the basis for a New Age belief that a cataclysm will take place on December 21, 2012. December 21, 2012 is simply the first day of the 14th b'ak'tun. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:34, 27 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 June 1. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 11:45, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:16th-century Indian historians to Category:16th-century historians, Category:16th-century Indian people and Category:Indian historians

Nominator's rationale: WP:OC there are no trees Category:16th-century Indian people by occupation, Category:16th-century historians by nationality Mayumashu (talk) 00:21, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - neither are there other by century cats in Category:Indian historians. Occuli (talk) 18:41, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Given there are far fewer medieval chronicles etc in India, & precedents for similar 20/21st century cats, we probably only need 17th, 18th & 19th to make the full set. Johnbod (talk) 00:59, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- If we do need to merge at all, I would suggest that we merge according to a broad period of Indian History, rather than AD centuries (which depend on an occidental calendar). Peterkingiron (talk) 16:29, 26 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.