< May 22	May 24 >

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 seems to be agreement that the current terminology is inadequate, but no agreement so far on a suitable alternative. As suggested by some of the participants, a wider discussion in the relevant wikiprojects might help resolve this. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:26, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Non-Western classical music genres to Category:Classical music traditionsCategory:Art music traditions and change usage to suit.

Nominator's rationale: Rename and repurpose. This category includes many disparate musical traditions which have nothing in common except those traits which are also shared by european classical music. In this way, I suggest that this category be replaced with/renamed as one which treats all classical music traditions, including european, which would be named Category:Classical music traditionsCategory:Art music traditions and be a direct subcategory of Category:Music genres. The current category:Classical music would be a subcategory of Category:Classical music traditionsCategory:Art music traditions and could then be moved category:European classical music for the sake of clarity. Munci (talk) 23:28, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - I think the category name is already perfectly clear as it stands -- and the category is working as intended. I've read thru your proposal twice, and what you appear to have in mind far exceeds the scope of this CFD. More importantly, it would simply muddy the situation without really improving on anything. Truth be told, it's not entirely clear what you're trying to accomplish. Are you proposing to dismantle this category and merge the sub-categories into an umbrella category for Classical music? That would defeat the whole purpose of this category -- which is a necessary "antidote" to the overly Eurocentric orientation that persists in many areas of Wikipedia. Cgingold (talk) 10:07, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PS - I forgot to mention that I was the creator of this category. It sure would have been nice to have had the courtesy of a note on my talk page to let me know about this CFD. Cgingold (talk) 10:13, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, I apologise about the lack of a courtesy notice. I actually forgot to until you edited the page and then I figured you would have already seen it anyway.

Otherwise, this is somewhat just following the change that already happened at List of art music traditions which was formerly known as Non-western classical music. I don't intend to merge this category with Category:Classical music. I mean more to make this category the supercategory and Category:Classical music the subcategory rather than the other way round like it is now. This way Category:Art music traditions would be reachable from Category:Music genres and the category for European music would a stage more specific than that. I saw it more as Eurocentric the way it is already: it groups all non-European things together when they have no more to do with one another. Sorry again. Munci (talk) 16:45, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support: If this category stays, then we must also have the Category:Non-Eastern classical music genres, so as to NOT give an impression that Wikipedia believes that classical music was developed in the West. --Ekabhishek^talk 07:22, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. Classical music was a specific term coined in the 19th century to describe European art music of circa 1760 to 1820. (see the article for references). --Kleinzach 07:03, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose "Art music traditions", Support "Classical music genres" (or traditions): I don't know why the nomination strikes out the former and proposes the latter, but I'm opposed to the later title. As is clear even from the mis-named List of art music traditions article (where's the discussion for its name, BTW?), most of these genres are usually called "classical music", not "art music". "Art music" is a poor name anyway… they have various goals and are not always primarily considered "art". I do approve of the idea of having Western classical music be a subcategory of this one. Shreevatsa (talk) 21:57, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The point in making it "art" rather than "classical" was to fit with the current article title. Although you do make the good point that the article itself could get its name changed again. The article was changed to "art" by User:Kleinzach (see here:Talk:List of art music traditions#Change of title: List of classical music styles to List of mainstream and art music styles). Munci (talk) 00:03, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The reasoning for the change seems to have been "The use of 'Classical', which refers to early 19th century European music, is not appropriate here", which, well, does not seem an appropriate argument to me. :-) Shreevatsa (talk) 07:16, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well should we propose a move discussion for that too? Munci (talk) 15:13, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think so, yes. I get the feeling that sorting out this terminology issue is somewhat beyond the scope of this CfD. (And partly beyond the scope of Wikipedia. :p) There also seems to have been discussion (on that article) at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music/Archive 15#List of classical music styles — which is obviously a terrible place for it, because that Wikiproject, consisting of people for whom "Classical music" means "Western/European classical music", has an even greater bias than the general Western population. :-) Apparently one of them thinks that "the term ['classical'] creates a presumptive bias toward western music"! Shreevatsa (talk) 15:30, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Munci (talk) 16:53, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support renaming to "Art music traditions" This is the least problematic, all-encompassing formula available to us. --Kleinzach 06:44, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
•  Administrator note Closure pending on the outcome of the move proposal of List of art music traditions. — ξ^xplicit 04:56, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, I don't think it should depend on a decision about an obscure (and rather poor) list that few people know about, it should rather depend on all involved projects being informed. There are a lot of articles about (and referring to) Classical music.--Kleinzach 07:03, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That article Classical music needs a hatnote precisely because it's using the phrase in a restrictive sense. Shreevatsa (talk) 14:20, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do agree with you, though, that the discussion here probably shouldn't depend on some other list. I've already made my position here clear. Shreevatsa (talk) 00:08, 22 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. — ξ^xplicit 01:26, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Future infrastructure to Category:Planned infrastructure (or something else)

Nominator's rationale: Rename. This is a test nomination for the idea of changing all of this category's subcategories to "Planned (X)". The items in these categories include theoretical concepts (e.g., Severn Barrage) and projects that are underway (e.g., Discovery Park of America) and even projects in operation with planned expansions (e.g., Docklands Light Railway). But whatever their state, per WP:CRYSTAL, we can't know they will exist in the future. What we can know is that they are planned now. Everything else is science-fiction. If this passes, I'll nominate the subcategories in the future. (Or at least I plan to.)--Mike Selinker (talk) 22:54, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support with the note that we probably need to examine and cleanup this tree. I noticed this earlier today in another categroy. We also need to consider the way 'proposed or planned' is used on some categories. Projected here should be limited to those two types and maybe those that are under construction but not in use. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:44, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Projected' might also be a good name. I'd like to get one word that covers 'proposed,' 'accepted but not started,' 'started,' and 'finished but not opened.' Not sure what that word is just yet, but 'Projected' is a pretty good choice.--Mike Selinker (talk) 23:57, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Prefer "planned" over "proposed" or "projected". "Planned" implicitly implies "verifiably planned" which is enough of a threshold. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:00, 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.

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. — ξ^xplicit 01:26, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:RuPaul's Drag Race (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete - per WP:OC categorizing people based on the television series on which they appear is a form of person by project overcategorization. Absent the articles on the contestants and judges there is insufficient material to warrant an eponymous category for the series and all of the material is more than adequately linked through the various articles and a RuPaul navigation template. Otto4711 (talk) 22:43, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Seems to be largely categorizing performers by a particular performance, which is advised against. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:41, 30 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. — ξ^xplicit 01:26, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Professional automobile racers from Kentucky to Category:Racecar drivers from Kentucky

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Better follows the form of the parent, Category:American racecar drivers and matches the form used in other siblings. Also removes this from being a triple intersection. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:30, 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:  Relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 May 31#Category:Pan-Unicode typefaces. — ξ^xplicit 01:26, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Pan-Unicode typefaces to Category:Unicode typefaces

Nominator's rationale: "Unicode typeface" means like 'covering multiple scripts, all characters encoded in Unicode'. (It does not mean: a typographic style related to Unicode. It is more like: typeface Greek script?, Cyrillic script? or some Unicode scripts?). From here, there is no clear border between "Unicode typeface" and "Pan-Unicode typeface". It is just a matter of how many characters does it cover. And then: why a distinction; what's the border number? (History: maybe ten years ago it was a big feat if a typeface covered many scripts (encoded in Unicode. But nowadays it seems less relevant). btw: the word "Pan-Unicode" is not a well-used nor a defined word.
Summary: There is no clear or useful distinction between "Pan-Unicode" and "Unicode" in typefacing. If a typeface is Unicode-covering into some length, let's cat it under Category:Unicode typefaces. -DePiep (talk) 20:01, 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: split into Category:Sainsbury family and Category:Sainsbury's. Category:Sainsbury will be converted into a disambiguation category. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:27, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

Propose renaming Category:Sainsbury to ?

Nominator's rationale: Split?. The main page, Sainsbury is a dab page. The category introduction is a disambiguation statement. This is for anything somehow connected to the Sainsbury. It may be possible to split this into several categories that have new names. Failing that, Delete. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:29, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak rename The articles included appear to be related to Sainsbury's (the supermarket) so should be renamed to Category:Sainsbury's to match that article. Although I am not sure that we need a category that is dealing with the wider aspects of the Sainsbury family. Twiceuponatime (talk) 07:54, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Either split to related categories for the Sainsbury family and Sainsbury's, the company they founded & still largely own, or delete, as those articles have all the linking necessary. More articles could be added to a family category, which currently doesn't have spouses like Shaun Woodward and Anya Linden; maybe just that one is needed. I'm neutral between those options, leaning to keeping, especially the family. Johnbod (talk) 13:41, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bradjamesbrown (talk) 22:29, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Re-listing comment There's three comments, each with slightly different ideas of what to do with this category. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 22:29, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, the rename really does not work since the contents are a mishmash. Splitting would be OK, but leaves open the question of need since the navigational already exists in articles. Then there are two delete votes if all else fails. At this point a split may make the most sense since something needs to change. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:24, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Split into Category:Sainsbury family and Category:Sainsbury's. There are already articles with these names and the split would not be difficult. Cjc13 (talk) 14:08, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can support this option. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:56, 13 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 all. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 21:08, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Japanese remix albums to Category:Remix albums by Japanese artists

Propose renaming Category:American remix albums to Category:Remix albums by American artists

Propose renaming Category:Australian remix albums to Category:Remix albums by Australian artists

Propose renaming Category:British remix albums to Category:Remix albums by British artists

Nominator's rationale: Per Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2010_May_15#Albums_by_artist. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:52, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename all per precedent. — ξ^xplicit 20:37, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 22:12, 24 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: procedural close, as this category is nominated for renaming in the above section. — ξ^xplicit 20:37, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Australian remix albums to Category:Remix albums by Australian artists

Nominator's rationale: Per Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2010_May_15#Albums_by_artist. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:52, 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: delete. — ξ^xplicit 01:26, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:James Montgomery Flagg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary category with only one image in it. Clubmarx (talk) 16:52, 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: rename as nominated. It sounds like this tree needs further work. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:40, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

Propose renaming Category:British soundtracks to Category:Soundtracks by British artists

Propose renaming Category:Australian soundtracks to Category:Soundtracks by Australian artists

Propose renaming Category:German soundtracks to Category:Soundtracks by German artists

Propose renaming Category:American soundtracks to Category:Soundtracks by American artists

Propose renaming Category:Indian soundtracks to Category:Soundtracks by Indian artists

Nominator's rationale: Per Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2010_May_15#Albums_by_artist. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:50, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename all per precedent. — ξ^xplicit 20:37, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Canadian film soundtracks to Category:Soundtrack albums by Canadian artists Per Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2010_May_15#Albums_by_artist. Argolin (talk) 23:56, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn now part of other rename proposal Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 May 30 to Category:Film soundtracks by Canadian artists. Argolin (talk) 03:00, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*Question I added the banner template on the category page. It is pointing to the log for the 24th. Can an administrator please fix it to point to this page? Argolin (talk) 00:12, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename all but to Category:Soundtrack albums by Fooian artists. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 00:40, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  How odd, not only is there soundtrack and soundtrack album, there's also Category:Soundtracks and Category:Soundtrack albums. A lot of intermingling within the categories too. — ξ^xplicit 06:22, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment. there is also Category:Film soundtracks. Are we going with Soundtrack albums by artist nationality? Argolin (talk) 16:38, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  I think the entire Category:Soundtrack albums tree should be folded into the Soundtracks categories. That seems like a bigger nomination, though. For now, I just support this nomination.--Mike Selinker (talk) 19:01, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Comments Two things: First off, I plan on bringing Category:Soundtracks/Category:Soundtrack albums to CfD after this closes to resolve this apparent discrepancy. Furthermore, I think that Category:Canadian film soundtracks should be changed to Category:Soundtracks by Canadian artists because then it will be in conformance with the proposal above and it will deleted the "film" portion, to allow for television, video game, etc. soundtracks. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:16, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Sounds great.--Mike Selinker (talk) 19:38, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Question. How should a soundtrack album to a Canadian film be categorized vs. a soundtrack album by a Canadian artist? --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 09:04, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Response As of now, there is no scheme for this kind of categorization, but you could create Category:Film soundtracks by nationality of film and then create the subcategory Category:Soundtracks to Canadian films. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:05, 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 all. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 21:10, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:German video albums to Category:Video albums by German artists

Propose renaming Category:Swedish video albums to Category:Video albums by Swedish artists

Propose renaming Category:Canadian video albums to Category:Video albums by Canadian artists

Propose renaming Category:British video albums to Category:Video albums by British artists

Propose renaming Category:Irish video albums to Category:Video albums by Irish artists

Propose renaming Category:Australian video albums to Category:Video albums by Australian artists

Propose renaming Category:American video albums to Category:Video albums by American artists

Nominator's rationale: Per Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2010_May_15#Albums_by_artist. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:47, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename all per precedent. — ξ^xplicit 20:37, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 22:12, 24 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. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 21:11, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Swedish live albums to Category:Live albums by Swedish artists

Propose renaming Category:Spanish live albums to Category:Live albums by Spanish artists

Propose renaming Category:Norwegian live albums to Category:Live albums by Norwegian artists

Propose renaming Category:Mexican live albums to Category:Live albums by Mexican artists

Propose renaming Category:Japanese live albums to Category:Live albums by Japanese artists

Propose renaming Category:Jamaican live albums to Category:Live albums by Jamaican artists

Propose renaming Category:Irish live albums to Category:Live albums by Irish artists

Propose renaming Category:Greek live albums to Category:Live albums by Greek artists

Propose renaming Category:German live albums to Category:Live albums by German artists

Propose renaming Category:French live albums to Category:Live albums by French artists

Propose renaming Category:Dutch live albums to Category:Live albums by Dutch artists

Propose renaming Category:Danish live albums to Category:Live albums by Danish artists

Propose renaming Category:Canadian live albums to Category:Live albums by Canadian artists

Propose renaming Category:British live albums to Category:Live albums by British artists

Propose renaming Category:Brazilian live albums to Category:Live albums by Brazilian artists

Propose renaming Category:Austrian live albums to Category:Live albums by Austrian artists

Propose renaming Category:Australian live albums to Category:Live albums by Australian artists

Propose renaming Category:American live albums to Category:Live albums by American artists

Nominator's rationale: Per Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2010_May_15#Albums_by_artist. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:32, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename all per precedent. Nom beat me to it. — ξ^xplicit 20:37, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 22:12, 24 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. — ξ^xplicit 01:26, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Nancy Wilson live albums to Category:Nancy Wilson (jazz singer) live albums

Nominator's rationale: To dab from the member of Heart. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:30, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support As creator, I agree. BTW, how brilliant is Nancy Wilson? Gareth E Kegg (talk) 17:13, 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: merge to Category:Expatriate footballers in Norway. Will also merge the other subcategories of Category:Expatriate female footballers to the appropriate category, since they were created at the same time by the same user. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:48, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

Category:Expatriate female footballers in Norway (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Triple intersection of non-defining characteristics. TM 14:34, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Upmerge to Category:Expatriate footballers in Norway Mayumashu (talk) 15:04, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note that this is just one of many recently similar categories based on this triple intersection, see Category:Expatriate female footballers in Brazil.--TM 15:59, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Upmerge to Category:Expatriate footballers in Norway (each should already be in an existing 'fooian female footballers'). There are indeed quite a few similar ones. We don't have Category:Expatriate female footballers (Category:Expatriate association football players is not gendered) or even Category:Expatriate women (Category:Expatriates is not gendered) ... editors should look for over-arching trees before creating odd-ball categories in the undergrowth. Occuli (talk) 16:16, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• The creator has now produced Category:Expatriate female footballers and conveniently gathered together the siblings, which should all be deleted. Occuli (talk) 19:51, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Category:Expatriate association football players is not gendered but neither is Association football - yet we still have seperate Women's association football. Eliteimp (talk) 22:33, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• So what? No-one is disputing that there is women's football, but this doesn't mean we have to gender every subcat. Even Category:Expatriate sportspeople is not gendered. Occuli (talk) 01:06, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• ...but we gender subcats for things like singers. My worry is that subsuming female footballers into the general (overwhelmingly male) category will not help our quest to improve the shoddy coverage they recieve on wikipedia. Eliteimp (talk) 08:51, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Upmerging would require merging into more two-folded combi's (Nor-fb; Nor-wi; wi-fb, nor-expat, nr-fb, nor-wo, expat-wo, (etc: its permutations with: Nor-wo-football-expat). This whole crossing of facts to a cat is quite 1999 anyway. Wikipedia should provide a "Special page" with like Nor-wo-football-2007 queries. Why not a cat:Nor-football-wo-under23-2008? (a query for me, a cat for Wikipedia) here? -DePiep (talk) 01:29, 24 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. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 21:06, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Albums by Philippine artists to Category:Albums by Filipino artists

Propose renaming Category:Christmas albums by Philippine artists to Category:Christmas albums by Filipino artists

Nominator's rationale: As was mentioned in Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 January 25#Filipino to Philippine, "Philippine is generally used with inanimate objects. Filipino may be used with either inanimate objects or people, though preference swings towards the latter". While the albums are inanimate objects (so at the time of that CfR the correct word was "Philippine"), the artists are people, so now it should be "Filipino". עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 11:32, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. I was the nominator in the previous discussion and I agree that according to the Philippines MOS this would best be "Filipino" now since artists are people. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:02, 24 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 31#Category:Template:Navigation Bar Township Structure (Hesse). — ξ^xplicit 01:26, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Navigation Bar Township Structure (Hesse) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Category designed for a single template, containing nothing but this one template. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:47, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh no, this category is not only for an one template. If you look at the german speaking wikipedia you found at the category de:Kategorie:Vorlage:Navigationsleiste Gemeindegliederung (Hessen) many others templates about township structure. I think that in the future many of this templates go to the english spoken wikipedia. The deletion of this category were a work-creation program in the future ;) --Markus Schulenburg (talk) 22:57, 29 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 all. It appears that there is some agreement that some of these categories need to be renamed. If that's the case, alternative renaming suggestions should be done on a case-by-case basis. — ξ^xplicit 20:22, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming

• Category:Prophets in Christianity to Category:Prophets of Christianity
  • Category:Prophets in Mormonism to Category:Prophets of Mormonism
  • Category:Prophets in Protestantism to Category:Prophets of Protestantism
• Category:Prophets in Judaism to Category:Prophets of Judaism
• Category:Prophets in Mandaeism to Category:Prophets of Mandaeism

Nominator's rationale: Rename all per consistency with Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 May 14#Category:Prophets in Islam. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:02, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Major oppose, at least as proposed I don't like the current categories either, but the proposal needs to be considered case-by-case. To start with, there is no "Protestantism" for Edgar Cayce to be a prophet of; as far as pretty much anyone is concerned, his claims to prophecy have no official approbation. The same thing is true for him W.R.T. Christianity as a whole. This problem lies across the spectrum of these figures: the relationship between the prophecy and the religion is pretty variable (e.g. all the OT figures who are named as prophets but who do not address the Christian religion in their prophecy). I don't think mechanically applying the titular distinctions of Islam (or in Islam?) is the right approach. Mangoe (talk) 16:52, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, pretty much per Mangoe. It is somewhat POV & offensive to Jewish feelings to call OT figures prophets "of" either or both Christianity and Islam, whereas "in" should be ok. I didn't participate in the Islam discussion, which I think probably went the wrong way. Many of the articles there are things like Islamic view of Ishmael, for which "in" is suitable in an extra sense. Johnbod (talk) 01:50, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong oppose per Mangoe. There are views of Abraham in Catholicism, Protestantism, Islam, Mormonism, and Judaism, for example. To label any prophet a prophet of any specific religion is POV. -- Radagast3 (talk) 09:05, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per the objectors here who are making perfect sense. The word "of" broadens up the possibilities, while the word "in" refers to only those who were mentioned as recorded in the Hebrew Bible for Judaism. IZAK (talk) 09:04, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. IZAK (talk) 09:04, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. I interpret "of" and "in" the opposite way round from Izak. "Prophets of Judaism" means a defined list and, if I understand correctly, the Talmud defines a list of 48 male and 7 female prophets (see Template talk:Prophets of the Tanakh). The current intro at Table of prophets of Abrahamic religions also refers to the classification in Judaism of people as prophets in a way that sounds fixed. That's why I recommended that the Jewish category be renamed, in the CFD on prophets of Islam. However, I now see that category:Prophets in Judaism has a sub-cat category:Prophets of the Hebrew Bible which is so close in meaning to "Prophets of Judaism" that one or other would be redundant. It is useful to retain a head category containing other articles about prophet-like people in Judaism, e.g. shouters. Therefore I no longer support renaming the category for Judaism; it should remain "prophets in", so that it has a wider meaning. I apologise for suggesting it. As for the others, as I am not aware of any defined lists for those religions, so the categories should keep the broader words "prophets in". - Fayenatic (talk) 12:41, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. —Fayenatic (talk) 12:57, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose proposed target seems less intuitive and useful than current. I'm open to considering a different name, but this one... no. Jclemens (talk) 16:11, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum - deletion proposed for Category:Prophets in Protestantism[edit]

I propose to delete Category:Prophets in Protestantism altogether. There's no single thing that's Protestantism, and the members of this category are a mixture of people who have had the word "prophet" applied to them at one time or another. Some of them can only be considered "Protestant" in being neither Catholic nor Orthodox, and I don't think there's any of them that Protestants as a group would consider to be prophets. Probably the majority would be considered false prophets if anyone had ever heard of them. Mangoe (talk) 12:48, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Hmmm. Most of that is true, but does not invalidate the category. The category note clearly says "alleged prophets" and all or most were very fringe figures "unrecognised in their own country" - but isn't that in the best prophetic traditions? Jean Cavalier pretty clearly does not belong, which is a pity, as it would be nice to have a prophet who was a major-general in the British Army, but all the others I looked at were unquestionably Protestants, and seen as prophets by at least a few followers. I've added Lodowicke Muggleton, and there are plenty of other obscure figures out there. Johnbod (talk) 14:10, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, then, couldn't the category just as well have been "false prophets in Protestantism"? The other categories list people whom that tradition recognizes as speaking prophetically; this category lists people who, by and large, were rejected by their tradition. A prophet may be without honor in his own country, but as far as reliable sources are concerned, I think the best we can do is go with the identification given by representatives of the tradition. I mean, after all, do we want to put all the New Testament prophetic figures in Category:Prophets in Judaism? It's the same principle. Mangoe (talk) 14:35, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not really - this is more like Category:Prophets in Abrahamic religions in that comparison. No one is saying they are "Lutheran Prophets" etc, & you can't restrict Protestantism to just the major churches. In fact many of the "obscure figures" I prophesied have turned out to be lurking in the head cat Category:Prophets, when many, such as Jacob Osgood should clearly be in this category. Johnbod (talk) 14:47, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're still missing my point. The other categories represent people whom the religious authorities hold to be prophets, whereas this seems to mostly be a category of people whom the religious authorities deny are authorities. Edgar Cayce is a case in point: while remained in the Disciples of Christ all his life, I do not think that they recognize his supposed prophetic gifts. Mangoe (talk) 01:36, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm not, but you're missing mine. Part of the point of Protestantism was supposed to be that there weren't "religious authorities". You look at many other "Protestant" clergy categories like Category:American evangelicals & ask yourself what "religious authorities" back them up! My support for this category is hardening as it is, or should be, the primary category for a number of these people. Where else do they go otherwise, apart from date, geography categories etc? I'm no expert, but a consistent strain of prophecy seems to have been characteristic of some large-scale movements like Radical Pietism, which produced a number of the people here. For all the distaste of most "religious authorities" for them, there is AFAIK no fundamental & universal Protestant theological objection to new prophets coming along (see Prophecy#Later_Christianity for example). Johnbod (talk) 02:39, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Main discussion again[edit]

• This tree needs restructuring:

1. Keep Prophets in Protestantism. Protestantism is a major division of the Christian church though itslef much divided. Prophets of Protestantism is inappropriate since they have prophesied about Christianity, not specifically about Protestantism. Alternatively rename to Category:Protestant Prophets or Category:Prophets in Later Christianity (to mirror the section just cited).
2. Rename Category:Prophets in Christianity to Category:New Testament prophets and purge it of Old Testament and other items. Query also whether Paul, Silas, and certain others belong.
3. For the subcategories of Category:Prophets in Christianity Create New parent Category:Prophets in Abrahamic religions or reparent as children of Category:Prophets.
4. Merge Category:Prophets in Judaism to Category:Prophets of the Hebrew Bible. They are all (I think) from the Old Testament, for which "Hebrew Bible" is the agreed NPOV term. The target is currently a subcategory of the subject.
5. Keep Category:Prophets in Mandaeism. They are Hebrew prophets who are revered by this religion, so that "of" is probably inappropriate.

As this discussion is now about to be closed, perhaps this needs to be relisted so that others can comment on the above suggestions. Peterkingiron (talk) 09:25, 30 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 to Category:Air cargo terminals. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 21:05, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Air Freight Terminal to Category:Air cargo terminals

Nominator's rationale: Merge. Technical nomination. Found with incorrect merge tag. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:28, 11 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 07:47, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 00:50, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge. There doesn't appear to be enough of a distinction between "air freight" and "air cargo" to warrant separate categories. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 16:41, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Obvious merge. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:24, 30 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:Wikipedia audio files. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 19:12, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Wikipedia sounds to Category:Wikipedia audio samples

Nominator's rationale: Rename. I think audio samples is a more accurate description of what is being categorised. c.f. Category:Non-free audio samples. Tim! (talk) 09:52, 2 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 07:40, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Current name is ambiguous and new name is much clearer. Munci (talk) 23:28, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

replace with Rename to Category:Wikipedia audio files per 70.29.210.155. Munci (talk) 06:31, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose while you can technically call a complete audio capture a "sample" it's not usually used that way. That non-free is named so is that you could only sample non-free, instead of being a complete representation. I suggest instead Category:Wikipedia audio files. 70.29.210.155 (talk) 04:34, 24 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 01:26, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Russian Internet personalities to Category:Russian internet personalities

Nominator's rationale: Internet should not be capitalised in the category name. Russavia ^{I'm chanting as we speak} 07:31, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments – I agree. The same applies to all the siblings in Category:Internet personalities by country, which should be renamed to 'by nationality'. Occuli (talk) 12:59, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - "Internet" is a proper noun and should be capitalized. Otto4711 (talk) 22:45, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - like the usage at Internet, usage note at wiktionary and, most importantly, the online OED, capitalisation is appropriate in this context. On the other hand, I do agree with Occuli that it should be 'by nationality' rather than 'by country', given the convention. Munci (talk) 06:41, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- "Internet" is still a proper noun and so should be capitalised. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:25, 30 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: delete as hopelessly arbitrary. What "clothing for women" is in one culture can be "clothing for both genders" or "clothing for men" in another. Several considerations seem to not have been taken when this category was created, nor were they properly addressed in this nomination. — ξ^xplicit 20:22, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Clothing for women (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. This seems rather arbitrary and based on western cultural norms and is subjective. Among the items categorized are Bathrobe, Belt, Coat, and Shirt which are not solely women's items. At the very least, some better standards for inclusion should be imposed. Dismas|^(talk) 03:58, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep (added: and Rename)with more stringent inclusion criteria. This would perhaps be best kept only for clothes generally used only by women e.g. blouse (added:hijab) and sari. (added:Change the title to Women's clothing because that's normal phrase used. Compare [1] to [2] and [3] to [4]) Munci (talk) 23:28, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Completely arbitrarily set to particular cultural norms. Men wear blouses too. This is almost like saying "films for women", since just like anyone can watch any kind of movie, anyone can put on any piece of clothing. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:59, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Ah. I only knew that "The word blouse most commonly refers to a woman's shirt.", not that "The term is also used for some men's military uniform jackets." That discounts this example but not others. Some clothing is usually only set to particular cultural norms. As for the film comment, maybe it's just historical accident that such a field has not emerged. There is after all the widely accepted Category:Children's films. Munci (talk) 02:08, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - there is no article of clothing that by definition is limited on the basis of sex or gender. Tagging articles of clothing as belonging to men or women ignores simple reality. Otto4711 (talk) 02:56, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep with more stringent inclusion criteria, and a firm note, and populate properly. Clearly Wedding dress and bikini are seen as female clothing, even by men who wear them. No one will be more upset than transvestites to be told there is no such thing. But keep out the basic shirt-type articles. This category is massively underpopulated. Johnbod (talk) 01:57, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• comment The name of the category is NOT 'Clothing exclusively for women' so it can include any type of clothing that women anywhere commonly wear. Hmains (talk) 02:11, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Clothing worn by women varies widely according to different cultures and traditions, so it cannot be defined as what is commonly worn. If an exclusive definition is applied, there will always be exceptions. Gobonobo ^{T C} 05:10, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep with more stringent inclusion criteria. Appears useful. The cultural argument seems unconvincing, since the category includes sari, sarong, cheongsam, etc. -- Radagast3 (talk) 08:57, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Question. What exactly would this "more stringent criteria" be that users are referring to? Do we have a proposed definition that could be considered? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:24, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Uh clothing which is only worn by women, no matter which the culture? Or which is specific to a particular culture anyway and is only worn by women within that culture? In any case, Category:Islamic dress (female) clearly should be part of this category when it's not already. On the other hand, we could just say "if RSs agree in calling it women's clothing, it must be". Munci (talk) 00:03, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• "clothing which is only worn by women, no matter which the culture". That's what I was afraid of. No such article of clothing exists. But you suggest two other possible ones. Which of the three is being proposed? If there's no definite proposal, it's tough to get a consensus for it. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:21, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I mentioned Wedding dress and bikini above; but not shoe, coat or hat, which it is pointless to categorize by gender. But gender is defining for Stomacher, Hennin and Engageante and many others, which will not be evident for most readers. If department stores, with only a couple of dozen departments at most, manage to define and distinguish men's and women's clothing, I don't see why the thousands of WP categories can't find room for the distinction. There are some angels dancing on pinheads here. Johnbod (talk) 02:32, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So, what would be the proposed definition for the category?—it seems to be quite difficult to get this out of anybody. If there is no proposed definition, we can't reach consensus on keeping it under a new restricted definition. We can't define it as "things like wedding dresses and bikinis and stomachers" or "things sold in the women's clothing section of western department stores", so what would it be? You yourself might "know it when you see it", but that's not good enough for a category—one user (the creator) has already demonstrated an inability to keep out the kind of articles you have said should not be included, so it's hardly a theoretical point to be brushed off with catch phrases. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:58, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Clothing normally worn only by females". Johnbod (talk) 03:00, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And "normally" would mean .... what?—"designed for"? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:14, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: the creator of this category has also recently created Category:Clothing for men. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:24, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But he did not set up Category:Men's skirted garments, I see. Nor Category:Lingerie. Johnbod (talk) 03:03, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how pointing to these makes the case for keeping this category stronger. Lingerie is not women's-only clothing: men wear lingerie. Because of the unisex French meaning of the word, in English-speaking Canada, it's common for "underwear stores" that sell "men's" and "women's" underwear and various types of robe to be classified generically as "lingerie stores". This is an example of why the category will be problematic—sometimes cultural assumptions aren't universal, especially when it comes to gender. And to categorize a lava-lava, ta'ovala, and a sarong in a men's-only clothing item would be wrong, but it is in Category:Men's skirted garments, which is now a subcategory of Category:Clothing for men. To limit these by using your proposed definition that these are "normally" worn by men would be incorrect, in my opinion. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:26, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well this interesting Canadian usage (is it supported by dictionaries, I wonder?) does not seem to have affected the contents of the category. Johnbod (talk) 03:38, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hasn't it? The picture in the article is clearly being modelled by a man. Category:Lingerie also currently contains Pantyhose for men. Thus both articles are currently miscategorized. Male bra is in Category:Brassieres, which is a subcategory of Category:Lingerie, which therefore resulting in a miscategorization if the category is kept. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:41, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The mere suggestion that a category need be assigned with tedious clarifications is a strong argument for deletion. Ezeu (talk) 23:45, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No it isn't. Very many categories need better definitions than are convenient to include in their names. Johnbod (talk) 03:06, 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 to delete. There seems to be consensus that clean-up of the category could be helpful and appropriate. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:10, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

Category:Invariant subspaces (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete, disjoint jumble of articles, all of them well categorified already, therefore redundant. Arcfrk (talk) 03:46, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[ At this point, User:Kiefer.Wolfowitz copied his comments from Wikipedia Talk:WikiProject Mathematics#Invariant subspaces. Editors may wish to read the original discussion. Also, I have deleted a comment of mine that he inadvertently included. Ozob (talk) 13:22, 23 May 2010 (UTC) ][reply]

Sorry for including a comment of Ozob, which I thought was pertinent; I didn't know that this was a breach of etiquette. Please see another comment in favor of deletion there, I'll mention in the spirit of fairness. Thanks Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 15:47, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I just thought it was a mistake. I'm not offended; sorry for the confusion! Ozob (talk) 19:01, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response: The Perron-Frobenius theorem is discussed within the books on invariant subspaces by Aliprantis and Burkinshaw and by Radjavi and Rosenthal (simultaneous triangularization); it is also discussed by Lybuich (Banach representation of groups) and by various authors following de Pagter's use of Lomonosov's invariant subspace theorem to prove that compact positive operators have a postive spectral radius. Given this literature, Arcfrk's comment "category spam" was as impolite as Arkfrk's deletion was unwarranted. Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 01:09, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See Henry Helson's book on Invariant subspaces to read about the Beurling factorization theorem (Hardy spaces), which is an abstract version of the Wold decomposition; this is also discussed in Young's book on Hilbert Spaces. Most of the topics are covered in Beauzamy and Lyubich's books. Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 02:53, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The relation of Burnside's lemma to invariant subspaces has been known for decades, and is discussed in Lyubich's book, previously cited. Recent important results include Lomonosov's Burnside theorem: Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 13:17, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lomonosov, Victor (1991). "An extension of Burnside's Theorem to infinite-dimensional spaces". Israel Journal of Mathematics. Vol. 75, no. 2. pp. 329–339. doi:10.1007/BF02776031. MR 1164597. ((cite news)): Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help)

• Delete. Right now, the category is a featureless collection of unrelated topics, some of which talk about invariant subspaces (such as Burnside's lemma) and others of which have nothing at all to do with it (such as simple module and linear subspace). Even for those articles which are related to invariant subspaces, it is not clear to me that placing articles in this category will serve readers any better than placing them in the parent category Category:Representation theory: The topic of that category is group representations, and any group representation has an invariant subspace; conversely, invariant subspaces have meaning only in the context of group representations. So altogether I think this category is nothing more than overcategorization. Ozob (talk) 13:41, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ozob seems to be thinking only of finite dimensional group-representation theory, because his statements are wrong for infinite dimensions. In operator theory, it is unknown whether all linear operators on separable complex Hilbert spaces have (non-trivial) invariant subspaces. Invariant subspaces have importance besides finite-dimensional group representation theory. It is true that simple module doesn't really belong, so I deleted it's membership in the category. I also updated the Beurling factorization (which was previously just a link to the Hardy space article). Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 15:44, 23 May 2010 (UTC) I also deleted the membership of linear subspace. IMHO, it is premature to delete the category when legitimate criticism has led to greater focus. Also, membership in this category should spur some operator theorists to expand the invariant subspace material of the Wold decomposition and the Beurling factorization (which again appear in Henry Helson's book on Invariant Subspaces). Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 15:56, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm not just thinking of the finite dimensional case. The trivial space and the whole vector space are invariant, always, and even in the finite dimensional case there need not be any others. When you say "it is unknown whether all linear operators on separable complex Hilbert spaces have (non-trivial) invariant subspaces", I agree with you fully, but I'm not sure of the relevance.

Since this discussion began, the category has been much expanded. I am still not convinced that the category is coherent; for instance, the Perron–Frobenius theorem is not a theorem on invariant subspaces except in the trivial sense that any eigenvector determines an invariant subspace. The theorem has generalizations which may be characterized as theorems about invariant subspaces, but these receive only a very brief mention at the end; so it feels inappropriate to me to categorize the article itself as being about invariant subspaces. Ozob (talk) 19:01, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I repeat that the reliable sources C. D. Aliprantis and Owen Burkinshaw discuss invariant subspaces and the Perron Frobenius theorem in their AMS Graduate textbooks An Invitation to Operator Theory (essentially the whole book, from th discussion of positive operators on Banach lattices in Chapter 1 to Invariant Subspaces (Chapter 10, sections 10:3-4,6 are about positive operators primarily):

• Yuri A. Abramovich and Charalambos D. Aliprantis (2002). An Invitation to Operator Theory. American Mathematical Society. ISBN 978-0-8218-2146-6. ((cite book)): External link in |publisher= (help)

Ditto with the authors of Invariant subpaces, Heydar Radjavi and Peter Rosenthal, with their book on Simultaneous Triangularization.

• Radjavi, Heydar; Rosenthal, Peter (2000). "Five:Semigroups of Nonnegative Matrices, Eight "Compact Operators" (8.2) Nonnegative Operators, Nine "Bounded Operators" (9.4) Nonnegative Operators". Simultaneous triangularization. Universitext. New York: Springer-Verlag. pp. xii+318 pp. ISBN 0-387-98467-4. MR 1736065. ((cite book)): Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help)

(I've mentioned Lyubichch several times.) My proposed category "invariant subspaces" collects articles of greatest interest to operator theorists and numerical linear algebra people (e.g. Krylov subspaces); I agree that the "group representation category" is of greater use to many algebraists and Fourier analysts, but the improved category does have its uses! Cheers, Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 19:23, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I repeat that the Perron–Frobenius theorem itself—not its generalizations—is not about invariant subspaces in any meaningful way, and the article on the Perron–Frobenius theorem is, for the moment, not about invariant subspaces in any meaningful way.

Perhaps I can phrase my criticism in a different way: Why would you object to putting, say, invariant subspace problem into Category:Operator theory? To me it seems more natural to put it there than to create a whole new category. Ozob (talk) 03:34, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. The category has been described as a "disjoint jumble of articles". I think we should try to separate the administrative discussion from the mathematical one. I have not followed all the details of the discussion above, but Kiefer seems to be making a strong case that this is not a "disjoint jumble". The nomination may have been premature. The mathematical merits could have been discussed at an appropriate talk page. If it turns out, for example, that the category has mathematical merit, but there is not enough material here for a separate category, then deletion can be considered. Tkuvho (talk) 10:45, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ozob has neatly summarized the issue right above your comment. I do not see any merit. Do the due diligence: do you think that Burnside's lemma, Perron–Frobenius theorem and Wold decomposition have anything in common? (There used to be more disparate articles in this category that have been since de-categoriefied, such as Simple module, cf Ozob's initial comments.) Do you think that the existing categories such as Category:Operator theory are lacking in any way? Arcfrk (talk) 14:48, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Operator theory" has over 100 pages! If one can make a coherent mathematical case that a group of, say, 15-20 pages are intrinsically related to invariant subspaces, I don't see anything wrong with keeping such a category. I am sorry I am unable to answer your question more specifically, as I am not sufficiently familiar with the material. Has someone tried to explain what the connection is among all these pages precisely? Again, it would have made more sense to discuss this at an appropriate talk page. Tkuvho (talk) 15:29, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There was a semblance of a discussion at the talk page of Perron-Frobenius theorem. The argument that Kiefer.Wolfowitz made, to the extent that this can be called an argument, is that some results, such as the PF theorem, are discussed in certain well-known books by some well regarded authors. That surely must justify adding these books to the reference list. I am guessing that since invariant subspaces are also discussed in the same books (or indeed may be their main subject), he feels that all articles about aforementioned results warrant an inclusion in the category "Invariant subspaces" (presumably, by transitivity). But I would hate to ascribe him my rational way of thinking, so this is a mere guess. Arcfrk (talk) 07:23, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Arcfrk's repeated personal attacks violate Wikipedia guidelines. Since personal appeals to Arcfrk have failed to improve the behavior, I now ask neutral editors to remind Arcfrk of the prohibition against personal attacks. Thanks, Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 20:28, 6 June 2010 (UTC) I note that Arcfrk's user talk page records several warnings for personal attacks on various editors, e.g. 7 July 2008 (UTC). Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 21:58, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The critics, Arcfrk and Ozob, have made a lot of POV and OR statements, which are incompatible with reliable sources. Worse, Arcfrk has continued to write that the topics have anything in common, when I have given specific references elsewhere: Does this demonstrate diligence? The topic of "invariant subspaces" is a coherent topic in operator theory (functional analysis), which is described in many monographs and textbooks. Many of these monographs/textbooks describe the Wold decomposition and the Beurling decomposition (on the classical analysis side, e.g. Helson; c.f. Håkan Hedelman et alia's Bergman Spaces, or the books by Peter Duren, etc.) or the Perron-Frobenius theory. Can an administrator close this debate, which features POV versus reliable sources? thanks, Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 16:08, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: we have Category:Fixed points, and Category:Invariant subspaces can well exist by analogy. I don't think anyone denies that invariant subspaces is a topic of importance in operator theory. The issue of whether a given article belongs in the category can be taken up on its own talk page; it is not the real point here. Charles Matthews (talk) 16:46, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If I understand your position correctly, you are saying that there could be a good category named Category:Invariant subspaces. I think I agree with you—but I am still not convinced that the present category of that name is acceptable. I object less strongly now than I did at the start. (The removal of simple module and linear subspace in particular has made the category much better.) I'm still worried about the selection of articles, but I'm not enough of an analyst to judge whether the remaining articles in the category should be there. Perhaps you or ArcFrk know better, so I will defer to you. Ozob (talk) 03:09, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Otherstuffexists? Charles, can you, please list the articles that you would include in this category? I simply do not see this as a defining characteristic, especially judging by what the category creator has chosen to put in there (I will not go over it again; see for yourself). Arcfrk (talk) 07:07, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Look, you can just take out articles that don't belong in it. Maybe you are not supposed to do that while the category is at CfD. But I don't see consensus to delete. Charles Matthews (talk) 16:21, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep. Parent article exists and seems to contain sense. Structurally, it looks OK. However, despite understanding most of the words, I understand none of it. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:06, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The theory of Invariant subspaces is the subject of notable and reliable monographs and textbooks, and is indexed by the Mathematics Subject Classification (47A15,47A46). Outside of operator theory, the study of orbits ${\displaystyle A^{n}x}$ and invariant subspaces is also of interest in iterative methods in numerical linear algebra (Krylov subspace). The super category of group representation theory is too large and doesn't contain all topics in this category. Thanks, Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 13:47, 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.

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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 19:10, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Volcanic ash clouds (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete as yet another category created by Nopetro where there are at present no suitable articles. The closest, Air travel disruption after the 2010 Eyjafjallajökull eruption, is not an article about a cloud itself. Neither is the only other content: Volcanic ash. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:37, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - these are not clouds. Nopetro should be blocked from category creation pending reformation. (There is a suggestion at user:nopetro that nopetro is a sock of user:Mac, a blocked editor who indulged in rampant creation of categories.) Occuli (talk) 13:09, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I saw that, as well. Checking the edit history of user:Mac there does seem to be a similarity in editing patterns and interests, though no obvious smoking gun that I saw for an ARV report. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:06, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as the only logical article for such a category would be the titular article, and, in this case, one article does not a category make. - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 00:52, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Original text : ==CfD nomination of XXX: I have nominated XXXXX for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion. Thank you. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:37, 23 May 2010 (UTC) . My answer: OK. Thanks. Your wikipedian slave is ready to answer to all your desires (I answered to a lot of your CfD yesterday). Personally, I have no personal life, only answer to a lot of CfD in the same day. I think this rythm is an abuse. --Nopetro (talk) 10:12, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This was posted on my Talk page as well. Nopetro, the rest of us also have better things to do than clean up your poorly conceived categories. User Cgingold has already raised these category concerns with you, which you ignored. So now we're at the CfD stage. I don't know if you are a sockpuppet of banned user Mac, but I suggest you spend less time nursing your feelings of victimization and more time understanding the concerns raised over your recent categories -- and stop creating more until you do. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:31, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for the reasons that Shawn in Montreal has ably explained. Nopetro appears to have a fundamental misunderstanding of the purpose & function of categories. Cgingold (talk) 00:18, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Too transient. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:07, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- I think that it might be possible to construct a category on this subject, though probably more about the results of clouds (or of eruptions) than the clouds themselves, but until there is a reasonable hope that it could be adequately populated, it should be removed. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:31, 30 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.