< October 11	October 13 >

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. Dana boomer (talk) 23:44, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Federations of PCE to Category:Federations of the Communist Party of Spain

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Propose expanding abbreviation. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:42, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, we should avoid abbreviations in cats. --Soman (talk) 03:16, 18 October 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: Relisting, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 October 23. Dana boomer (talk) 15:38, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:KeepLocal to Category:Wikipedia files on Wikimedia Commons for which a local copy has been requested to be kept

Nominator's rationale: Merge. Redundant category. It appears that 729 of the 732 current members of the category are added by transclusion of ((KeepLocal)). Anomie⚔ 23:22, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Are they on commons, all of them? Is there a bot that would regularly check that a commons copy still exist? East of Borschov 02:43, 13 October 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. Dana boomer (talk) 23:44, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Somali people to Category:Somalian people

Nominator's rationale: Rename. I recently had an encounter with a user that demonstrated the ambiguous nature of the word "Somali". "Somali" can mean a nationality—a person from Somalia—but it is also an ethnicity, and ethnic Somali people are of many nationalities: see Somali people. The user insisted that Category:Somali people was an ethnicity category, while I said it was now and always had been acting as a nationality category (since its parent is Category:People by nationality). So to begin resolving the ambiguity, I suggest that we use the alternative and less common demonym for people from Somalia, which is "Somalian". Ethnic Somali people could be in Category:Ethnic Somali people and then Category:Somali people could be a disambiguation category. I realise that the most common adjective used to refer to people from Somalia is "Somali" and that this nomination may not satisfy everyone as an ideal solution, but it seems we need to avoid the unaltered use of "Somali" in categories because of its inherent ambiguity. (The reason I have not suggested "people from Somalia" is that the standard for parent nationality categories is "FOOian people" and it is harder to adapt that form to subcategories, which will also need to be renamed.)

This would mirror the approach that we recently took with the ambiguous Category:Turkmen people. The ethnicity is at Category:Ethnic Turkmen people and the nationality is at Category:Turkmenistan people.

If this nomination is successful, I will nominate all of the subcategories for renaming if the categories are using "Somali" in the nationality sense. — Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:55, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Sounds sensible. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:24, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose There is no problem with using Somali. It is the correct usage of the adjective and Somalian is simply incorrect. If adopted, what would you say in regards to doing the same for every other state with an associated ethnicity, i.e. Category:Albanian people, Category:Swiss people, Category:Irish people and dozens of others?--TM 22:34, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "There is no problem with using Somali." I thought not too, until I met this particular user, but I think he has made a reasonable point. Somali people is primarily about the ethnicity, not the nationality. Other nationality/ethnic combos can be addressed when/if they ever become a problem. This one is raised now because it has been a problem. Note that "Somalian" is not "incorrect", as you suggest—it is an acceptable, though less common, demonym and is acknowledged as such in OED. It has the added benefit of not being a term used to refer to the ethnicity, which is why it's use is being proposed here. Its meaning is unambiguous. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:45, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support There is ample precedent: Category:Kazakh people vs. Category:Kazakhstani people. A possible alternative is to phrase ethnic categories as "People of Foo descent," which is the format most ethnic-nationality intersection categories have taken.- choster (talk) 23:42, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not to be WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTSy, but what about renaming all of the instances where nation and state coalesce? I know that there are dozens of people from Kosovo, Macedonia and the Albanian diaspora who are categorized in Albanian people. The opinion of one user is not a good enough reason to change from the most common and correct usage.--TM 00:46, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we can reasonably expect this nomination to solve or even set a standard for solving every similar case of overlap. It's meant only to address the isolated issue. Other situations may be more or less difficult to resolve depending on the circumstances. (Possibly more difficult in the Albanian case, since there is no alternative acceptable adjective for the nationality that I know of.) But we can cross those bridges if and when we ever get to them. And just to note—it's not only one user whose opinion will be mandating a change—it's one user that brought the problem to my attention, convinced me, and then I'm proposing a change here and hopefully convincing others that a the change could be implemented. Like any other change, it would be made by consensus if it is to be made. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:19, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – it is unsatisfactory to have Category:Somali people in disagreement with Somali people. The various points Good Ol’factory makes all seem eminently reasonable. Occuli (talk) 08:43, 19 October 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: Relist, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 October 23. Dana boomer (talk) 15:42, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Yiddish to Category:Yiddish language

Nominator's rationale: Per main article and several other "X language" categories (e.g. see parent Category:Languages of Israel.) —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:50, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose because: (1) if it ain't broke, don't fix it. (2) There is already an article about the Yiddish language purely as a language but that is only part of the total picture relating to Yiddish culture and way of life both religious and secular. (3) There is no "law" or policy on WP that every word in every category has "to match" for aesthetic reasons. (4) The word "Yiddish" is not just about a language it is also about a vast culture and way of life that has existed for over 1,000 years or more. (5) This category has withstood the test of time since 2004 [1] and all editors were happy with its name till now. (6) Yiddish is not "just" a "language" of modern Israel, and (7) as proof of this, see for example sub-category Category:Yiddish folklore or Category:Yiddish theatre, now is that also going to be renamed to "Yiddish language folklore" and "Yiddish language theatre" that would be absurd and sound so cumbersome, since that folklore and the theater encapsulates the cultural and historical world of the Ashkenazi Jews of Eastern Europe from the Early Middle Ages until Modern Times for whom Yiddish was more than a mere language, it was also a symbol of their way life. (8) Therefore, this move is short-sighted and is reminiscent of the attempts to rename "Jews" to the redundant "Jewish people", see top of Category talk:Jews, and should be turned down for the same reasons. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 02:06, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. IZAK (talk) 02:11, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose As IZAK suggests, this category is a catch-all for Yiddish language and culture. If Category:Yiddish language is absolutely necessary, it should be created as a subcat of Category:Yiddish, with the appropriate articles moved into the new category. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:07, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Subcategorize into Category:Yiddish language and Category:Yiddish culture, and resort. There are language and culture hierarchies. 76.66.200.95 (talk) 04:17, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Comment If this category is about a Yiddish culture, then it should be renamed to Category:Yiddish culture to keep from the confusion of simply being named "Yiddish." That word either is an adjective (in which case, this should be renamed) or refers to the language (in which case, it is appropriate to follow the form of "Category:X language" per other such categories and the main article at Yiddish language.) I'm completely fine with the split and sort strategy proposed above. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:43, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Comment Latin language redirects to Latin, while Yiddish redirects to Yiddish language, as does Hebrew to Hebrew language, while some other languages redirect to disambig pages. This seems all over the place to me. Some sort of rule needs to be formulated about this, and then we can decide what to call the relevant cats too. Yehoishophot Oliver (talk) 05:18, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Manually split into Category:Yiddish language and Category:Yiddish culture. French is a language and a culture too but that doesn't mean Category:French would make sense or be a good idea. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 20:47, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Good Ol: (1) You are overlooking the fact that Category:French culture and Category:French language are both sub-categories of Category:France, (2) unlike the Jews of Eastern Europe who created a culture-within-a-culture/state-within-a-state especially when forced to live in Ghettos and Pale of Settlement by the Christian state authorities and had no "state" of their own, so that: (3) the word "Yiddish" meant to them not just a mere language but also, as it translates: "Yiddish" = "way of being a Yid (Jew)" or; (4) even literally it's an adverb or adjective describing the Yidden (German: Jude) the Jews of first Western and then Central and Eastern Europe who made Yiddish into the vehicle for studying Torah, living a Torah-observant life, speaking a unique language, and therefore (5) acting "Jewish" which in fact is another translation of the word "Yiddish" that a Jew must be "Yiddish" in behavior and culturally. (6) This harps back to the connection and divide between Jews being BOTH an ethnicity (i.e. Jews) AND members of a religion (i.e. Judaism) so that both words (Jews and Judaism=Yidden and Yiddishkeit=Yiddish culture and language) are the English versions of the "Yid" in Yiddish, so that's why your comparison misses the mark by a long shot. IZAK (talk) 09:34, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, I didn't overlook that, I just felt it was not an apt comparison. Still think it's probably a good idea to separate it out, though. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 10:43, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hi Good Ol: I was commenting in general terms to put the subject in a greater context. But as I state below, it would probably be best to create a new inclusive parent category of Category:Yiddish culture and language that would then have two sub-categories of Category:Yiddish culture (the Yiddish equivalent of the English-language Category:Jewish culture as well as even of the broader Category:Judaism) and Category:Yiddish language. Otherwise the original Category:Yiddish, June 2004, that denotes both the Yiddish language and Yiddish culture, has worked just fine all these years. IZAK (talk) 07:38, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Comment' If this is deleted and split (which seems likely), then I will split these manually after closure and before deletion. Cf. Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2010_September_28#Category:Hindu_and_Buddhist_heritage_of_Afghanistan —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:14, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Koav: Probably the best solution now would be to create a parent category called Category:Yiddish culture and language, redirect Category:Yiddish to it after it's emptied, and then place the correct sub-categories into Category:Yiddish culture and Category:Yiddish language accordingly. IZAK (talk) 09:34, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Response If no one else has any other take on this, then I guess I can separate language-specific articles into Category:Yiddish language and others into Category:Yiddish culture and then put them into a parent, but it really makes more sense to me for the latter to be the parent of the former. Surely, everything about the language is a subset of the broader culture, so there's no real need for a catch-all category. Is there something I'm missing here? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:20, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hi Koav: Your "solution" is not a solution because you would be making a culture a "sub-category" of a language since they are different phenomena and notions. In this case facts show that that neither language nor culture supersede each other, so that having a co-equal parent category of Category:Yiddish culture and language. Otherwise it can just as well be left alone as the "generic" original long-standing category of Category:Yiddish, June 2004, that denotes both the Yiddish language and Yiddish culture, and that actually translates, often as an abbreviation for Yiddishkeit, as Secular Jewish culture and/or Judaism in English. IZAK (talk) 07:38, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Not quite I am proposing the opposite: that language is a part of culture. Anything related to the Yiddish language is necessarily related to its culture, but not vice versa. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:12, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Also Your link doesn't work. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:21, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Here's the link to the history of Category:Yiddish again. It should work now. By the way, have you taken the chance to look at the Yiddishkeit article? it should shed some light on what I have trying to convey. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 11:18, 22 October 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. Dana boomer (talk) 23:44, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:1982-2000 South Lebanon conflict to Category:South Lebanon conflict (1982–2000)

Nominator's rationale: Per main article: South Lebanon conflict (1982–2000) —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:22, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:36, 19 October 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 all, after manually checking that all articles here are categorized in the appropriate parent categories. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:20, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Converts to agnosticism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Converts to agnosticism from Islam

Category:Converts to agnosticism from Anglicanism

Category:Converts to agnosticism from Eastern Orthodoxy

Category:Converts to agnosticism from Protestantism

Nominator's rationale: Per Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2010_July_14#Category:Converts_to_atheism. There are no ceremonies or initiations into agnosticism (and strictly speaking, it is not mutually contradictory to be e.g. a Muslim and an agnostic), consequently, you cannot "convert" to agnosticism. Any members can be upmerged to Category:Agnostics and Category:Former ''religious affiliation'' where appropriate. Previous discussion ended with no consensus prior to the above precedent. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:36, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Upmerge per nom. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:38, 19 October 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. Dana boomer (talk) 23:45, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:College football to Category:College football in the United States

Nominator's rationale: Rename. After this nomination, all other subcategories of Category:College sports in the United States by sport have an "in the United States." Actually, what I'd like to do is move all the contents of this category into Category:College football in the United States, and then have Category:College football be host to this new category and Category:Canadian Interuniversity Sport football and any similar categories. Obviously, there are lot of subcategories here, but I'm not nominating them until we have a closure on the main category.--Mike Selinker (talk) 19:34, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose on paper it makes sense, but in practice I think it would end up being very clumsy. At present, the United States have the (almost) only notable college football programs so it seems to me to be redundant. Also, in the past more but even in the present some it is not uncommon for a US college to play a Canadian college, especially in the NAIA--this leads to crossovers. While I agree that something better could be done, I'm not convinced that this is it.--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:05, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - The problem with this is that the category is actually college American football, that is, American football played at a collegiate level. This includes collegiate teams and leagues playing American football outside the US (e.g., British Universities American Football League, British Collegiate American Football League) but not collegiate teams playing other forms of football (e.g., Canadian football, Australian football, Association football) whether inside or outside the US. So perhaps, if you want to be precise (but unweildy), you could go with "College American football" and then create subcats for "College American football in the United States", "College American football in the United Kingdom", etc. cmadler (talk) 18:48, 19 October 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. Dana boomer (talk) 15:36, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:College (American) football rivalries in the United States to Category:College football rivalries in the United States

Propose renaming Category:College (American) football rivalry trophies in the United States to Category:College football rivalry trophies in the United States

Nominator's rationale: Rename. The parenthetical "(American)" seems unneeded if it's in the United States.--Mike Selinker (talk) 19:22, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support makes sense to me.--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:06, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I think "American" is needed to differentiate American football (which US-Americans call "football") from the sport most of the world calls "football", Association football, known in the US as "soccer". cmadler (talk) 18:41, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -Since, per the conversation above this one, Category:College football is retained for use as collegiate American football (as opposed to collegiate association football or another form), I think the parenthetical can be removed from this category also, in the interest of consistency. I do think that ultimately they may both need renaming, but let's start by making them consistent with each other.

---

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. Dana boomer (talk) 23:44, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:New England Fifty Finest (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Categorizing by trivial characteristic. The New England Fifty Finest is already listified and I see nothing defining about being put on a particular list.TM 18:33, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• keep This is a defining characteristic (human imposed to be sure) of these mountains. No reason to target this category when six or so others go unmentioned Hmains (talk) 02:22, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Utterly non-defining. The main article tells us only that "The New England Fifty Finest is a list of mountains..." Well, we knew that. But a list by who? It takes some Googling to find out and the results are not impressive. This book tells us the list was "tentatively produced" by peak-bagger Roy Schweiker in 1999 and then the 'fineness' of Roy's choices were "later checked" by his buddy Andy Martin. I'm glad these mountains are fine for Roy, Andy and others but this does not make for a category, per WP:OC#SUBJECTIVE. As for the argument above that "No reason to target this category when six or so others go unmentioned," see WP:OTHERCRAP. (Also, I've worked a bit on the peak-bagging stuff in the past and I can tell you we're going to have to be on our toes or else we're going to see lots of WP:NOTTRAVEL issues: these guys are very motivated to get peak-bagging info in Wikipedia and that's great, but it's not always done according to our guidelines.) The creator appears to be a veteran editor is an admin of long standing and I've struck through the above concern. I've also alerted him, he deserves to know. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:21, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. What's the problem here? This is a real grouping, not OR. The subject isn't of general interest, but some people care about it.
  Categories are a means of finding and navigating to articles with some common feature or theme. This one serves that purpose, as well as Category:Mountains of Penobscot County, Maine or the scads of others that Namiba has created.
  How would deletion improve Wikipedia? There are articles which are overloaded with categories, but a quick survey will show that these aren't among them.
  "The New England Fifty Finest is a list of mountains..." is an admittedly clunky way to work the article title into the lead sentence. I don't know why you had to use Google; the external link is on the page.
  —WWoods (talk) 16:23, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

— Note to closing admin: Wwoods (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:26, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment No one has accused you of WP:OR. And yes, it's a "real grouping" in the sense that it was created by someone, somewhere. It's whether a mountain's appearance on Roy and Andy's list reaches the level of defining-ness to merit a category. Mere existence of something does not equal meriting a category, as I'm sure you know as a veteran editor and admin. And cluttering up articles with trivial categories does not aid the project. The information on the Fine Fifty will not be lost if the category is deleted. No one is suggesting the article or list be deleted. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:33, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment II Furthermore, "Category:Mountains of Penobscot County, Maine or the scads of others that Namiba has created" has no bearing. As I'm sure you know, all mountains by place categories are part of a well-established category tree, and WP:OCAT does not apply in such cases. However, I do agree with you and Hmains that whatever we do here needs to take into account the rest of the Category:United States peaks by listing tree. While the this "Finest" list works by topographic prominence and not elevation, I do accept that this is a physical characteristic and not a subjective evaluation. I am still open to changing my !vote on that basis alone. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:47, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that Category:United States peaks by listing does need to be dealt with. Once this category is dealt with, I'd be happy to nominate the rest of them. Wwoods, just because it is useful doesn't mean we need it. The articles can still be easily accessed from the article. I see no way that this is defining of the mountains.--TM 18:15, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to pile on, but I agree with the nominator's point above re WP:USEFUL. I also think Wwoods is mistaken if he believes that categories are a means of finding and navigating to articles with some common feature or theme. The bar is higher than that. WP:CAT specifically cautions: "Do not create categories based on incidental or subjective features." I do concede that the topographic prominence of a mountain is not a subjective feature, but Andy and Roy's decision to select 50 "finest" peaks in New England on that basis may well be subjective, and trivial as well, as topographic prominence is not a global category scheme for mountains. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:54, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. After looking into this somewhat as guided by the discussion above, I agree with Shawn in Montreal that this is "utterly non-defining" for these mountains. It's a recent peak-bagging creation of a limited and subjective nature—not OR, but certainly not something one would expect to categorize by. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:21, 19 October 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. Dana boomer (talk) 23:44, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Wikipedia cleanup categories to Category:Wikipedia cleanup

Nominator's rationale: Pages needing cleanup used to be added directly to Category:Wikipedia cleanup, but that's not done anymore. There doesn't seem to be a continuing reason to diffuse nearly all subcategories from Wikipedia cleanup into a single subcategory. Bsherr (talk) 17:52, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dana boomer (talk) 14:23, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:39, 19 October 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. Dana boomer (talk) 23:44, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Parade High School All-Americans (basketball) to Category:Parade High School All-Americans (boys basketball)

Nominator's rationale: Propose renaming as there are Parade All-America teams for both boys and girls. I'll create the girls category if this one ultimately does get renamed. Rikster2 (talk) 11:57, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per WP:Cat gender: Categories should not be gendered unless the gender has a specific relation to the topic. Nominator does not say, why this is necessary here. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 13:33, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Rationale Men and women (or in this case boys and girls) play in different leagues and in many cases the fan bases and interest don't overlap. The gender distinction exists for most college basketball categories (eg - "Category:Michigan Wolverines men's basketball players") and HS athletics are a feeder for college athletics. When these categories are fully populated you're looking at hundreds of players for whom these categories would be applied - the girls teams go back 34 years and the boys go back 50+. Further, the Parade girls and boys teams are different lists and are published at different times. Rikster2 (talk) 13:44, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nominators second rationale. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 15:11, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Good idea. Eagle4000 (talk) 03:47, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Jrcla2 (talk) 03:42, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Remember (talk) 12:55, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I agree with the concept, but shouldn't this be "boys' basketball"? This seems like it needs the possessive apostrophe. cmadler (talk) 15:26, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply Yes, I had thought that too, but wouldn't that mean the basketball belongs to the boys? I took the formatting directly from Parade's releases (example here). To be honest, I am good whatever way reflects proper English, but would like to move this along as the change seems like a no brainer to me. Rikster2 (talk) 15:33, 21 October 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 October 19. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu

Category:Wikipedians who are indefinitely blocked for a violation of the username policy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: This is simply a list of disruptive or offensive usernames, many of which are an attacks on editors. Per WP:DENY, I see no need to categorise them. —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 11:51, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Agree with nom. If someone can tell me an encyclopedia-furthering use of categorizing these users, then I might be persuaded otherwise, but as of now I can't think of why it would be helpful to categorize users specifically blocked for violation of the username policy. VegaDark (talk)
• Keep - However, use an automated script to delink those which have ((Z13)) (for UsernameHardBlocked) and ((Z18)) (for Vaublock). I don't know about ((Z12)), though. As for the rest, there is high doubt as to whether they mean any harm. mechamind90 22:08, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - It's a good reference and more effectively describes the rationale behind naming rules. Lexlex (talk) 21:35, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - if this nomination fails, then at the very least I think it should be a WP:HIDDENCAT - any objection to this? —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 17:54, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. mechamind90 04:02, 17 October 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 - this should have been nominated as part of the next entry. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:14, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Cultural depictions of Victoria of the United Kingdom to Category:Cultural depictions of Queen Victoria

Nominator's rationale: To match article name. Kotniski (talk) 09:34, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support to match parent article. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 12:47, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to match current article. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:01, 12 October 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, no problem with renaming bac should the article ever get renamed again. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:11, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Victoria of the United Kingdom to Category:Queen Victoria

Nominator's rationale: To conform with the title of the article. Kotniski (talk) 09:27, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support to match parent article. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 12:44, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Wait a few years, the article has been renamed too recently. "Consensus" may change (and for a good reason; why should one article fall out of a universal convention?). A very unfortunate precedent. East of Borschov 14:00, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A few years?? The same thing applies to all articles - if it gets changed again sometime in the unforeseeable future, the category can change with it each time. (And this isn't one article falling out of any kind of convention - there are many others that the old convention didn't fit, hence the change in both the convention and some of the article titles.) --Kotniski (talk) 14:08, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to match article. If the article ever moves back, it's quite simple to renominate the category to move back. I'm not convinced we need a few years of inconsistency. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:00, 12 October 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 both. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:24, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Ireland – United Kingdom border to Category:Republic of Ireland – United Kingdom border

Propose renaming Category:Ireland – United Kingdom border crossings to Category:Republic of Ireland – United Kingdom border crossings

Nominator's rationale: Per Ireland/Category:Ireland. "Ireland" is used to refer to the island--the geographic entity. "Republic of Ireland" refers to the state that composes the southern majority of that island. As such, "Ireland" and the United Kingdom do not share a border (by definition, islands do not have borders.) Note also that the main article is Republic of Ireland – United Kingdom border. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:07, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename: this change is fine by me (creator of one of the categories). (Islands do have "borders" though—they are called maritime boundaries.) These appear to be named to match Category:Borders of Ireland and Category:Border crossings of Ireland, which should also be renamed I think. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:11, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Oppose: Ireland is the official name of the state described as the Republic of Ireland, and as such, the name is technically accurate on that side. Of course, the UK is officially the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, but that's another matter... - JVG (talk) 17:23, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Johnbod (talk) 03:09, 14 October 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 13:23, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Works about butler (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Empty category. Goustien (talk) 05:27, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support What is this? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:16, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete per C1, empty category. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 12:37, 12 October 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.