< August 17	August 19 >

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Keep. Timrollpickering (talk) 11:14, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Peace Corps volunteers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: To match the proposed deletion of Category:VISTA volunteers, whose argument has been "a short volunteering experience is not a defining characteristic of these persons".  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:00, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the related item Categories_for_discussion/Log/2011_August_17#Category:VISTA_volunteers

• Delete. I agree that a temporary volunteer position is not defining and this is not the reason they are notable. No one would refer to "Chris Dodd, the former Peace Corps volunteer ...". Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:07, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – it is the just the sort of thing we do categorise by, such as 'alumni of Foo university'. I think it is defining and would be mentioned in a 2 paragraph bio. (Probably not in a 1 paragraph bio.) Occuli (talk) 23:42, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's always painful for me to see the alumni categories cited as an example of rational categorization ... Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:49, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Even universities? I had been trying to soften the blow. I concede that the earlier deletion of all the 'school alumni' categories would have been a master-stroke. Occuli (talk) 00:22, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We'd have to discuss universities; I have my doubts. I think it's close to borderline. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:57, 19 August 2011 (UTC)d[reply]

Serving in the Peace Corps or VISTA is analogous to studying at St. John's College (Annapolis, Maryland) or Deep Springs College (Telluride, Collorado) or Antioch College, etc. Such matriculation signifies a lot about the person, and the experience is usually recognized as a very important part of the life.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 00:32, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Serving in the Peace Corps or VISTA has always been recognized as an extraordinary act undertaken by superior persons, and most such volunteers were changed by the experience: Consider Jimmy Carter's mother, etc.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 00:08, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• One rather expects the nominator to support the nomination. This might be a first. Occuli (talk) 00:26, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Once I closed a nomination that Vegaswikian had started. After his nominating statement, he was the only user to comment in the discussion, and his comment directly contradicted the nominating statement. So I nearly closed the discussion as "no consensus", but actually there was a better explanation for what he had done when you read it in context. ... Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:00, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• The analogous categories should be treated analogously.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 00:30, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• That may be an oversimplification ... Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:57, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Heresy! Perhaps you are not a mathematician? ;-)  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 04:17, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• My tombstone has already been carved and it says, "It's complicated ...". Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:57, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - As others have said, service in the Peace Corps is a defining characteristic. It does not make a volunteer notable (that's why Chris Dodd wouldn't be introduced as a former Peace Corps volunteer), but it often changes the course of their lives, and it will be mentioned in their obituaries. --Orlady (talk) 00:53, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • If "mentioned in their obituary" is the standard, we're in trouble. Charlton Heston's obituaries always mentioned his role as "Moses" in The Ten Commandments, but we don't categorize him as an actor in that movie or as an actor who portrayed Moses. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:01, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Appearing in a particular movie is not a defining characteristic for a person, but being an actor is.
      Now that I think about it, the nomination of this category and the one for Vista volunteers may be an excellent example of what it is about Wikipedia that woman perceive as male-centric. Apparently it's not just OK, but important to maintain elaborately constructed hierarchies of categories for military and sports-related topics, like Category:United States Marine Corps reservists, Category:American military personnel of World War II, Category:Tuskegee Airmen, Category:Navy Midshipmen men's basketball players, Category:American football middle linebackers, an Category:Civilian recipients of the Medal of Honor, but the fact that a person spent two years as a "volunteer" for "peace" is irrelevant trivia. --Orlady (talk) 03:50, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Appearing in a particular movie is not a defining characteristic for a person, but being an actor is. Ah, but we can't know that if we use "if mentioned in their obiturary" as the standard. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:10, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • I was reacting to the statement that No one would refer to "Chris Dodd, the former Peace Corps volunteer ...", which implied that since "Peace Corps volunteer" is not the basis for Dodd's notability, it can't be a basis for categorizing him. That's contrary to the entire approach to categories -- and if people were categorized only by the characteristics that make them notable, a large percentage of Wikipedia's categories (from "1647 births" to "Navy Midshipmen men's basketball players") would have to go away. My point about the obituary was that Peace Corps service is a significant part of a person's life that is routinely noted by others. --Orlady (talk) 05:03, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • Well, it is fairly well accepted that categories should be "defining" for the topics in question. Just because you can point to any number of categories that aren't defining in your opinion does not negative the general principle, because not every single category you can identify has been nominated and discussed. Any editor can create any craptastic category, but until it gets nominated and discussed, the default is for it to exist. In other words, pointing to WP:OTHERSTUFF is never very convincing. These are trite and well-known points, but they seem to be relevant to what you are suggesting. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:54, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • I didn't say those other categories aren't defining. My point is that not every "defining" characteristic is also the basis for a person's notability. Being born in 1647 (Category:1647 births) is defining, but it's clearly not a basis for notability. --Orlady (talk) 12:10, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
              • I'm not sure I agree birth year is even defining. I think that generally a person is notable (or not) for the things that are also defining for them. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:34, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                • This is a departure from the usual criteria: even German wikipedia categorises by year of birth, year of death, nationality, gender, generally thought defining. Compare Paul Theroux (14 cats, some rather verbose) and de:Paul Theroux (8 succinct cats, the first 5 related to notability, the last 3 'the sort of things we categorise by' which have nothing to do with notability) however for the pared-down approach to categories. (I prefer the German approach.) Occuli (talk) 02:44, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                  • But just because we have certain category systems doesn't make that feature necessarily defining. Year of birth may not be defining; it is conceivable that we categorize by year of birth for reasons that are unrelated to whether or not it is defining. Or they might just exist because there is no consensus for them not to exist. The default in WP is for things to exist—no consensus is needed to create anything, but consensus is needed to get rid of it. So the system doesn't really work in reverse and you can't say—these categories exist, thus they must be defining. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:55, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I think the argument that this is an important factor in people's lives, like what college they attended, works. There are not a lot of these organizations with volunteers that are notable enough to organize, and few if any people were in both this and VISTA, the one other example of something like this that has been brought up, so it probably has even less chance of creating lots of categories for specific individuals than the alumni categories do. I think that this is within the reasonable domain of categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:37, 25 August 2011 (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/merge to Miami Floridians categories. Timrollpickering (talk) 15:47, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Floridians to Category:Floridians (basketball)

Propose renaming Category:Floridians coaches to Category:Floridians (basketball) coaches

Propose renaming Category:Floridians draft picks to Category:Floridians (basketball) draft picks

Propose renaming Category:The Floridians players to Category:Floridians (basketball) players

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Completely ambiguous Vegaswikian (talk) 21:05, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Question Shouldn't it be Category:The Floridians (basketball), etc. - the team's name appears to have been 'The Floridians', not 'Floridians' Mayumashu (talk) 01:27, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all per nominator. The "Floridians" name is seriously ambiguous. Consistent with Wikipedia naming conventions, the word "The" should not be part of the name. --Orlady (talk) 04:50, 19 August 2011 (UTC) Changed opinion (see below). --Orlady (talk) 22:29, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What policy are you refering to? 'The' is part of this team's (former) name. It is not like refering to, say, (the) New York Yankees as 'the Yankees' - here it's 'The Floridians' and not 'the Floridians'. Saying that though, I do see what you mean now that 'The Floridians (basketball)' is ambiguous. Mayumashu (talk) 22:31, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The policy I was referring to is discussed at Wikipedia:MOS#Article titles and WP:DEFINITE. "Do not place definite or indefinite articles (the, a and an) at the beginning of titles unless they are part of a proper name (e.g. The Old Man and the Sea) or will otherwise change the meaning (e.g. The Crown)." My apologies for the delay in replying -- I was slow to see your comment... --Orlady (talk) 12:42, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename all Floridians could mean residents of Florida.Curb Chain (talk) 10:25, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is basketball a sufficient disambiguator? Should they be of the form Category:Floridians (basketball team) to make it clear they are not Floridians involved with basketball? Vegaswikian (talk) 17:23, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:The Floridians (basketball team), Category:The Floridians (basketball team) coaches, Category:The Floridians (basketball team) draft picks, Category:The Floridians (basketball team) players per User:Vegaswikian's point on ambiguity and mine on the actual team name Mayumashu (talk) 22:28, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, The Floridians redirects to Miami Floridians. That might be too ambiguous for a category name. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:03, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why not Category:Miami Floridans? That's how the article is named, after all. Jafeluv (talk) 10:26, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Rename to Category:Miami Floridians, Category:Miami Floridians coaches, etc., for the eminently sensible reason given by Jafeluv. (Changed my opinion.) --Orlady (talk) 22:29, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment - Ack! I find that Category:Miami Floridians already exists, and has existed for several years. Same team, two categories. There also are existing categories for Category:Miami Floridians draft picks and Category:Miami Floridians players. Accordingly, let's merge Category:Floridians to Category:Miami Floridians, merge the Floridians draft picks and Floridians players categories to the corresponding Miami Floridians categories, and rename the Floridians coaches category to Category:Miami Floridians coaches. --Orlady (talk) 04:10, 27 August 2011 (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:Robert Lucas family and listify building entries. Timrollpickering (talk) 15:37, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Lucas family to ?

Nominator's rationale: Rename to something less ambiguous. I looked at a few articles and I'm not sure if any notability for this is based on one or more persons. So I don't have a suggestion as to a disambiguator for the name. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:47, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete There seems to be no relation between the entrants in the category.Curb Chain (talk) 10:24, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I have listed the current contents at Talk:Robert Lucas (governor) in case anyone wants to make a more justifiable section or list using the info. - Fayenatic (talk) 16:17, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but rename Curb Chain is incorrect; all have ties to Lucas politcal dynasty, esp. Robert Lucas (governor). I like categories like this that help to gather loose connections. Perhaps rename to more specific Category:Robert Lucas political family? Edgar Vekilnik, Jr. (talk) 17:28, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The precedent would be Category:Robert Lucas family. We just use the term family, and if there are multiple families with that name, we use the name of the most prominent member. See also Category:Gerald Ford family.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:39, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: if the latter happens, perhaps the buildings currently in the cat could be listified as List of buildings associated with the Robert Lucas family, so that the category would just contain the biographies and that list. - Fayenatic (talk) 11:09, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I think this category should be limited to articles on individuals. I think we should remove the articles on buildings and places.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:38, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Robert Lucas family, listify buildings. - Fayenatic (talk) 22:34, 26 August 2011 (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; rename & repurpose to Category:People in bus transport. Timrollpickering (talk) 15:39, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Pioneers of bus transport (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete The term "pioneer" is inherently subjective. It creates a problem with regards to neutrality and makes it very difficult to define the scope of the category. Pichpich (talk) 19:52, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I've added the single article into a more appropriate "bus transport" category. - Fayenatic (talk) 21:54, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. This is generally not a good name form.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:40, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I added the category "Pioneers of bus transport" as there is a category "Pioneers of rail transport". The term "pioneer" is to suggest that the person in the article started bus transport in a particular place a long time ago, as the bus company may now no longer exist. Karrattul (talk) 07:35, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment the whole including of "a long time ago" makes the category not workable. That is an unclear inclusion criteria. Anyway, why would we exclude someone if they begin bus transport in an area 15 years ago and it had never existed there before. Categories need criteria that allows us to without debate say "yet the person belongs" or " no they do not belong". If part of the criteria is doing something "a long time ago" than we have to ask does 60-years-ago meet the criteria or not, and we end up with debatable inclusion criteria.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:14, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I admit "a long time ago" is an ambiguous criteria. What I really meant was "the first person to do something". I just thought that there should be a category for people who were the first operators of bus transport to separate them from those who came later. I value the comments in this discussion. Karrattul (talk) 11:40, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename and repurpose to Category:People in bus transport to parallel Category:People in rail transport as a subtopic of Category:People in transport, as well as of Category:Bus transport. The current category name and scope of "pioneers" is utterly inappropriate, but there seems to be an unfilled place for a category for people whose notable careers are associated with bus transport. In addition to the one article currently in the "pioneers" category, a few examples of pages that should be slotted into "People in bus transport" are: Category:Bus drivers by nationality, Perley A. Thomas, John Greenwood (bus operator), Brian Souter, Morgan W. Walker, Sr., Paul Desmarais, Julian Peddle, and Samuel Ledgard. --Orlady (talk) 17:47, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per Orlady - seems an excellent idea to me. - Fayenatic (talk) 17:54, 22 August 2011 (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: speedy rename per C2D. Timrollpickering (talk) 20:18, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Nickelodeon (TV channel) to Category:Nickelodeon

Nominator's rationale: Per main article. Nickelodeon (TV channel) has been renamed to Nickelodeon per Talk:Nickelodeon#Move to Nickelodeon. JJ98 (Talk / Contributions) 19:29, 18 August 2011 (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. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:13, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Categories by function (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Categories by status (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: With the deletion of Category:Categories by association at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2011_August_10#Category:Categories_by_association, and Category:Categories by paradigm seemingly on its way out at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2011_August_12#Category:Categories_by_paradigm, I believe that there are two more container cats in Category:Categories by parameter that are are just as much a case of WP:OC#SHAREDNAMES. They were both created by the same editor, with similar descriptions that they should both have "the naming convention of <X> by foo." But surely that's not enough. The contents of these two container cats do have similar naming patterns but they don't make for coherent categories that are useful for finding articles, imo, as the X's and the Y's -- the things being grouped and the types of functions or statuses they possess -- differ so wildly. In the case of "by status," for example, what do Category:Organizations by legal status and Category:Volcanoes by status really have in common, aside from the mere appearance of the word "status"? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:20, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, I was organizing the categories by status (i.e. what they are), and by function (what they do or are intended to do). I don't see why this is an invalid categorization scheme. --Eastlaw ^talk ⁄ _contribs 02:41, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, I can't think of any example where it would be helpful to navigate between the contents of either of these. - Fayenatic (talk) 16:21, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Both function and status are ambiguous and these categories only tend to group things where the only commonality is the word function or status. While there are other subcategories with different names, they are still not grouped by any underling defining characteristic. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:34, 25 August 2011 (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. Timrollpickering (talk) 19:51, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Articles containing Sanskrit language text to Category:Articles containing Sanskrit text

Nominator's rationale: Per Sanskrit/Sanskrit language. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:45, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, part of a systematised set of categories, for which the disambiguator "language" is sometimes necessary. Rich Farmbrough, 23:20, 18 August 2011 (UTC).[reply]

• Response Isn't Category:Sanskrit a scheme as well? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 13:38, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak support. "Sanskrit" is just as clear as "Sanskrit language", so the proposed renaming makes sense. If rejected, "Sanskrit-language text" should at least be written with a hyphen. (This applies to all sister categories as well.) Jafeluv (talk) 10:24, 26 August 2011 (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/merge. Timrollpickering (talk) 18:16, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Newspaper publishers of the 17th century (people) to Category:17th-century newspaper publishers (people)

Propose merging Category:American newspaper publishers (people) of the 17th century to both parents (C17 as above plus Category:American newspaper publishers (people))

Propose renaming Category:Newspaper publishers of the 18th century (people) to Category:18th-century newspaper publishers (people)

Propose merging Category:American newspaper publishers (people) of the 18th century to both parents (C18 as above plus Category:American newspaper publishers (people))

Propose merging Category:British newspaper publishers (people) of the 18th century to both parents (C18 as above plus Category:British newspaper publishers (people))

Nominator's rationale: remove overcategorisation of the latter two, and rename 17th/18th to match 19th. This is a very similar nomination to the outcome of CFD 2010 May 29 re similar C19 categories. - Fayenatic (talk) 17:44, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• The general nomination is good. Now that I have removed the person not born until 1781 from the 17th-century American publishers cat, that cat only has one person so it is even more clearly unneeded.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:44, 20 August 2011 (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. The longer answer from the discussion, and not just the !votes, is to reverse merge the first 3 but the first is a category redirect so no action is needed there. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:45, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:British legal professionals to Category:British jurists

Propose merging Category:English legal professionals to Category:English jurists

Propose merging Category:Scottish legal professionals to Category:Scottish jurists

Propose renaming Category:Welsh legal professionals to Category:Welsh jurists

Propose renaming Category:Argentine legal professionals to Category:Argentine jurists

Propose renaming Category:Canadian legal professionals to Category:Canadian jurists

Nominator's rationale: Nominated to match all other categories of Category:Jurists by nationality. The hatnote on that category says, "A jurist is a professional who studies, develops, applies or otherwise deals with the law. The term is widely used in the United States, but in the United Kingdom and many Commonwealth countries it has only historical and specialist usage. In these countries members of the general public are largely unaware of the term and are liable to confuse it with juror. There is no alternative word for jurist in the Commonwealth. The term "legal professionals" may be used for convenience, but it is not an everyday term." To UK and Canadian editors: How true is that? Jurist seems a very clear term from where I sit in the US, enough that a hatnote that said "This category is for British professionals who study, develop, apply, or otherwise deal with the law." would be sufficient to cover any questions. Agree or disagree?--Mike Selinker (talk) 16:32, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge/rename per nom, not because "jurist" is well understood in the UK (it is not), but because the current "legal professionals" is positively misleading. "Legal professionals" in the UK means "lawyers", i.e. solicitors + barristers. In effect what we are talking about here is a "people in law" category including writers and academics. If I were starting from a blank sheet I would have called it "people in law", but as there is already an established tree of "jurists", that name is fine by me. Keep the four British categories, and redirect them to "lawyers"; I can't speak for Canada or Argentina. - Fayenatic (talk) 17:05, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: If carried, I propose that the text currently on the head category Category:Jurists by nationality should be made into a Category definition template and added to all the national sub-cats. - Fayenatic (talk)
  • Strike that comment as well - the definition and usage of "Jurist" is disputed and contradicted within the lead article. Would "Category:People in law by country" be better after all? - Fayenatic (talk) 17:16, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Oppose (UK categories): Have you read the article Jurist? It gives a clear explanation as to why the word Jurist only has relevance in American English, and yet is not used in English in the United Kingdom and most former Commonwealth countries. Hence anyone using English as their language, would not know what Jurist meant. As the article Jurist explains, Legal Professional is the term used in English. Hence if you can find precedence for the terms usage in the other nominated countries, I would accept change. But where in country language precedence on naming is set, the guidance is clear. Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 20:47, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've read it, and it all looks very suspect to me. Not the facts per se, as I have no personal background in them; just the way the article is written makes me doubt everything in it. But if you guys say from experience that in the UK this would cause confusion, then striving for a non-confusing term in all cases might be better. Say, "Legal professionals" in all countries.--Mike Selinker (talk) 07:54, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Striking most of my previous comments after research – I was wrong, "legal professional" is used in the UK to include legal executives, experts and others who work in law but are not lawyers; e.g. CPS ("Whether you are a barrister, a solicitor or are just starting your legal training"), Inst of Legal Execs, Waterlow (directory), and a firm whose Legal Exec was headlined as "Outstanding Legal Professional Wins Prestigious Law Society Award". - Fayenatic (talk) 16:56, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong oppose (UK categories). Per Trident13, "Jurist" is not a term used in British English, and most non-specialists (like me when I saw the entry in the TOC on this page) will assume it means jurors. "Legal professionals" is, while perhaps not an identical term, the closest equivalent. In short, and to answer the specific question above, the statement from the Jurist article is exactly right, at least regarding the UK. I have no opinion regarding the non-UK categories nominated. Thryduulf (talk) 18:34, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong oppose change. Naming these categories "jurists" looks to me like a sure-fire recipe for obfuscation and confusion. As a speaker of American English, I think of the word "jurist" as synonymous with "judge" -- and a word whose use is usually a bit of an affectation, or a synonym used in news media to avoid repetition of "judge". I consulted an avowedly American dictionary, which indicated that the word refers to a person who has achieved eminence in the field of law, such as a legal scholar or judge. The article "Jurist", which asserts that this is an American and Canadian word for lawyers looks like original research of the worst kind (meaning that it's false information). --Orlady (talk) 14:35, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Additional recommendation to reverse merge and redirect Category:English jurists and Category:Scottish jurists to the respective "legal professionals". In the case of British jurists, this was done as a speedy decision at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 February 14#Category:British jurists. - Fayenatic (talk) 12:18, 22 August 2011 (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: Speedy rename C2B. Timrollpickering (talk) 18:15, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Futures Tour to Category:Futures Tour (golf)

Nominator's rationale: Rename. To disambiguate, as tennis also has a tour (the ITF Men's Circuit) consisting of tournaments called 'Futures' Mayumashu (talk) 14:50, 18 August 2011 (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. Timrollpickering (talk) 18:22, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Non-fiction writers by century (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:20th-century non-fiction writers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:21st-century non-fiction writers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Not a formed category tree - only subcats are for 20th and 21st non-fiction writers; these two lists would be of enormous length and have little navigational value. Mayumashu (talk) 13:57, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I agree about those two, but the other sub-cat Category:Historians by century is markedly useful -- the more so as it is mainly populated with 18th-century and earlier. I propose that 20th and 21st century sub-categories should be deprecated, deleted and salted, but categories for earlier writers should be encouraged. Opinions invited about 19th century. - Fayenatic (talk) 17:12, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I have added Historians' head category Scholars into the nominated category, along with Religious leaders, as most of the latter who achieved notability would have been writers. - Fayenatic (talk) 17:18, 18 August 2011 (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. Timrollpickering (talk) 18:17, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Writers by fiction subject area to Category:Fiction writers by genre

Nominator's rationale: Rename. "Subject area" works for the non-fiction sibling category, but not here; the sub-cats of this one are genres. Fayenatic (talk) 13:10, 18 August 2011 (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. Timrollpickering (talk) 18:19, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:American wheelchair tennis players (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Not part of a category tree and entirely redundant with Category:Paralympic wheelchair tennis players of the United States (the same three players are listed in each), which is part of a category tree; the only wheelchair tennis players of note are those who compete in the paralympics - these same players compete in the other major tournaments. Mayumashu (talk) 12:26, 18 August 2011 (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. Timrollpickering (talk) 18:20, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Literary characters by genre of work to Category:Literary characters by genre

Category:Fictional characters in children's literature to Category:Characters in children's literature

Category:Fictional characters in comedy to Category:Comedy characters

Category:Fictional Western (genre) characters to :Category:Western (genre) characters

Create head category Category:Fictional characters by genre

Nominator's rationale: Rename. These can all be shortened, and it may be useful to consider them together. The first one contains a mixture of "X-genre characters" and "Characters in X-genre" sub-cats, and IMHO the mixture is OK as some of each would sound awkward the other way round. The contents of the Comedy and Western categories are not mainly literary characters; move these categories along with Category:Science fiction characters up into new Category:Fictional characters by genre. - Fayenatic (talk) 13:08, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nom. Shorter and better worded. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:57, 25 August 2011 (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. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:15, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Fictional characters in other media to Category:Alternative versions of fictional characters

Nominator's rationale: Rename. The meaning of the sub-cat "Comics characters in other media" is clear, but this one is not. Fayenatic (talk) 07:30, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: the suggested rename is less clear than the original. Doctor Who on the radio is not an alternative version of Doctor Who - he's the same fictional character in a different medium to the original; but Pride and Prejudice and Zombies features an alternative version of Elizabeth Bennet in the same medium as the original. Category:Comics characters in other media is clearly referring to the former - Spiderman as a film, Batman on the telly etc.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:05, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: but it's not clear "other than what". It would need to be expanded to something, e.g. Category:Characters in media other than where they first appeared. The current category name sounds like just a "miscellaneous" category (and we don't do those). We don't want to expand it to Category:Characters in multiple media because that would be enormous. Perhaps what is needed is simply delete? - Fayenatic (talk) 18:13, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, you either need a vast set - Literary characters in other media, Opera characters in other media, Radio characters etc etc - or abandon the idea of a head cat. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:11, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• As nominator, changing opinion to Delete, then. - Fayenatic (talk) 21:18, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This does not seem to be a useful way to categorize.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:41, 25 August 2011 (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. Timrollpickering (talk) 08:49, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Mental and behavioural disorders to Category:Mental disorders

Nominator's rationale: Per mental disorder, the main article. related —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:41, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support as per rationale given by nom. Mayumashu (talk) 12:31, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep; the article refers to two main classifications: the American one uses "mental disorder", but the international one is ICD-10 Chapter V: Mental and behavioural disorders. The category includes Category:Behavioural syndromes associated with physiological disturbances and physical factors, which is named as behavioural and not mental, and contains some entries that are not commonly considered mental disorders. - Fayenatic (talk) 17:32, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Given that physiologically caused behavourial ones are included, I agree with User:Fayenatic's view to keep. The article name is what needs to be changed Mayumashu (talk) 22:51, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - This category is intended to contain all of the disorders that are classified to Chapter V of ICD-10. This chapter includes all disorders that are classified on Axis I (mainly mental disorders) and Axis II (mainly behavioural disorders) of the DSM. I propose that Category:Mental disorders is created as a re-direct to Category:Mental and behavioural disorders. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 00:34, 20 August 2011 (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 per WP:SNOW. I added a note to the user's talk page informing him or her about the Special:PrefixIndex function, which allows users to track pages in their userspace. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 06:49, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Intoronto1125 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Violates WP:UCAT, category does not aid in facilitating coordination and collaboration between users for the improvement and development of the encyclopedia. User-specific categories like this have a precedence of being deleted. — ξ^xplicit 05:34, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete There is plenty of precedent to delete this. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:34, 18 August 2011 (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. Timrollpickering (talk) 08:50, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Female association football players to Category:Women's association football players

Nominator's rationale: The people in this category are players of women's association football. I see no reason to avoid that established name and, instead, to use an odd combination of three characteristics – players of association football who are female – that has the same meaning. If this nomination succeeds, I will nominate the subcategories for speedy renaming. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 03:45, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I agree that in this case (and in most cases but not all) the cat name should match the article name, but I'd like naming consistency across sportspeople cats. Should we therefore have all sportswomen subcats be 'women's ...' and not 'female ...'? Probably yes. For tennis, my main WP interest for the last while, it could be done - the two ways of naming seem to work equally. Mayumashu (talk) 12:30, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. The problem with that is that it's not generally known as or Women's swimming, Women's showjumping, or Women's triathlon. Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:27, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. I don't think we need to worry about the other non-team sports here. It's clear that the sport is referred to as "women's association football" (or "women's football" or "women's soccer"), so the rename makes sense for players. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 20:28, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename we should follow the organizaiton name. We already do have women's basketball categories. However if their is inconsistency in what the various sports are called we should not try to force the categories to be consistent despite the inconsistency in usage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:56, 20 August 2011 (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. Timrollpickering (talk) 08:51, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Healthcare in the Caribbean to Category:Healthcare by continent

Nominator's rationale: upmerge. It is the odd one out. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 02:54, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: "Odd one out?" There's also a Category:Healthcare in Central America in the "upmerge" folder. CaribDigita (talk) 03:17, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. There is a whole hierarchy tree under Category:Caribbean. Caribbean is not the only region with a healthcare category (there is also Category:Healthcare in Southeast Asia) and this one is clearly useful. - Fayenatic (talk) 09:49, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This nomination is erroneous - you should be asking to upmerge to Category:Healthcare in North America. But enough people see (in official capacities, but perhaps mistakenly) the Carib and C. Amer. as being outside of N.A. that there should be redundancy here. Mayumashu (talk) 12:36, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as valid and useful categorization. --Orlady (talk) 04:53, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I don't understand why the subcategories under Caribbean would be appropriately categorised immediately under "continent". Haiti, Cuba, Puerto Rico etc. are not continents. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 00:25, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• keep Nomincation is confused. This is a category with proper parents for the Caribbean region within the North American contintent. Hmains (talk) 02:35, 21 August 2011 (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: result. Timrollpickering (talk) 08:52, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Fictional characters from recorded music to Category:Recorded music characters

Nominator's rationale: Per all categories of Category:Fictional characters by medium. This was renamed the other direction with my support (as creator) a year ago, but I think it makes more sense this way. Category:Rock music characters would also be okay.-- Mike Selinker (talk) 01:59, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - even assuming that characters in Opera and Musical theatre go under a different category, there are enough fictional characters in Pop music and Jazz to suggest that Category:Rock music characters would be a bit restrictive. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:52, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support for shortness. I think that Mike was suggesting that if the category contents ever justify being split into sub-categories, this naming format would be suitable for specific musical genres. - Fayenatic (talk) 18:56, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah right. Yes support rename on that basis.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:13, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I think it is useful to have fictional things marked as such, I do not think the word characters acheives that goal alone.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:59, 20 August 2011 (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 per nom. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:38, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Former students of the BRIT School to Category:People educated at the BRIT School

Nominator's rationale: This is the only category of the "former students" type in Category:Former pupils by school in England.-- Mike Selinker (talk) 00:51, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename – well spotted. Occuli (talk) 07:39, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Alumni of the BRIT School, to match stage schools and dance schools, eg Category:Alumni of the Sylvia Young Theatre School. These schools are considered comparable to drama colleges and are different from ordinary schools. Cjc13 (talk) 14:49, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• What is your evidence for this claim, that a school which takes in 11 year olds, is considered comparable to a drama college? (Category:Alumni of the Sylvia Young Theatre School has escaped from Category:Former pupils by school in England and needs to be renamed itself - thanks for finding it). Occuli (talk) 15:51, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• There is Category:Alumni by drama school in the United Kingdom which includes drama/stage schools and colleges, all of whom currently use "Alumni". The Brit school is like a drama school in that it includes specialist trainng in the performing arts. Cjc13 (talk) 20:44, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• A category inclusion is not evidence. Some of these are secondary schools, others are tertiary institutions; it's a hotchpotch. This is an excellent example of the advantages of "People educated at". Occuli (talk) 23:59, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. I think after dozens of discussions now, this general form for UK schools is becoming a well-accepted compromise solution. It's amazing how long one can kick against the pricks in resistance, but eventually it makes sense to compromise for the sake of broader cross-category consistency and promotion of consensus decision-making, if nothing else. I don't particularly like the alumni categories; I don't think they are justified; I would prefer to see them all deleted. But I've given up that fight because it's clear there is a consensus that they will exist, and I can live with that. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:03, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename We have a tentative consensus to use "people educated at X" for secondary and primary schools in the UK, and to reserve alumni for tertiary institutions. This is not a tertiary institution, so we should use the secondary form.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:02, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom and for consistency. Timrollpickering (talk) 14:50, 20 August 2011 (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 with "Fictional Fooian people in literature" the form with most support and precedent. Timrollpickering (talk) 14:19, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Russian characters in written fiction to Category:Literary Russian characters or Category:Russian literary characters

Propose renaming Category:Italian characters in written fiction to Category:Literary Italian characters or Category:Italian literary characters

Propose renaming Category:German characters in written fiction to Category:Literary German characters or Category:German literary characters

Propose renaming Category:French characters in written fiction to Category:Literary French characters or Category:French literary characters

Propose renaming Category:Chinese characters in written fiction to Category:Literary Chinese characters or Category:Chinese literary characters

Nominator's rationale: There are a couple ways we can do these as well. "Chinese characters" has another meaning, that of symbols in the Chinese languages, so maybe putting the demonym at the front is smart.--Mike Selinker (talk) 00:42, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to "...in literature". "Literary" would suggest to me that the characters were knowledgeable about literature, rather than just appearing in it. Additionally, to resolve the ambiguous "Chinese characters", rename as Category:Chinese people in literature (etc), which is a closer match to the parent Category:Fictional Chinese people. - Fayenatic (talk) 07:54, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to "...in literature". agree with that. Best, non-ambiguous content dscription. But I am not a native speaker! E-Kartoffel (talk) 17:27, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "People" or "characters"? - Fayenatic (talk) 17:55, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Characters tends to be used to denote fictional persons, 'people' to denote historical individuals. Although having just tagged Judge Dee into the Chinese characters category, perhaps 'people' is better.
• Rename to "...in literature" - "French literary characters" et al. are ambiguous (who belongs there, Fabrice del Dongo or Madame Defarge?) and "Literary French characters" et al. are odd. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:14, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • But you mean "Characters in Russian literature," not "Russian characters in literature," right? Because they mean different things and the second would include Russian baddies in James Bond, etc. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:25, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is it not currently organized by the nationality of the character? There are a bunch of Shakespearean Italians in that category, and Dickens's Frenchpeople likewise. I think both trees should exist, but am I mistaking what's being discussed here? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:40, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Per my above comment, I feel I should unequivocally state my !vote, which would be to rename to Characters in Foo literature, to make it clear that it is the nationality of the literature, not the characters, that is being categorized. But if I'm mistaken, and it really is the other way around, disregard. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:25, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• It does seem to be the other way round: The seamstress (A Tale of Two Cities) is a Dickens character. Occuli (talk) 01:36, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Category:Characters in French literature etc., and move so the characters are placed according to the nationality of the literature they appear in (all Dickens characters to Category:Chracters in Briths literature etc.)John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:06, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I can't support that suggestion by John. By all means create a new category tree, but this one is by nationality of the fictional character. The original Category:Fictional Russians etc were deleted in the biggest mass-deletion that I have witnessed, and replaced later by Category:Fictional Russian people, the head category of the first nominated category. - Fayenatic (talk) 11:15, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to "...in literature" and Create one of the second series. In my opinion, we need two clearly distinctive category trees: One by nationality of the fictional character, and one by the appartenance to a given national literature. Nostromo is an Category:Italian character in written fiction AND a Category:British literary character. Stefanomione (talk) 19:49, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: In that case, there is all the more need to be clearer than "British literary", e.g. Nostromo would be in Category:Italian people in literature (or Category:Italian characters in literature) and Category:Characters in British literature. (Alternatively we could create intersection categories e.g. Category:Italian people in British literature but I do not think this is desirable.) - Fayenatic (talk) 20:27, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Indeed. Let's keep things clear and names elegant. I propose (with Fayenatic):

      - Category:Italian characters in literature
          AND Category:Characters in Italian literature
      - Category:Russian characters in literature
          AND Category:Characters in Russian literature
      - Category:French characters in literature
          AND Category:Characters in French literature
      - Category:British characters in literature
          AND Category:Characters in British literature
      - ...

Stefanomione (talk) 14:50, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• • • • support proposal. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:07, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Fictional Russian people in literature etc. The parent categories are named "Fictional Russian people" etc., a solution which avoids the ambiguity in "Russian characters". Why not use the same convention here? Jafeluv (talk) 10:14, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Fictional Russian people in literature etc. This is also more specific - there are 'non-fictional Russian characters in literature' as well, eg War & Peace has quite a few (eg a Tsar and several generals). Occuli (talk) 15:32, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

---

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: rename all to replace "written fiction" with "literature". עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 04:59, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Child characters in written fiction to Category:Literary fictional children or Category:Literary children (or upmerge)

Propose renaming Category:Dogs in written fiction to Category:Literary fictional dogs or Category:Literary dogs (or upmerge)

Propose renaming Category:Cats in written fiction to Category:Literary fictional cats or Category:Literary cats (or upmerge)

Propose renaming Category:Animal characters in written fiction to Category:Literary fictional animals or Category:Literary animal characters or Category:Literary animals (or upmerge)

Nominator's rationale: There are a couple of different ways we can do these. I'm okay with the shortest version, or upmerging. But at minimum the "in written fiction" should go away per this discussion.--Mike Selinker (talk) 00:32, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to "...in literature". I see no reason to upmerge, as these are within other hierarchies by species. "Literary" would suggest to me that the characters were knowledgeable about literature, rather than just appearing in it. - Fayenatic (talk) 07:35, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's "literate," not "literary."--Mike Selinker (talk) 16:26, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • They can both mean "well-read", but in my experience "literate" (on its own, not "highly literate") usually means "able to read". Dictionary.com gives "a literary man" as an example of usage for the meaning "engaged in or having the profession of literature or writing". Unfortunately it doesn't give an example for "a literary dog". ;-) - Fayenatic (talk) 16:40, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • If we ever have a category called "Literary people," that might be a problem. Less so for dogs, as you note.--Mike Selinker (talk) 16:53, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • My point is that "literary children" could be misunderstood as precociously well-read. - Fayenatic (talk) 17:52, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Children in literature or Child characters in literature. The others probably can be Category:Dogs in literature. I am not sure if the form children quite works though.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:09, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Given that in the first one the parent category is Category:Fictional children by medium, why are we not going for Category:Fictional children in literature etc? Occuli (talk) 18:53, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because all its sibling categories in that one are "Child characters in X". The meaning of "characters" is generally clear when used alongside a medium of entertainment. Parent categories that do not mention media need to include the word fiction. - Fayenatic (talk) 18:09, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I had seen the siblings but why are they all "Child characters in X" when the parent is not Category:Child characters but Category:Fictional children? They should all be 'Fictional children in X' (ditto: Category:Fictional dogs, Category:Fictional cats, Category:Fictional animals). Occuli (talk) 19:19, 22 August 2011 (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:Sidekicks in literature. Timrollpickering (talk) 08:12, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Literature sidekicks to Category:Literary sidekicks

Nominator's rationale: "Literature" seems quite wrong for this category.--Mike Selinker (talk) 00:32, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Category:Sidekicks in literature. "Literary" would suggest to me that the characters were knowledgeable about literature, rather than just appearing in it. - Fayenatic (talk) 08:05, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge. We already have a well-developed branch Category:Fictional sidekicks, where the characters are born in a fictional world and don't appear to be "knowledgeable about literature". Moreover, not all sidekicks belong to literature. So, I propose Upmerge to Category:Fictional sidekicks. Stefanomione (talk) 15:53, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: that would be skipping a level in the hierarchy. Do you want to upmerge all seven cats within Category:Fictional sidekicks by medium? if so, add them to the nomination. - Fayenatic (talk) 16:43, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • You're right. Forget my proposal. Stefanomione (talk) 16:53, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Cheers. What do you favour instead? - Fayenatic (talk) 17:53, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Sidekicks in literature. Stefanomione (talk) 14:08, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Sidekicks in literature. I wish there was a way to avoid the "in" form because it makes it sound like it is a category for things on the theme, not things that fit the description, but I think it is the only form that really works, the current form is just to irregular.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:12, 20 August 2011 (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: Speedy rename C2C. Timrollpickering (talk) 01:12, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Lists of characters in written fiction to Category:Lists of literary characters

Propose renaming Category:Works inspired by characters in written fiction to Category:Works inspired by literary characters

Propose renaming Category:Characters in written fiction by nationality to Category:Literary characters by nationality

Propose renaming Category:Characters in written fiction by work to Category:Literary characters by work

Nominator's rationale: Per Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2011_August_14#Category:Characters_in_written_fiction.--Mike Selinker (talk) 00:25, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I have no objection to the phrase "literary characters" on its own, so rename without prejudice against using different words on more specific categories. - Fayenatic (talk) 09:53, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all per nomCurb Chain (talk) 16:33, 18 August 2011 (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.