< March 7 March 9 >

March 8

Category:Norstar Bank Hamlet Challenge Cup

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Merge. Timrollpickering (talk) 00:02, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:Norstar Bank Hamlet Challenge Cup & Category:Waldbaum's Hamlet Cup to Category:Pilot Pen Tennis
Nominator's rationale: Former names of the event. No need for three categories for the same thing. Armbrust WrestleMania XXVII Undertaker 19–0 23:32, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ok I support this anyway as it's just a bit of house keeping KnowIG (talk) 09:28, 10 March 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.

SEC and WAC football seasons

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) 00:02, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming
Nominator's rationale: To expand the abbreviations, per general category naming conventions and the parent categories Category:Southeastern Conference football and Category:Western Athletic Conference football. See the related nomination for ACC football season categories. -- Black Falcon (talk) 23:11, 8 March 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.

Category:Diasporas

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) 14:05, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Diasporas to Category:Emigrations and emigrants.
Nominator's rationale: The word "diaspora" is reserved by diaspora scholars for only a few of the world's many emigrations and emigrant communities. It has been proposed at Norwegian diaspora that all articles with "diaspora" in their names should be scrutinized for eligibility to be called diasporas. Those found unworthy are to be given a less dramatic name such as "Foo emigration and emigrant communities." It seems sensible to create a new general category to include all the articles and categories for which we are now using the word "diaspora" in its general popular sense. Later, presumably, a new category will be established for the smaller subgroup of articles about "real" diasporas. Articles/categories than have been suggested will no longer be able to be called diasporas include Norwegian, Swedish, Dutch, English, and French diaspora; I don't know if this discussion should be signalized somehow to those categories or not. Sharktopustalk 22:56, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There seemed to be more consensus for renamings to avoid "diaspora" in 3 recent AFD discussions, and the Norwegian diaspora article rename is not complete. --doncram 18:18, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Could these AFDs be linked to? It's really difficult to assess the merits of claims that there has been a consensus for something without links to any of the discussions in question. Good Ol’factory (talk) 20:47, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think these are the three AFDs Doncram means: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Norwegian_diaspora, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Swedish_diaspora, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Norwegian_diaspora_(2nd_nomination). Sharktopustalk 20:55, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, that is helpful. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:21, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, those are the three i meant. Thanks. --doncram 00:26, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, there are very few articles within Category:Diasporas and its subcategories that need to be renamed. Very few use "diaspora" in article names, but rather are titled "People of Angolan descent" or "Angolan expatriates in South Africa", etc. Mostly it is just the categories that were given controversial "diaspora" term and which need to be renamed. Please note: IMO, any rename of any article to include the word "diaspora" should be considered a controversial rename, requiring a wp:RM move request. --doncram 00:26, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Request If there are articles or categories that you think should be renamed to exclude "diaspora" from their titles, please specify what they are so that people who edit those pages can be notified of this discussion. Sharktopustalk 02:39, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The same location provides first meanings for the Jewish diaspora, then one that has been more focussed upon in previous discussion: "A dispersion of a people from their original homeland." One key aspect is that term diaspora refers to a whole community (or large portion) being scattered, as would happen in an involuntary expulsion of many due to famine or force, rather than merely the natural departures of a few. I am of the view that "diaspora" is a dramatic term, which does not generally apply. --doncram 18:18, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
When your definition deviates from the dictionary definition you are telling us what the word means to you personally, but we don't engage in original research in Wikipedia, we stick to dictionary definitions when people disagree over meanings. I don't read any indication that the entire population or a certain percentage has to be involved, or "drama". We really shouldn't be deciding on percentage of the population. We just see what reliable sources use when they refer to it. How do we determine drama? The people at Norwegian diaspora wanted to only include populations listed in a book of essays edited by Ember. I say if the New York Times or other reliable sources call it a diaspora, it is. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:46, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Can I ask where you are getting your definition? It diverges from the dictionary definition in Random House and Merriam Webster and the OED that I have access to. I don't know where you are getting "forced emigrations of an entire people". Is that your personal definition or is it from a dictionary that I have not come across? I would say your definition describes the usage in 1881 when the term "diaspora" was first coined in English for the "Jewish Diaspora". Usage has changed in the past 130 years and the New York Times uses "New Orleans diaspora" and "Gay diaspora". So, do we stick to the definition from 130 years ago or use it the way the New York Times does? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:19, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, there are three almost identical definitions in the top three dictionaries. Yes, you can cherry pick an alternate definition from essays and other scholarly papers, and that is why we stick to the dictionary when people disagree. We don't give equal weight to all sources because they are published by someone reliable, we stick to the most reliable source there is for defining any word, the dictionary. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 00:42, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  1. "Dispersal from an original homeland, often traumatically, to two or more foreign regions;
  2. "alternatively or additionally, the expansion from a homeland in search of work, in pursuit of trade or to further colonial ambitions."
So the term does not have to refer to forced scatterings at all. And his work is well-known enough that I used it in my graduate research. Therefore I vote to
As has been discussed in 3 AFDs, that Merriam-Webster definition is interpreted by me and others to mean an actual dispersal of a whole people (or a majority), and DOES NOT APPLY to the Norwegian out-migrations and most other articles now caught up in incorrect categories. The fact that you and others have incorrectly set up 244 categories does not mean you "win". We can and will fix them by renaming them, as part of this CFD or an amended, larger CFD to specifically name all the incorrect usages of "diaspora" that have been applied in your and others' categorizing. In fact, the vast majority of articles within these "diaspora" categories do not use the term "diaspora", so i and others should "win" by removing the categories that obviously do not apply. Why do you want so much to use the term "diaspora", when it is clearly controversial to many other editors? Why not use a general term that is not controversial? --doncram 13:55, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes! and that was why I awarded you the coveted William Jefferson Clinton It depends upon what the meaning of the word 'is' is award for your distinguishing between "people" and "a people" in the definition of diaspora in the dictionary: "the movement, migration, or scattering of a people away from an established or ancestral homeland". In your reading of the definition "a people" means a large percentage of the population. Now we can debate endlessly what "large" is to satisfy your definition. I recommend we just call it a diaspora when a reliable source uses the term. That makes it objective instead of the subjective: was it large enough for Doncram to call it a diaspora. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:25, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There are indeed some WP:RS that define diaspora to mean scattering a large fraction of a population. On the other hand, the many categories and articles with "diaspora" in their titles were created in good faith by a large number of people at different times, most of whom had no inkling that usage would be controversial to anyone. Is there a good clear short synonym for "diaspora" that is not controversial to anybody? Sharktopustalk 00:09, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I just checked my Merriam-Webster and see that it includes the definition "people settled far from their ancestral homeland", which certainly applies to non-emigrant minority communities. I also see that the example they give for "movement, migration or scattering" is "the black diaspora to northern cities". Would "the Great Migration" really be an example of a forced scattering or dispersal? Wouldn't that be just another out-migration? So I'm not sure the dictionary supports the more restrictive definitions. Aristophanes68 (talk) 04:38, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, although i object to the application of the category and its subcategories to most of the articles now within them, this point is logically valid. The category could be kept but nearly emptied, keeping just a few articles about legitimate diasporas such as the Jewish one, the Irish famine one, and a few others, IMO. The overall proposal here should be more specific about renaming all the subcategories that do not actually refer to a real diaspora.
But, despite the fact that a few real diasporas exist and can be included in this category, the real proposal meant is to rename the category and its subcategories so that they can keep all of their contents, about emigrations and emigrant communities and so on, in a broader, accurate term. Maybe the current proposal is not formed correctly to allow for a proper !vote on this decision. --doncram 13:35, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, although if you take a look at diaspora, you'll find reliable sources that use the term in a much wider sense that what you call "real diasporas". Cordless Larry (talk) 13:41, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I still protest that "emigrant communities" is not an accurate term for these groups. Fifth generation Americans of Asian descent are not emigrants in any realistic sense--in fact, to call them emigrants is rather an insult. Diaspora, however, is more neutral and allows for the preservation of customs and ideas over generations. Aristophanes68 (talk) 21:21, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree 100%, it is the best title to cover migration and culture in the new land. I also don't see where the other definitions are coming from that require a "dramatic event" or "forced migration". I think that is a truthiness thing, people feel in their heart that it should mean that, even if the definition is much broader in OED and Merriam-Webster and Random House dictionary. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:11, 10 March 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.

Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: Central Missouri State University

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) 00:02, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: Central Missouri State University to Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: University of Central Missouri
Nominator's rationale: This category should be renamed to reflect new name of school. Tavix |  Talk  22:16, 8 March 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.

Category:US Open Series tournaments

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) 00:03, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:US Open Series tournaments to Category:US Open Series
Nominator's rationale: To match parent category. Armbrust WrestleMania XXVII Undertaker 19–0 22:08, 8 March 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.

Category:Cincinnati Masters

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) 11:59, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Cincinnati Masters to Category:Western & Southern Open
Nominator's rationale: To match parent category. Armbrust WrestleMania XXVII Undertaker 19–0 22:04, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Should be moved to Cincinnati Open at best. Oppose Since the name of the tournament always changes due to sponsors there is no need to use sponsor names. Genric names for categories are great. KnowIG (talk) 09:51, 9 March 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.

Category:Canada Masters

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) 12:01, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Canada Masters to Category:Rogers Cup (tennis)
Nominator's rationale: To match parent category. Armbrust WrestleMania XXVII Undertaker 19–0 22:04, 8 March 2011 (UTC)Should be moved to Canadian Open at best.[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.

Category:Pilot Pen Tennis

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) 00:03, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Pilot Pen Tennis to Category:New Haven Open at Yale
Nominator's rationale: To match parent article. Armbrust WrestleMania XXVII Undertaker 19–0 22:03, 8 March 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.

Category:Indianapolis Tennis Championships

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) 00:03, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Indianapolis Tennis Championships to Category:Atlanta Tennis Championships
Nominator's rationale: To match parent article. Armbrust WrestleMania XXVII Undertaker 19–0 21:57, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support won't be going back to Indy any time soon, unless someone feels that a new category would be more suitable. KnowIG (talk) 09:49, 9 March 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.

Category:Dancing with the Stars (US TV series) participants

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) 00:14, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Dancing with the Stars (US TV series) participants (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. For the "celebrities" (the "Stars" part of the pairings) included in this category, this factoid is not defining. It is not one of the important facts one would think of when considering the life of Buzz Aldrin, Evander Holyfield, or Steve Wozniak, for example. An adequate list exists at List of Dancing with the Stars (U.S.) competitors. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:56, 8 March 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.

Category:Tripolitana

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) 00:04, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:Tripolitana to Category:Tripolitania
Nominator's rationale: Merge. Same thing as Category:Tripolitania just under a different name. Only one should exist, see also Tripolitania. Gryffindor (talk) 21:33, 8 March 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.

Category:Los Angeles Open (tennis)

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) 12:02, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Los Angeles Open (tennis) to Category:Farmers Classic
Nominator's rationale: To match parent category. Armbrust WrestleMania XXVII Undertaker 19–0 19:15, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: I am not sure about the relevant wikipedia naming conventions, but it seems strange to include the sponsor in the title of the category. The sponsor changes every few years, but the tournament is always located in Los Angeles. The category also includes subcategories for each yearly tournament. So the category currently includes Category:2007 Countrywide Classic, Category:2009 LA Tennis Open, and Category:2010 Farmers Classic. It seems strange to include the sponsor of the current year in the category that includes all of these differently named tournaments. Cmcnicoll (talk) 01:00, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It would be interesting to see some comparison of RS usage.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:42, 10 March 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.

Category:Communication engineering

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) 00:04, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Communication engineering to Category:Telecommunications engineering
Nominator's rationale: Communication engineering and Communications system engineering redirect to Telecommunications engineering, which the category's description identifies as the main article. If the three terms refer to the same concept, then we should rename the category to match the main article. If they refer to different concepts, then it is necessary to clarify that and perhaps split the category. I have notified WikiProject Engineering (see here). -- Black Falcon (talk) 18:18, 8 March 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.

Devices by feature

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. Timrollpickering (talk) 00:14, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose deleting
Category:Camera phones (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Universal Mobile Telecommunications System mobile phones (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:USB OTG compatible devices (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Wi-Fi devices (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  • Delete. First, as technology and industry progress, features that were once unusual and notable in devices and which set them apart become commonplace and trivial. In the 1980s, airbags were a luxury item in automobiles; today, they are standard in just about every vehicle manufactured for the industrialized world. A decade ago, "3G" and camera-equipped mobile phones were all the buzz, but today the challenge would be to find a phone without those features. Second, with devices boasting of so many bells and whistles these days, categories are becoming quite cluttered. Evidently Category:Smartphones is not enough; phones are also being added to Category:Digital audio players, Category:Portable media players, and Category:GPS navigation devices (Category:Email devices escaping notice is probably a factor of timing). WP is not a shopping guide or an equipment review site; we should save ourselves the maintenance of "equipment by bell or whistle" categories where possible.- choster (talk) 17:26, 8 March 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.

Category:Experimental design

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) 00:05, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Experimental design to Category:Design of experiments
Nominator's rationale: Rename. To match title of main article and avoid ambiguous meaning. Melcombe (talk) 16:45, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The "ambiguous meaning" seems ambiguous to me. Would you explain the difference between "experimental design" and "design of experiments", please?
There are plenty of books referring to "experimental design", after all.
(I'm guessing that "experimental design" could also refer to avant garde haute couture .... Has this ever been a problem on Wikipedia?) Thanks,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (Discussion) 18:40, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In the experimental design footer, 14 articles have titles with "design" as the terminal noun. Only two have "experiment" as terminal noun:
versus
Notice that, despite its having the advantage of being the article's name, "factorial experiment" doesn't seem clearly preferred to "factorial design", according to the first page returned to " 'factorial design' OR 'factorial experiment' ".  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (Discussion) 20:05, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It seems better to rename "Design of experiments" as Experimental design!  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (Discussion) 18:59, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
An "experimental design" is most obviously a design which is experimental. In all the instances quoted of having "design" at the end, the first part is an adjective. Treating "experimental" as an adjective gives "a design which is experimental". This rationale seems to have been behind the renaming of the old "experimental design" article, a renaming that has been in place for several years (and not instigated by me).Melcombe (talk) 09:56, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Melcombe, could you supply a diff for the change. The move log is empty. I did see QWPFY make a comment similar to yours, about "experimenting in design", which again seems like a straw-man.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (Discussion) 20:16, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Would you please address the proposal to rename to lead article to match the 14 articles using "design" as a noun? Thanks!  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (Discussion) 19:40, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Given that I said I agreed with both reasons set forth by Melcombe, I thought it obvious that I didn't support your rename proposal. The norm is for categories to match the article title, and as Melcombe said, "experimental design" is ambiguous out of context. If you want to rename the article, this is not the forum for doing that; you need to take it up at Talk:Design of experiments. postdlf (talk) 19:49, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As suggested, I have proposed renaming the article to match the related articles better. This proposal should be tabled, pending the outcome of that discussion.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (Discussion) 20:09, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That said, the other arguments seem weak, imho: The present name is more economical, and is consistent with the majority of articles listed on the template. The phrase "experimental design" is established in statistics, and is distinguished from "combinatorial design" and "spherical design" etc.

Melcombe, your imputation seems almost like a willful misreading, which is unlike you. Are you seriously saying that you cannot find "related to experiments" in a decent dictionary under "experimental"! Merriam–Webster 's 2nd meaning for "experimental" is "serving the needs of or used as a means of experimentation". MW gives Melcombe's imputed meaning as the third meaning. Again, I repeat the question to Melcombe: Has anybody been confused by the current terminology on WP?  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (Discussion) 18:38, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That said, renaming or preserving the name would be harmless.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (Discussion) 19:03, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Experimental design" is the title of the books by Frank Yates, by Walter Federer, and Cochran & Cox.
Montgomery's engineering text confuses blocks and treatments, and promotes the inefficient designs of George Box, whose defects are noted by Jeff Wu & Michael Hamada.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (Discussion) 14:15, 10 March 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.

Category:Chardal rabbis in Israel

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) 00:13, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose deleting Category:Chardal rabbis in Israel (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: This categorization is OR and is not supported by verifiable sources. Yoninah (talk) 15:54, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Query surely you are not suggesting that the existence of the Chardal movement is OR, right? So are you then suggesting that the membership of the current Rabbis in the category is OR? In that case, remove them from the category. I don't see how this would be grounds to removing the category itself. Perhaps you can explain better what is the OR element? --Muhandes (talk) 17:53, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, I'll remove the rabbis from the category. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 18:42, 8 March 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.

Category:American Chardal rabbis

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) 00:12, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose deleting Category:American Chardal rabbis (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: This categorization is OR and is not supported by verifiable sources. Yoninah (talk) 15:19, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Per the discussion in Chardal rabbis in Israel, I'm removing the pages that have OR and V issues from the category. Now this category is empty. Yoninah (talk) 18:44, 8 March 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.

Category:Alternative Photographic Processes

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) 00:06, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Alternative Photographic Processes to Category:Alternative photographic processes
Nominator's rationale: Rename to fix capitalization. This would be a speedy candidate but there are two other possibilities. The first is to rename to Category:Alternative processes to match the name of the article alternative process. The other one is to delete and rely only on the list. My preferred option is to simply fix the capitalization because "photographic" avoids any ambiguity. Pichpich (talk) 13:37, 8 March 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.

Category:Books critical of liberalism

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, then prune any that don't fit. Timrollpickering (talk) 00:07, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Books critical of liberalism to Category:Books critical of modern liberalism in the United States
Nominator's rationale: Rename. None of these books are about Liberalism worldwide, they are all about modern liberalism in the United States. --Kevlar (talk • contribs) 12:06, 8 March 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.

Category:Villages in Brazil

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) 00:11, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose deleting Category:Villages in Brazil
Nominator's rationale: Delete as only two members, with most places in Brazil categorized as Category: Populated places in Brazil by state etc. I have added these two villages to the appropriate state category. Hugo999 (talk) 11:52, 8 March 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.

Category:Kidnapped Georgian people

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) 00:07, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Kidnapped Georgian people to Category:Kidnapping victims from Georgia (country)
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Disambiguate the word "Gorgian", per Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 March 10#Category:Georgian people, Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 May 28#Category:Georgian culture and Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 February 14#Category:Georgian society, where other "Georgian" categories were renamed. A simple "Kidnapped people from Georgia (country)", however, would be ambiguous - it would imply that they were kidnapped in Georgia and brought out against their will. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:21, 8 March 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.

Category:Jewish Georgian history

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) 00:07, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Jewish Georgian history to Category:History of the Jews in Georgia (country)
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Per main article in category, and per Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 March 10#Category:Georgian people, Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 May 28#Category:Georgian culture and Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 February 14#Category:Georgian society, where other "Georgian" categories were renamed. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:18, 8 March 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.

Category:Heritage places of Western Australia

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: withdrawn.--Mike Selinker (talk) 18:57, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Heritage places of Western Australia to Category:category:Heritage places on the Western Australia Heritage Register Withdrawn
Nominator's rationale: standardize with category:Heritage places on the Commonwealth Heritage List category:Heritage places on the Northern Territory Heritage Register etc. Muhandes (talk) 09:51, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The proposal below now asks for suggestions for standardization of the names of all categories. --Muhandes (talk) 11:07, 8 March 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.

Category:Victorian Heritage Register sites

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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 18:57, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Victorian Heritage Register sites to Category:Heritage places on the Victoria Heritage Register
Nominator's rationale: standardize with category:Heritage places on the Commonwealth Heritage List category:Heritage places on the Northern Territory Heritage Register etc. Muhandes (talk) 09:49, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I created this category. Weakly oppose the change, but don't really care. Surely short, succinct names are to be treasured. Also, the VHR is more than a list of places, as it also lists objects. Billingd (talk) 10:45, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The proposal just below now asks for suggestions for standardization of the names of all categories. --Muhandes (talk) 11:07, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that discussion moved below. --Muhandes (talk) 06:44, 14 March 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.

Category:Australian National Heritage List

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. It seems like there is the basis for consensus on a recategorization scheme here, but it has not yet crystallized. A new nomination, uncluttered by all the options in this one, might succeed.--Mike Selinker (talk) 18:57, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Australian National Heritage List to Category:Heritage places on the National Heritage List (see below)
Nominator's rationale: standardize with category:Heritage places on the Commonwealth Heritage List category:Heritage places on the Northern Territory Heritage Register etc. Muhandes (talk) 09:47, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose (with the disclaimer that I created the category) I recall putting quite a bit of thought into the name of this category (even down to capitalisation) and concluding that the name I gave it was the best possible; ICI House is a building, not a place, for instance. Might be better to change the other cats; Heritage places on the xxx Heritage list reads rather ugly to my mind (Crusoe8181 (talk) 10:08, 8 March 2011 (UTC)).[reply]
All I want to do is standardize the 7 categories, so I went by majority. If someone can propose a better alternative:
* Category:Australian National Heritage List
* Category:Heritage places of Western Australia
* Category:Heritage places on Queensland Heritage Register
* Category:Heritage places on Register of the National Estate
* Category:Heritage places on the Commonwealth Heritage List
* Category:Heritage places on the Northern Territory Heritage Register
* Category:Victorian Heritage Register sites
Does "X sites" sound better? --Muhandes (talk) 10:27, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Victorian register uses "sites" or "places and objects"; UNESCO use World Heritage Site and WP has Category:World Heritage Sites and Category:World_Heritage_Sites_in_Australia, so I used sites. I don't have a strong opinion, though. Billingd (talk) 11:54, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We could keep this title and "standardize" the others by naming the categories after the corresponding register

Category:Australian National Heritage List

* Category:Western Australian Register of Heritage Places
* Category:Queensland Heritage Register
* Category:Register of the National Estate
* Category:Commonwealth Heritage List
* Category:Northern Territory Heritage Register
* Category:Victorian Heritage Register
and so on. Billingd (talk) 12:11, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer the "Sites on ..." formula but as above that would be an alternative. Johnbod (talk) 12:23, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think "Sites on the X" is the best suggestion so far. A category named after the register itself does not seem right and cannot be easily subcategorized later, where "Site on the X" can later be subcategorized as "Site on the X in Y" or as, say "Lighthouses on the X" etc. --Muhandes (talk) 15:37, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"site" is surely exactly right for a now dismantled bridge? And the floodgates are not "places" either. One can't always meet every item exactly in names. I agree about the main cat, as said above. Johnbod (talk) 22:20, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to summarize where we stand and see how we can move forward to consensus. My original proposal is now withdrawn, as there are two much better ones. One proposal is to use the register name as the name of the category. The second is "Sites on the ..." or "... site". I see some opposition to the second proposal and no real opposition so far for the first. Is this a fair assessment? --Muhandes (talk) 16:28, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The register name is the most appropriate category structure, though the addition of a locator would not be an issue ie National heritage register --> Australian National heritage register also noting that state registers aren't subserviant to the national register they have different criteria. Gnangarra 10:42, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Buildings and structures by heritage register (global)
Category:Buildings in Canada by heritage register (national)
Category:Buildings in Alberta by heritage register (sub-national / regional)
Category:Buildings in Edmonton by heritage register (local)
Categories referring to a specific heritage register (such as Category:National Historic Sites in Alberta or Category:Provincial Historic Resources of Alberta) become sub-categories of the tree. Please consider creating Australian national and state branches from this tree. --Kevlar (talk • contribs) 11:02, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
except that as stated above not all listings on Australian heritage registers are of place or buildings, to categorise under a structurethat works for other countries just doesnt make sense for the Australian ones. Gnangarra 10:42, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A bridge or floodgate isn't a building or a structure? If not, what is it? --Kevlar (talk • contribs) 06:18, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Floodgate is an object, it not in place but a preserved reminent in a museum, Eureka Flag is an object, then theres the Dingo Flour sign, CSIRAC, Skipping girl sign....the ship HMVS Cerberus, or the Day of Mourning, Eureka Rebellion and so on... what ever the result the Australian register is not exclusively buldings nor even just locations it recognises much more than that, any category structure/naming should be inclusive. Gnangarra 09:45, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In that case you need sub-categories for buildings/structures and for smaller items. --Kevlar (talk • contribs) 06:01, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I would be happy with Billingd's suggestion, so have relisted below (perhaps List could be added to some) - succint, don't need places or sites (as they are called in Australia). Kevlar's cat tree may well be OK, but would need to select from the articles rather than have the Australian cats fit the tree (Crusoe8181 (talk) 11:33, 16 March 2011 (UTC)).[reply]
*Category:Australian National Heritage List
* Category:Western Australian Register of Heritage Places
* Category:Queensland Heritage Register
* Category:Register of the National Estate '''of Australia'''
* Category:Commonwealth Heritage List
* Category:Northern Territory Heritage Register
* Category:Victorian Heritage Register
Comment - I find it strange that the cats are being tailored to an external category issue - without taking any cognisance that movable objects are implicit in most levels of heritage description in Australia - and I would strongly support Crusoes considered comment that the need to select from the articles rather than have the Australian cats fit the tree is actually carried out with due process and consideration SatuSuro 13:14, 16 March 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.

Category:For-profit universities and colleges

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, and then recreate the main category. It is much easier to do this by bot first, then put the outliers back.--Mike Selinker (talk) 18:57, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:For-profit universities and colleges to Category:For-profit universities and colleges in the United States
Nominator's rationale: Merge. There are hundreds of entries, the majority of which are in the United States. Renaming the category (and re-creating the larger category later) is easier than re-categorizing each entry. --Kevlar (talk • contribs) 09:12, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes but can't a bot do that? --Kevlar (talk • contribs) 10:49, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If that's easier, then go ahead and I will withdraw my proposal. --Kevlar (talk • contribs) 10:48, 12 March 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.

Category:Walkers brands

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 match the article, revisit if that is moved. Timrollpickering (talk) 00:08, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Walkers brands to Category:Walkers (snack foods) brands
Nominator's rationale: Rename. I suggest renaming this categories to match Walkers (snack foods). There is a convention that a category for a company's products should match the article name for the company. There are other meanings of Walkers that the category name could be confused with, like Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:00, 8 March 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.

Category:Sharp

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) 00:09, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Sharp to Category:Sharp Corporation
Propose renaming Category:Sharp products to Category:Sharp Corporation products
Propose renaming Category:Sharp mobile phones to Category:Sharp Corporation mobile phones
Nominator's rationale: Rename. I suggest renaming these categories; they are about Sharp Corporation, not anything else that could be called "Sharp". There is a convention that a category for a company and a company's products should match the article name for the company. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:18, 8 March 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.

Category:Sara Lee

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 the Sara Lee spellings. Timrollpickering (talk) 00:09, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Sara Lee to Category:Sarah Lee Corporation Category:Sara Lee Corporation
Propose renaming Category:Sara Lee brands to Category:Sarah Lee Corporation brands Category:Sara Lee Corporation brands
Nominator's rationale: Rename. I suggest renaming these categories; they are about Sara Lee Corporation, not a person named Sara Lee. There is a convention that a category for a company and a company's brands should match the article name for the company. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:14, 8 March 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.

Category:R. J. Reynolds

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) 00:10, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:R. J. Reynolds to Category:R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company
Propose renaming Category:R.J. Reynolds brands to Category:R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company brands
Nominator's rationale: Rename. I suggest renaming these categories; they are about R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, not the person R. J. Reynolds. There is a convention that a category for a company and a company's brands should match the article name for the company. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:09, 8 March 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.

Category:Post Cereals brands

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) 00:10, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Post Cereals brands to Category:Post Foods brands
Nominator's rationale: Rename. I suggest renaming this brand category to match Post Foods. The company is sometimes called "Post Cereals" and Post Cereals redirects there. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:03, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
query. Have they all always been Post Cereals brands? Johnbod (talk) 03:04, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No. Shredded wheat is one example. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:29, 8 March 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.
More