< January 7 January 9 >

January 8

Category:Victims of school bullying

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. However, I do see a consensus to changing the inclusion criteria for the category, since no one seems to think 'at least once' is a good criterion. So I will have a go at changing the wording myself: This page lists people who have notably been victims of persistent school bullying. I invite others to help change the wording if they want to. Also, I think it would be a good idea for victims currently listed in category:school bullying to be moved to this category, and any articles that no longer meet the new criteria to be removed, so I will list this page at WP:CFDWM for people to check out. delldot ∇. 19:11, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - School bullying is specifically mentioned as relevant to the suicide in the articles for the suiciders in Category:School bullying.--Penbat (talk) 06:33, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, but there is always a pattern of bullying that is relevant to the self-harm episodes. Kids don't get pushed around once or receive a single text and then self-harm. (Note that suicide is just one outcome and that other forms of self-harm are also outcomes that are of equal importance.) Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:36, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - only people who got severe school bullying with severe consequences would qualify for this category but that doesnt mean they necessarily have to kill themselves.--Penbat (talk) 18:35, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, but that's not what the category definition says. If you can come up with a succinct and clear definition that covers this more restricted intention, then I could be persuaded to change my !vote. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 01:13, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - i dont support merging with Category:Bullycide one reason being that bullycide wouldnt necessarily have to be for school. The argument about whether bullycide is a valid word has already been thrashed out ad nauseum at bullycide and isnt worth going into here.--Penbat (talk) 18:27, 10 January 2013 (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:Wikipedia:Hoaxes

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:Wikipedia hoaxes. delldot ∇. 18:46, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Overly small category, and it looks ugly with the two colons. The suspected hoax category does the job just fine. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 19:49, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"it looks ugly with the two colons." I don't get your point.
"The suspected hoax category does the job just fine." What about the categorization of proven hoaxes? "Overly small category" In this case we can merge Category:Wikipedia suspected hoax articles and Category:Wikipedia:Hoaxes. There is no reasaon not to reflect, in the categorization system, the link between proven hoaxes, suspected hoaxes, and administrative pages or templates about hoaxes. Apokrif (talk) 20:06, 8 January 2013 (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:Hotels completed in the 19th century

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge as nominated. The longer name "hotel buildings" provides clarity for those buildings that have had other uses, and is distinguished from Category:Hotels by year of establishment. The parent Category:Hotels by year of opening is misleading as it contains the nominated category and others by year of completion, not opening ( = establishment) as a hotel; this CFD should suffice for a WP:C2C speedy merge of its sub-cats into the corresponding sub-cats of Category:Hotel buildings by year of completion, after which it can be deleted. – Fayenatic London 18:49, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Merge. The proposed targets exist in many cases and provide a clearer name. There was another discussion that changed the parent of these to hotels opened in.... I started this duplicate branch when I got a new computer and lost my browser history. When you are working with 'Industrial buildings', 'Commercial buildings', 'Government buildings', 'Masonic buildings', 'Religious buildings' and the like it is easy to say 'Hotel buildings'. Having gone through several thousand 19th century articles, I have seen a good deal of what exists out there. In some cases the buildings used for hotels are converted from other uses, so opened and built are different dates. In other cases they are shared use. Then you have hotels when buildings are added over time including some with thousands of rooms. So listing the building component itself is logical. When the company that runs the hotel opens it, that is listed as being established in many articles. When the building ceases to function as a hotel it is disestablished and the building is converted to a different use, commonly a 'Residential building'. When the building is torn down, we have the demolished building tree to match the completed one. The hotels completed categories have additional parents, a function of different timing rather then simple copy and paste. I suppose that another option would be to split these into both completed and opened categories. However, after looking at the contents, there are a number of these where those two dates are not the same, even for purpose built buildings. One additional point, again based on the article content. In the vast majority of cases, these buildings are notable as a result of listings on historical registers. As such, virtually everything is about the building and little if anything is about the operation of the company or service. So making this clear seems to be reasonable. Of course, some will point out that there are exceptions where the articles cover the operation of the hotel. Those are easily addressed by the 'Hotels established' tree. Articles can be in multiple trees. I know there are cases where the building was completed in year 1, opened as a hotel in year 2, the hotel shut down later and the building was converted to another use in year 57. We also have buildings that were built for another use and opened later as a hotel and clearly these can not be classified in the hotels completed tree but go in the established tree. If this passes, the 'by year categories' and the next two centuries will need to be processed, probably by speedy. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:59, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge both as Category:Hotels opened in the 19th century. The grandparent to this is Category:Hotels by year of opening. This avoids the problem of the gentleman's mansion of 1830 that became a hotel in 1830, converted to a hotel in 1995. This will belong in "hotels opened in 1995" and "buildings and structures completed in 1830". We have a whole tree of "hotels completed in xxxx", they all need renaming to deal with this issue. I thought we had had this discussion at least once before. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:15, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This tree has absolutely nothing to do with when the building opened, other then generally a building does not open until you completed the building. ((infobox building)) has two parameters of interest here, completion_date and opened_date. This clearly shows that the two are not the same. When talking about when the establishment opened, then these are classified in the establishments tree. These three events are not the the same and trying to the mix them up does not help. I have to wonder if establishment means something different in other variations of English and that is the cause of the confusion here. A building is completed and opened. A business is established and opened. A hotel as a business occupies a building and is established and opened. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:45, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
One additional point that I noticed cleaning up categories today. Opened is completely misleading when you have a hotel that opens in say 1961 in a building built as a house in 1879. Opened in Category:Hotels opened in 1961 is a duplicate of Category:Hotels established in 1961. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:54, 15 January 2013 (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:A. R. Rahman

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. delldot ∇. 04:44, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Too little content. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:32, 8 January 2013 (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:Film soundtracks by nationality

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. delldot ∇. 04:47, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Confusing and not useful scheme. This is not Category:Soundtracks by artist nationality, which is implied by the name, but soundtracks by the film's country of origin (that is, the country in which the film was produced). How is this a useful scheme for navigation? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:21, 8 January 2013 (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:Persistent organic pollutants

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 January 23#Category:Persistent organic pollutants. – Fayenatic London 21:25, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The definition of this category is ambiguous. We have Category:Persistent Organic Pollutant under the Stockholm Convention that is clearly defined. Leyo 16:39, 8 January 2013 (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:Synods

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: split and repurpose as disambiguation page for Category:Ecclesiastical provinces, Category:Christian church councils and Category:Governing assemblies of religious organizations. – Fayenatic London 22:13, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The category contains three types of things, and the articles only share the fact that they are called synods: territories of church denominations (such as members of Category:Evangelical Lutheran Church in America synods) which belong in Category:Ecclesiastical provinces, church councils which belong in Category:Christian church councils and it's subcats, and governing bodies of Christian denominations (such as General Synod of the Church of England), which seems to be the purpose of Category:Legislatures of non-governmental organizations, which will probably be renamed (see discussion below). JFHutson (talk) 16:04, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't think of that. Yep, that would work. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 01:15, 11 January 2013 (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:Orangemen

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:Members of the Orange Order. delldot ∇. 04:59, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose renaming Category:Orangemen to Category:Orange Order people
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Orangemen is ambiguous, but this category is for people who are in the Orange Order. (Category format matched from Category:Knights of Columbus people, which is also in Category:Fraternalists.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:48, 8 January 2013 (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:Kyoto

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. delldot ∇. 19:26, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. I lived in Kyoto and certainly within Japan anyway 'Kyoto' refers equaly to both the prefecture (Category:Kyoto Prefecture) and city - people almost never say simply 'Kyoto' but either 'Kyoto-fu' or 'Kyoto-shi' . Mayumashu (talk) 03:43, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Having just now put it forward, though it means challenging suggested naming convention for Japan (as a number of the larger cities share names with 'their' prefectures). Trouble is there is both local common usage and Western common usage (from afar) - locally people don't use simply 'Kyoto' as it utterly ambiguous but anglophones and likely most other westerners use the word with just the city in mind, as its more famous. Anyway... Mayumashu (talk) 09:53, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's an interesting dilemma when there is a local usage and a non-local usage. I suppose one needs to focus in on what is the English common usage for the English WP. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:14, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that English common usage should trump, and 99.999% I wouldn't know of the local usage, so it wouldn't 'get to me'. Well, my rename of the article to Kyoto (city) has survived a day now without being reverted! Mayumashu (talk) 00:24, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
True, but there is a discussion now to have it moved back. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:27, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, just got the news. I still think category names should have an extra layer of clarity and not be subject to WP:Commonname, but that's a minority view, I know. Mayumashu (talk) 02:58, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hear, hear! Mayumashu (talk) 09:40, 13 January 2013 (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:Legislatures of non-governmental organizations

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: someone has gone ahead and created Category:Governing assemblies of religious organizations, and it seems like that is where consensus was headed. However, since this process was somewhat short-circuited by the early creation, if someone would like to nominate this new category for a rename, feel free to do so. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:21, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose renaming Category:Legislatures of non-governmental organizations to Category:Legislatures of religious organizations I am making this proposal because all the articles placed in this category are related to the legislative bodies of religious groups. --Devin Murphy (talk) 20:54, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
revoted below. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:31, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Peterkingiron you make a good point, these articles are not in the strictest scene really about legislatures of religious bodies but rather governing assemblies of varying kinds of religious bodies. So I would be happy to go with "Category:Governing assemblies of religious bodies" or even "Category:Governing assemblies of religious organizations" for the new name of the category. But I think "Governing assemblies of Christian denominations" is to narrow a category as it would require we remove both "World Zionist Congress" and "General Assembly (Unitarian Universalist Association)" from this category and this category is rather sparsely populated at the moment. That being said, I do think it has the potential to be widely populated and of great use. --Devin Murphy (talk) 05:34, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: Relisting so rename proposals mentioned above can be considered.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:17, 8 January 2013 (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