< January 15 January 17 >

January 16

Category:Former named state highways in Oregon

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: Listify and delete. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:41, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: We don't normally categorize things like roads by whether they are named or not. The category text "This category contains former names..." suggests some confusion between categories and lists. For info: This is the only "Former named..." category in EnWP. The category's contents are almost all redirects. The two articles currently in this category are in other Category:Roads in Oregon categories. DexDor (talk) 22:02, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't categorized by whether they're named, as all state highways in Oregon are named. See List of named state highways in Oregon and Oregon highways and routes. At the very least, if this is deleted, the former names should be added to that list. --NE2 22:12, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted from CFD 2013 November 21 to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: Can anyone clarify what exactly this category is for? Is for state highways which used to be named? Named highways which are now defunct? And either way, why should it be an exception to the long-established principle of not splitting items by "current" and "former" status? Or why it shoukd be an exception to WP:OC#SHAREDNAMES: "Avoid categorising by a subject's name when it is a non-defining characteristic of the subject, or by characteristics of the name rather than the subject itself"?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:52, 16 January 2014 (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:Eminia

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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:45, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. I didn't realize I could request a category be moved to a new name, and created Category:Eminia (bird) to replace Category:Eminia (which is now empty). Eminia is the name for both a bird genus and a plant genus, so the original category name was ambiguous. I'm not sure whether a category for the bird genus is useful. There is only one species in the genus, so the category is unlikely to ever contain more than one article (my experience is mostly with plants related topics, not birds, but we don't create categories for a single plant article). If both Eminia categories are deleted, Grey-capped Warbler should be categorized in Category:Cisticolidae (the next higher taxonomic category) Plantdrew (talk) 23:44, 16 January 2014 (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:World War II prisoners of war held by Finland

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 (withdrawn by nominator). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:42, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Single entry, unlikely to be populated with other names. – S. Rich (talk) 18:32, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. "Established series"? I don't understand. The category has one entry. (Perhaps you mean the other similar subcategories for WWII prisoners of war, but this particular category is unlikely to be populated with more names.) Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 19:16, 17 January 2014 (UTC) 19:23, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
By OP: I'm seeing a pattern (and logic) for keeping. Please close this CFD as a keep. (And thanks to both of you for helping me learn more about this aspect of WP.) – S. Rich (talk) 20:12, 17 January 2014 (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:Pentecostal clergy

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. The Bushranger One ping only 06:56, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. "Pastor" is the usual word for religious leaders within pentecostal churches; "clergy" is hardly ever used. – Fayenatic London 19:17, 16 January 2014 (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:Methodist clergy by denomination

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:

That is to say, as per Fayentic london's last comment. There seems to general consensus that some change is needed, and the investigation of the facts reveals that on this occasion it is necessary to follow a non-consistent Wikipedia approach in order to reflect the actual facts of differences around the world. -Splash - tk 22:54, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Rename per parent Category:Methodist ministers and precedent decision at CFD 2013 June 5.
Note that another editor has objected to the preceding renames at Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion#Speedy Deletion of category for Methodist Ministers, on the grounds that In the Methodist church, all members of the church are declared "ministers" (as the church believes that the act of "ministry" is the responsibility of everyone). If the above renames are not supported, this CfD should alternatively have the outcome to Reverse previous renaming of parent and siblings, i.e. rename Category:Methodist ministers tree from "ministers" back to "clergy".
Neverthless it is my opinion that all the Methodist clergy categories should use the word "minister" because:
  1. articles on Methodist religious leaders predominantly use the word "minister" rather than e.g. "clergyman" or "pastor";
  2. in practice there is no problem with understanding the phrase "Methodist ministers";
  3. each category page can explain that it is for ordained ministers rather than all church members;
  4. adjacent to the 2013 CfD linked above is a discussion on Baptists which was open for three months, partly for the same objection given above, and was nevertheless closed as "ministers", so the objection is not new;
  5. the Methodism work group was notified in 2013 and made no comment.
– Fayenatic London 18:34, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am not aware of Methodist usage in other countries. However, this does suggest that it might be appropriate to use different term for difft Methodist churches. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:57, 16 January 2014 (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:Anti-Muslim 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: delete. The Bushranger One ping only 06:57, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: It is inherently subjective to call an organization anti-muslim, especially when most of these organizations themselves would not claim to be so - rather they would claim to be focused on protecting rights of their (native) citizens, or they may register their opposition to radical islam (which is not the same thing as anti-muslim). Just like we don't have anti-gay organizations or anti-black organizations, we should not have this category. I'm not sure if a tree of Category:Organizations opposed to radical Islam is workable; we should in general categorize such groups by what they are for, and less so for what they are against, especially if they themselves don't embrace such labels. Category:Anti-communist organizations is a different beast, for example, as most such organizations would proudly claim themselves to be against communism (a political ideology), but few organizations would proudly proclaim themselves to be anti- a whole religion.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:52, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
See related CFD at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_December_16#Category:Anti-Catholic_organizations and older CFD at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2011_February_9#Bias_categories.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:02, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Also note, there is a category tree of Category:Opposition_to_Islam_by_country_or_region into which some of these above could be selectively merged if appropriate, in cases where the defining objective of the organization in question is indeed to Oppose islamization (such as several European groups).--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:27, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am not saying we should take their claims for granted, I'm simply saying that these categories can and have been used as attack categories, and the 2011 CFD was clear that we should not brand organizations with such labels. The contents of such cats and other anti-religion cats demonstrates this quite clearly. The way to discuss anti-Muslim/anti-Islam/anti-Islamization sentiment is in the text of the article not through categories - categories, esp set categories, should not be used if there is dispute or contention around a label. There are many reliable sources that call Desmond Tutu an anti-Semite but that doesn't mean we should create an anti-Semites category and populate it with anyone who has been so branded.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 12:48, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You shouldn't really shift the examples to individuals or where the source is a non-significant minority (I think the balance of reliable sources is clearly against Tutu being labeled an anti-Semite so that's a specifically non-useful example). But if there's a consensus against categorizing this way I won't oppose changing something here. But there are many here that clearly self-identify as being against some form of Islam, and a merge toward something like anti-Communism or Category:Organizations_that_oppose_same-sex_marriage where it organizes by what these groups notably have in common and have claimed themselves. __ E L A Q U E A T E 14:55, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's the whole problem though - Tutu is a great example, because we can find oodles of RS that call him anti-Semitic, and I could give you many other names and many other organizations that would be in the same boat. When I last looked at this I was able to find 10 within a short time frame. For the purposes of categorization, how do you decide whether X is anti-muslim? One source calling them that? Several? What happens if a minority or sources disagree? BHG nails this point below. The same applies to organizations - one can easily find sources that call various far-right political groups anti-gay, anti-semitic, anti-muslim, anti-catholic, etc, but other sources, and the orgs themselves, will dispute those claims. As I mentioned above, merging some of them to the topic (not set) subcategories of Category:Opposition_to_Islam_by_country_or_region is more reasonable, as here you're not saying "Organization X is anti-muslim", rather you're saying "Organization X is associated with the opposition to islam or islamization in Europe", which is a less contentious and more easily agreed upon claim.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:02, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Categories are not nuanced; an article is either included or excluded. Just how anti-muslim does an organisation need to be for inclusion? At one extreme, it's easy to point to the existence of groups which advocate ethnic cleansing; but at the other extreme, an animal-rights group opposing halal slaughter may find itself being labelled that way. Leaving it to editorial discretion is WP:OC#SUBJECTIVE, and trying to define a threshold is WP:OC#ARBITRARY.
  2. Any "anti-X" label is a POV, and per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV, any such value judgement should be attributed and opposing viewpoints also noted and attributed. A category entry allows no footnotes or attribution or qualification; we have no technical means of looking at a category listing and seeing Group A's entry annotated "X calls them anti-Mulsim, but Y and Z strongly disagree"
Elaqueate says that we should follow "what reliable sources say". Not quite; WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV is more subtle than that. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:30, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • PS: WP:ASSERT is also relevant here. It stresses that Wikipedia should assert facts rather than opinions. Applying that to this case, the statement "Y is anti-muslim" is an opinion, but "X describes Y as anti-muslim" is a fact. Categorising an organisation as "anti-X" is opinion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:04, 17 January 2014 (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:Anti-Islam works

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. This debate is very unsatisfactory, I'm sorry. The nomination is conditioned on this being an attack category. There is a total absence of evidence for that, and no-one goes on to agree with the suggestion. I cannot find any suggestion that being placed in this category is intended to attack the subject. I would furthermore reject the nominator's later argument that being in a category on Wikipedia is a black mark against something - this seems far over-stated to me (excepting some possible BLP cases). I interpret Elaqueate's comment as not being in favour of deletion. Peterkingiron is suggesting that the possible rename mentioned in the nomination is possible, so this seems broadly neutral, but not clearly in favour of outright deletion. Therefore, in the round, I cannot construe this debate as having consensus to delete. A better argued case would be needed. -Splash - tk 22:35, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Similar to Category:Racist works, this category is seemingly to be used as an attack category to label certain works as anti-islam. Of the contents, one is a satirical video game where Muslims are killed, the other two are more like critical commentaries on Islam and can't really be described as anti-islam. I think we should trim the tree of such categories as membership is subjective. Category:Works critical of Islam could be a possible rename and reframing. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:44, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Antisemitic works is another one that needs to be dealt with accordingly. Again, the question is, what if the sources disagree? There is a ton of back and forth that I found in quick searching on all of the current contents. Not all sources agree, in fact there is much debate. All good fodder for an article, but terrible for a category, especially if the category itself serves as a black mark on the work in question.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:09, 17 January 2014 (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:Ukrainian music outside of Ukraine

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. -Splash - tk 22:38, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There is no scheme of Category:Ethnic music by diaspora. These can be upmerged with nothing lost in terms of navigation. Individual musicians can be categorized by immigrant/emigrant/expatriate status. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:56, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is part of the widely-used scheme [genre] music by country. Ukrainian music is not exactly the same as music of Ukraine.
Maybe the contents should be recategorized by individual countries. Or maybe we need an organized framework to accommodate such geo/ethnic/genre categories: Category:Yemenite Jewish songs, Category:Jewish musicians by nationality, Category:Canadian Celtic music, Category:Swedish bluegrass musicians.
Dropping this category would drop the categorization of ensembles, choirs and bands, right? Also, for example, of Ukrainian music made by musicians born and making music in Canada. —Michael Z. 2014-01-16 20:58 z
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:Aboriginal Australian health

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, or at least, keep as re-arrangd. -Splash - tk 22:40, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The scope of this category is not limited to health topics that affect Aboriginal Australians only. It also includes articles about topics affecting Torres Strait Islanders, and so this category need not remain separate from its parent for all Indigenous Australians. (Category creator notified using Template:Cfd-notify) -- Black Falcon (talk) 04:28, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted from 2013 December 22 to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:30, 16 January 2014 (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:Racist works

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. The Bushranger One ping only 07:02, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Past categories on racist people and racist organizations have been deleted, so I think category should also be so, because inclusion criteria is subjective. Arguably, many films and books, especially in earlier eras, exhibited racist tendencies of one sort or another, and of course one can find racism or accusations of racism in many modern works as well. While admittedly the current contents are rather extreme examples, there isn't a clear line we can draw between these and classics like Gone with the Wind, which made the list of top 10 racist films of all time [3]. To avoid the subjectivity we should simply delete this category. We should also consider the antisemitic works category, but separately. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:50, 16 January 2014 (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:Kōji Seo

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. The Bushranger One ping only 07:03, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There is not enough existing content about this person to warrant an eponymous category. With the exception of the biography, all other content is categorized in Category:Works by Kouji Seo. (Category creator notified using Template:Cfd-notify) -- Black Falcon (talk) 01:51, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted from 2013 December 22 to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:48, 16 January 2014 (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.

Group or groups discographies

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 plurals as nominated. This is rather a thin debate for its purpose, and I agree with the analysis by LazyBastardGuy (the singular is much better to my British English tongue). Each discography belongs to a single group, and the plural form has not been made possessive, so the singular is right. -Splash - tk 22:44, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose renaming either
Use singular:
Use plural:
Nominator's rationale. Procedural nomination. I have no preference yet, but we should standardise on the use of either the singular or plural form. I am unsure which is grammatically correct.
(This is followup to the no-consensus outcome of CFD 2013 December 22). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:21, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
WikiProject Discographies has been notified. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)
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:Murdered Persian monarchs

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: NO CONSENSUS. There is no convergence to one outcome here, but perhaps Peterkingiron's suggestion is worth trying out in a Wikiproject. -Splash - tk 22:55, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose renaming Category:Murdered Persian monarchs to Category:Murdered Iranian monarchs -- Many of the kings of Iran were not of Persian origin only, there were also kings of Dailamite and Parthian origin.. etc.

Please take a look here: Iranian peoples. Parthians, Dailamites..etc.. are not Persians, they are Iranians, which is a not a synonym and everyone knows that. Well, almost everyone does. --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:17, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, a one point called Persia in the West. You can't call people like the Sogdians, Dailamites and Parthians for Persians. That's like calling the Kurds for Persians. --Mossadegh-e Mihan-dust (talk) 19:15, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted from CFD 2013 December 23 to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:32, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
WikiProject Iran has been notified. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:51, 16 January 2014 (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:Persian noble families

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: not renamed. The Bushranger One ping only 07:04, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone? --HistoryofIran (talk) 15:12, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No it does not? so you are saying that other Iranian groups like Dailamites, Sogdians, Parthians, Medians (Medes) were called for Persians? well, then i must tell you that you are wrong. Take a look here Iranian peoples and here Persian people. You see? not the same. Also take a look on this Kurdish people, Lurs, Gilaki people. --HistoryofIran (talk) 17:33, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hello again. First, please indent your replies properly. Second, language use might deviate from logical rules; one needs to learn English as it is used, not according to one's own logic. "Persian" and "Persia" are not the same thing. (At least, not at pragmatics level.) Metonymy is often used in English. These group that you mentioned, might or might not be Persians, but they certainly are part of the Persia's history.
But, perhaps another user can provide an oversight. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 00:08, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted from CFD 2013 December 25 to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:44, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
WikiProject Iran has been notified. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:50, 16 January 2014 (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 Czech astronauts

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. The only !voter supported the nomination, but the category was not tagged, so other editors were not notified. That means there can be no valid consensus. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:48, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I propose to rename Category: Czech astronauts to Category: Czech cosmonauts to fit with similar categories and common use. The Czech language term is kosmonaut, astronaut is used for the Americans. There is just one (Vladimír Remek) plus his substitute who never flew into the space. English written articles about Remek typically use the term cosmonaut, e.g. few days ago here. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 12:41, 16 January 2014 (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.

Conductors (music)

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: not renamed. The Bushranger One ping only 07:09, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming:
Nominator's rationale: Hi, I recently saw these categories like, Category:21st-century conductors (music) and realized maybe its time to call them just Category:21st-century conductors and X-conductors? You see, there are no notable train conductors on Wikipedia (unless I am mistaken). Either way, it seems that when searching for a specific music conductor there is only one category either Category:X-century conductors or Category:X-conductors (like Category:Russian conductors (music) for example). Like whats the point of (music) addition if there are no Category:Russian train conductors for example. And yes, I did read the previous discussions, but I believe that consensus have overlooked those instances. I don't mind for the main Category:Conductors to exist, but the rest like Category:X-century conductors should go without (music). Your opinion on it will be welcome!--Mishae (talk) 00:45, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Beeswaxcandle: I personally surprised that you are saying exactly the same thing as I am, and yet you oppose it. When I hear the word conductor outside of Wikipedia, yes I think of a train one (because in Russian the train conductor will be the same). Yet, when I am here, I think of musical conductor right away, and I don't need the extra (music) to inform me like I am a dummy.--Mishae (talk) 02:16, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Reply @Mishae: I am opposing on the basis of the established classification convention that a disambiguation page title should not be used as a category name because of the requirement to match category name to primary topic name. I see the consistent application of this convention as more important then the occasional use of a disambiguator I don't like because it enables users of the category classification to know exactly where they are and removes any chance of confusion. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 08:26, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Beeswaxcandle: Confusion? Where? By clicking on a category say Category:American conductors people get confused? How? As far as Classification Convention goes, give me a link, I would like to suggest them that too. I personally believe that in the current situation we should ignore the classification convention ruling because while its good and I applaud to it, the current ruling shouldn't be a part of subcategories issue that we are talking about.--Mishae (talk) 15:03, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note to whoever renamed the section: By renaming the section from my title to which ever you preferred I think you confused more people into believing that I was talking about the main category not its subsections.--Mishae (talk) 15:03, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It was me that renamed it, as one step in tidying up a nomination which wasn't formatted in the conventional way. The heading doesn't need to describe the indicate scope of the nomination; it just needs to indicate the subject area. The list of categories makes it quite clear what categories would be renamed under this proposal. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:07, 23 January 2014 (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:English-language unisex given names

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. The mixture of merge and delete, where these are expressed as non-overlapping, means that I cannot see a consensus around any outcome here. I think the best thing is to follow BrownHairedGirl's advice, and start with the parent categories, using that CfD as either an umbrella or a test case (probably the former). -Splash - tk 22:51, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Merge. Identical category topics, being split being two exclusive sets of articles; suggest merging to 'English unisex given names' as that fits with the titles of the respective '[French/Spanish] unisex given name' categories. anaphysik (talk) 00:17, 16 January 2014 (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