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.
Nominator's rationale: This category contains competitions which are a series or grouping of races. The "competition" modifier is a better fit than the current "races" one. SFB 20:19, 14 June 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:Actors who played fictionalized versions of themselves
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. No objection to making a list if the info is sourced; here is a link to the bot's contribs emptying the category. – FayenaticLondon 23:03, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Propose deletingCategory:Actors who played fictionalized versions of themselves (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
WP:OC#PERF: An actor playing a fictionalized versions of oneself is not simply a performance. It also involves how the media work explores the image of the actor perceived by the public, and more importantly how the actor is willing to let fiction affect the actor's image.
WP:DEFINING: Suggestion: Change this category to Category:Actors who played distinguishing fictionalized versions of themselves so that the actors in this category can be separated from those who have done only regular guest and cameo appearances.
WP:OC#TRIVIAL: For the past couple of decades, there have been more actors who have been willing to appear in fictional media work. Some are for comedic purposes and some also let the audience to get to know more about the personal and occupational aspects of those actors, and also about the industry. These actors play a significant role in unveiling the entertainment industry to the general public.
Oppose: I'd like more elaboration on your part, Lugnuts. Wavingdragon (talk) 14:43, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Any category whose name begins "Actors who played..." fails WP:OC#PERF. I suspect this'll be another case where only the category creator can't see the flaws in the category. DexDor (talk) 20:23, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: It is obvious "Actors who played fictionalized versions of themselves" is a lot more than "Actors who played... (any roles)". I hope that you are not conveniently overlooking my earlier comments, DexDor. Wavingdragon (talk) 22:21, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No it's still categorizing by performance. And only one !vote per editor please - see other CFD discussions for examples of how to respond to comments. DexDor (talk) 04:34, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
For the performance thing, read my response to Obiwankenobi below.
And PLEASE stop striking out my oppositions. A voting is a voting and a discussion is a discussion. If this was a voting, why would there be any need for a discussion? Why don't people in Wikipedia just make decisions by tyrannical whims? Mixing these two up is some of the most underhanded thing a person can do. Your act makes me wonder if you are trying to downplay oppositions not desired by you with tricks. And let me stop you from further drawing on seeing other CFD DISCUSSIONS for examples. It is only natural a bold-face "Delete" met by a bold-face "Oppose". I do not appreciate your trick. Wavingdragon (talk) 06:05, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:OC#PERF. And from reading the category description, who determines whether an actor's appearance is important to the plot? Kennethaw88 • talk 22:58, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: I've early on suggested to change the category to Category:Actors who played distinguishing fictionalized versions of themselves. So here is the category description: This category includes actors who have played fictionalized versions of themselves which are distinguished from their public images.Wavingdragon (talk) 00:25, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
'delete I agree that this is performance by performer - we shouldn't categorize performers by roles they performed - or in this case, the type of role they performed. IT also fails the defining test for most contents. I think TV Tropes would be a great place for this content if it's not already there. If you can find a real world reliable source that has built a list such as this one, then a list article could be created here.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 03:34, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: An actor playing a fictionalized versions of oneself is not simply a performance, but a lot more than that, please read my earlier comments on that. If it is a performance, then it wouldn't be limited to that very actor, others would be able to do it. By identifying it only as a performance and nothing more is ignoring its social and creative significance. The number of people calling this only a performance when it has very early on been pointed out otherwise and the deliberate lack of response from subsequent people in the discussion to it being more than a performance is making me believe these people in questions are bureaucratic in nature. And Obiwankenobi, I'd like you to elaborate on the failing the defining test point. You have not given any reasons behind that. Wavingdragon (talk) 06:05, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
it fails defining because the lede on Jonah Hill would not say 'he once played himself in a movie'. Even if it's a special type of performance, it's still a performance. Also Lugnuts is right - you can only make one !vote - please don't do that anymore. This is standard practice and if one of those arguing for deletion did the same thing Lugnuts would strike their comments too. This might be your first time to this board but please trust me that there are conventions here and you're violating them. You'll end up just annoying people and they wont take your arguments seriously if you willingly violate those conventions.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 11:25, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So Jonah Hill has appointed you to represent him to avoid admitting certain fact? Am I supposed to ridicule your comments? I hope that was not your take on elaborating on your point of failing the defining test. Again I have to point that out it is not just a performance, special or not, but a lot more. Apart from a performance, it is also a manipulation of an established public image, an effective way to unveil the entertainment industry to the audience, an exploration of the willingness of an actor to let fiction affect the actor's image. These are points I have stated early on and the people in this discussion have chosen to deliberately, continually and bureaucratically ignore. Good job bureaucrats, you have actually made me repeat things I have stated before! Saying the category is simply a performance cannot even fully and accurately DEFINE the category.
And I hope you have realized you have made a connection between taking arguments seriously and violating certain conventions, instead of judging the arguments by reasons, especially those conventions in question have been pointed out as evil in nature. That excuse of conventions only guises a voting with a cover of discussion, i.e., it pretends to accept opinions while is making a decision in spite of those opinions! Look at the way that it is EVIL and HYPOCRITICAL. If it is a voting, go ahead and make a tyrannical decision based on the votes and state clearly that number rules and opinions do not matter! If this is a discussion, respect the opinions should be solved by reasons, instead of saying evil conventions can be excuses for people to avoid taking certain arguments seriously. That design of calling opinions as "votes" and limiting each person to one is just a way of downplaying oppositions and also evil in nature. Let me ask you Obiwankenobi, do you enjoy seeing a lot of bold-faced "Delete"'s in a discussion against one opposition so that an argument can be won by appearance instead of reasons? Wavingdragon (talk) 00:09, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
dragon you should feel free to respond to comments made here, but should do so indented, and without prefixing your comment with oppose - the convention is a bold first word is used to quickly count heads. Yes it's not a democracy, and arguments matter, but you still nonetheless can only !vote once. Your continued attacks on other editors here is also disruptive- and yes, when someone is violating conventions and calling othe editors liars, people are much less likely to take them seriously. That's just a simple fact, you may not like it, but it's true.-Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 01:17, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As Good Olfactory has put a link to WP:VOTE#Not-votes below, you can read my stand on "!vote" and opposition in my reply to him/her there. And since the two of you have requested me to make my comments in indentations, I have fashioned them in a nested way.
I hope you have again realized that you have made a connection between calling others liars and taking comments seriously instead of finding out if there was actual lying. This is the second time I've noticed you making unrelated connections. How serious am I supposed to see your reasoning? And please stop accusing me of attacking others while there have been certain people keeping on to enforce a "!vote" as a functional vote. If you don't want someone to defend, make no aggression. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wavingdragon (talk • contribs)
I've struck through Wavingdragon's FOUR oppose votes (!), per policy. LugnutsDick Laurent is dead 07:36, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You are weak Lugnuts! The like of you can only play dirty tricks instead of facing others' reasons. And saying my making four VOTES when I have already pointed out we are in a DISCUSSION, that just shows the low life you are. Hey show me more of your downplaying others' oppositions with sneaky tricks! Wavingdragon (talk) 08:38, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And you actually have the shame to bring up "No personal attacks"? Didn't you strike out all my subsequent comments but LIE that you only struck out the so-called votes? No one has done what you did. Well striking out people's comments is really a dirty trick and a personal attack! And you think people will ignore my comments by striking them out? Don't make me laugh! And you could not admit that and had to cowardly LIE about it? Now this was really lame and hilarious! And that very LIE was inadvertently used to attack me personally too! Have them achieved anything but showing your true color? That feeble way of you employing only dirty tricks instead of reasons makes me pity you! But you would not care as you have already said goodbye to your shame with your underhandedness and lying, would you? Hey show me more of your bureaucratic dirty tricks! Wavingdragon (talk) 00:09, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
To Nymf: Read the latest reply I am leaving at the same time to Obiwankenobi above, about the evil and hypocrisy of mixing discussion with voting. And PLEASE stop striking out my oppositions. And please don't use some CfD guidelines as a reason to ignore the evil of conducting voting in discussion's clothing. Wavingdragon (talk) 00:09, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If Wavingdragon won't do it, can someone please strike out his multiple oppose !votes. That's not allowed. And confuses the conversation. Epeefleche (talk) 00:17, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I hope you have not deliberately ignored the evil of disguising voting with a cover of discussion that I have repeatedly pointed out. And let me ask you the same question I've just asked Obiwankenobi, do you enjoy seeing a lot of bold-faced "Delete"'s in a discussion against one opposition so that an argument can be won by appearance instead of reasons? Also, have you realized that titled propositions and oppositions are not confusing, but dealing votes in the midst of a discussion is? Wavingdragon (talk) 00:43, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I find it disruptive for an editor to repeatedly enter Captions that indicate he is entering a number of !votes -- when he is only allowed to enter one !vote. It appears, especially given your comments, to be a knowing effort to mislead other editors in the community. --Epeefleche (talk) 00:49, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And you accused me of misleading others? In a discussion participated by admins and veteran users who have shown to act in a bureaucratic way? Is that even slightly possible? Can this accusation of yours even stick? And you have acted in the same way as those participants have by calling those captions "votes" and ignoring the title of this "discussion". Or is it more bureaucratic way of mixing the two? Wavingdragon (talk) 01:10, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wavingdragon, as an admin who has not participated in this discussion and does not plan to, I think it would be wise for you to listen to those who have said that your repeated listing of bold "Oppose"es is confusing and that you should strike out duplicates. When users refer to "votes", they are usually referring to the concept of "!votes": see WP:VOTE#Not-votes. Everyone knows that this is a discussion, not a pure "vote", but the convention is that each user is allowed to place one opinion in bold—whether it be "oppose", "delete", "support", "keep", or whatever. You are permitted to comment and discuss as much as you wish; you're just being asked to strike out (all but your first) bolded !votes. When users want to make a comment after their initial comment in an XFD, it is typical for them to use a bolded "Comment" (or something similar) rather than repeat their bolded !vote position. Good Ol’factory(talk) 01:26, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for putting the link here for WP:VOTE#Not-votes. Let me say this clearly: The usage of "!votes" is not English, and the design of one "!vote" per editor actually FUNCTIONS as a vote. Was this designed deliberately to disguise an actual vote as a so-called "!vote" or "not-vote"? I have adjusted my comments in a nested fashion as you and Obiwankenobi requested, but I have kept all my bold-faced oppositions. The captions have always made clear indications that propositions for deletion have been opposed, accompanied with reasons. I wonder if this non-English "not-vote" is indeed not a vote or it actually has always functioned as a vote but designed and disguised in an even more evil and hypocritical way otherwise. So PLEASE anyone stop striking them out or suggest so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wavingdragon (talk • contribs)
Wavingdragon—The system for resolving questions such as we are addressing here is a hybrid system. While the resolution is not determined by votes, nor are votes completely irrelevant. The visual layout should facilitate the counting of people as well as the more difficult evaluation of arguments. Bus stop (talk) 11:28, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Suit yourself, Wavingdragon, but it's my sense that when you have multiple editors advising you to do the same thing and that thing is a matter of style or convention as opposed to substance, it's generally wise to follow the advice. Not doing so can come across as needlessly belligerent or unwilling to play along with the usual conventions that help to make things run smoothly on WP. And User:Bus stop is correct that these discussions are a hybrid system—the "voting" does play a role in the discussion and the decision making, so it makes sense to avoid disrupting the others' understanding the !vote process. The "not-vote" designation simply serves as a reminder that WP is not a democracy and decision making is not purely a matter of counting the votes. Good Ol’factory(talk) 23:55, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete trivial... And "life is but a dream" the song goes, so we are all playing fictionalized versions of ourselves. :) Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:24, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep reading through the articles in this category, it seems pretty defining to have a persona of yourself as an actor/performer. I can understand the conceptual concern that this is performer by performance category but in practice, this group works. I don't seem to feel as strongly about this as others though. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:28, 22 June 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:Classic sports events
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.
Nominator's rationale: This category simply collates unrelated sports events that contain the word "classic". The multi-sport Swedish Classic Circuit is very different from Classic cycle races, and both of those are very different from the horse racing classic events in the category. Having the word classic in the name of an event is not a defining feature we should be categorising by. SFB 18:53, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Too vague, probably largely by having "classic" in the title. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:46, 19 June 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:Orienteering events
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.
Nominator's rationale: The contents of this category are all competition-based. Orienteering is typically a competitive sport. SFB 18:50, 14 June 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:Slender Man
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 after more content was added. – FayenaticLondon 11:28, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Too little content and no established scheme for creepypasta. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:45, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I created the category because I found it difficult to navigate content related to Slender Man. While only a few articles exist at present, there is a feature film in the works based off Marble Hornets slated for release later this year and there is no telling whether the recent incident regarding the character will create additional prospects for more articles. Clearly this a category with potential for growth. Not sure what "no established scheme for creepypasta" is supposed to mean or how it could be considered a valid rationale.--The Devil's Advocatetlk.cntrb. 18:58, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
keep I'm willing to give this one a pass, creepypasta or not. It seems a notable meme, and 4 barely meets the threshold, but if there aren't more than 4 a year or so from now, it should probably go, we don't want too many dinky categories lying around.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 03:37, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on Expansion Added 2 Slendar Man video games as well as a template. The current article count is now 6 (plus the template). RevelationDirect (talk) 02:42, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Reasonable grouping with more than 5 articles. That's really my cutoff for closer scrutiny. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:42, 22 June 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:Terrorist incidents in Ukraine in 2014
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. (It's currently empty, so in practice the action will be to delete it.) – FayenaticLondon 22:57, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Terrorist incidents in Ukraine in 2014 to Category:Incidents in the East-Ukrainian conflict
Nominator's rationale: The category de-facto groups articles about battles and other incidents that entrained casualties in the East-Ukrainian territories during the ongoing conflict between the Kiev government and local insurgents. In most of the cases this has nothing to do with terrorism. Thus the current name is misleading. The word "terrorist" in the title is biased, as it calls the rebels "terrorists", and thus it strongly violates the Neutral point of view rule. Potekhin (talk) 12:45, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merge to Category:Battles of the 2014 pro-Russian conflict in Ukraine. This category is already fulfilling this purpose. Also, East-Ukrainian conflict isn't reflected in the article base so, while quite accurate, it's not the best choice. SFB 14:50, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge – Clear POV pushing, per WP:TERRORIST. Consensus on talk pages has been consistently against including "terrorist", as western sources only use it in quotations marks. RGloucester — ☎ 17:24, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge - per WP:TERRORIST, as thus far the only articles included in this category have not been terrorist attacks by any neutral application of the term. This category is blatant POV pushing and all of the articles related to the conflict should be removed until the category is renamed.--Tdl1060 (talk) 01:54, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge -- The question of who is a terrorist seems to have become blurred. The people of Eastern Ukraine seem to be in rebellion against Kiev. The Kiev government calls them terrorists, but that is their POV. What is going on is clearly a civil war or rebellion. In my view most of what is going on is not "terrorism" in the proper sense of that word. I would accoridngly prefer a NPOV reference to incidents and conflict. If analysed as a civil war, the shooting down of a military aircraft is merely a military engagement. If they had shot down a civil airliner, that might be different. Similarly, the Germans who shot down allied bombers in WWII were not terrorists, but military personnel fulfilling their duty. I am however not a supporter of the rebels, whose view seem to be generated by the Russian state's attitude to the revolution in Kiev, by branding them as Nazis and fascists. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:58, 19 June 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:Surnames by culture
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 as many problems will result from a merge. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:19, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Following on from the discussion on Category:Surnames of Georgian origin, I propose merging the contents of surnames by culture to surnames by language. This category tree is problematic on several fronts. First, many of the categories are simply geographic, not cultural (e.g. Category:Surnames of African origin, Category:Caucasian surnames). Secondly, where the categories are cultural, the category is often simply using the culture as a way of referencing the language from which the names originate. The contents for Category:Surnames of Irish origin are almost identical to Category:Irish-language surnames. The origin category appears to house some names which are classed as Gaelicised versions of foreign names, but in what way have these names not become Irish-language names? By the same logic, "Baker" is not an English-language surname but just an Anglicisation of the Proto-Germanic surname "Bakar". This is how many names are formed and it's how languages develop. I propose we merge these categories to their respective "X-language surnames" counterparts, or recategorise them within Category:Surnames where appropriate. SFB 11:56, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Wolof surnames to Category:Wolof-language surnames
Hindu and Hindi-language aren't the same although Hindi is spoken by about 50% of Hindus, a very very inappropriate rename target for Category:Hindu surnames. —SpacemanSpiff 17:34, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Anglo-Saxon is a language, so Anglo-Saxon surnames could remain.Eustachiusz (talk) 21:57, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@SpacemanSpiff and Eustachiusz: Thanks for pointing these out guys. I was hoping to get some helpful input in a discussion this broad. I've amended the nomination to have "Anglo-Saxon-language surnames" and changed the Hindu nomination to move to the surnames parent. One question around the Hindu surnames – do any Hindu surnames stem from languages other than Hindi? SFB 10:33, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As far as Category:Hindu surnames go, this seems to be a solution in search of a problem. I'm not sure why you have to move it up to the parent cat or force fit into a language cat where it doesn't belong. —SpacemanSpiff 19:10, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@SpacemanSpiff: Hindu surnames is one of the very few that would belong in the current category as titled, but the category as it stands is specifically not by culture overall. Seeing the list above, after the geographic ones have been moved out you would struggle to justify a "by culture" dissection that contains just three categories. SFB 19:43, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Sillyfolkboy:: I'm still trying to understand what it is you are trying to achieve here by merging the culture cat to a force fit language cat. Granted the culture cat may not be within the Wikipedia category realm, and if that's the case (and I don't know or care, one way or the other), then just delete the cat, but for many names in the cat, there's not even agreement on what the source language is. e.g. Iyer, different sources (and all are consistent in hedging their bets) say that the name is "likely" of Tamil, Prakrit, Proto-Dravidian origin etc. And this applies to many names in the cat, even where Hindi is the current language spoken by the people with those names -- the origin could be Sanskrit, Prakrit, Hindi, Urdu, Bhojpuri, etc etc and very rarely is there an authoritative comment on the source language. My point here is that a merge to any language category is a mistake. If the category should be deleted because en:WP shouldn't have culture cats -- despite this being a defining characteristic --, then delete it, don't merge to a language cat. —SpacemanSpiff 03:54, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@SpacemanSpiff: I'm clearly struggling to get my point across: I'm not opposed to culture cats in principle. As stated above, I think the Hindu cat should be maintained as is. The point of this nomination is that (a) nearly all of these aren't cultures, and (b) many of them are simply categorising by culture because the names are from the singular language of that culture (hence the duplication). I have tried to exclude cats that are fulfilling a real cultural or geographical purpose that does not directly align with a language cat. 06:37, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
@Sillyfolkboy: Let me ask it another way: (1) Are you saying that now, the nomination is to keep Category:Hindu surnames as an individual cat (not being a CfD regular, I clearly don't understand the "recat" change to the original nomination)? (2) Is the idea of merging Category:Hindu surnames to any language cats no longer part of this CfD? If yes to both (especially the second question) then I have no problem. Also, my comment is specifically to this one category, as I have no familiarity with the rest (Though I don't think there should be separate cats for Indian origin and Pakistani origin as clearly all these names came into existence before the two countries did). cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 07:36, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@SpacemanSpiff: Yes to both - I've struck them from the nomination as I'm obviously confusing people. I listed them to show the end parent category outcome, rather than suggest a merge of those cats themselves. SFB 16:15, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thanks, I understand now. I have no opposition to it. —SpacemanSpiff 17:31, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Also not appropriate for Category:Surnames of Lithuanian origin - the names there are not in the Lithuanian language, but are of Lithuanian origin. Thus not sure this wholesale approach works (though, I totally see the problem). Renata (talk) 17:10, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Renata3: Could you give an example to demonstrate this? SFB 17:24, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The list of proposed changes needs careful checking - for example it says to recat (i.e. merge) Jewish surnames to Surnames and then says to recat Mizrahic surnames to Jewish surnames. DexDor (talk) 20:36, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@DexDor: Just to clarify, by "recat" I simply mean maintain the category but change its parent. Not sure if there is a better way of expressing this. SFB 17:23, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Language and culture are different. I'll use Ireland as an example. Just because a name is regarded as Irish in modern culture doesn't mean that the name is an Irish-language name, and it doesn't mean that it actually originates in Ireland either. These are all different factoids that may or may not be correct depending on the particular name. The 'language' cats and the 'culture' cats should not be combined.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 00:46, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Brianann MacAmhlaidh: If that is the case, we shouldn't be categorising those pages as such, because the pages are not articles proper but citation-less disambiguations. Practically all the contents of Category:Surnames of Irish origin would be better placed in either Category:Irish-language surnames or its subcategory Category:Anglicised Irish-language surnames. There really isn't sufficient article content to justify more complex categorisations than that, especially where there is no citation or discussion of those facts. SFB 19:33, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Sillyfolkboy: OK, I think I get it. I've stricken my oppose. I don't think 'Anglo-Saxon-language surnames' would be a good creation. The language was swept away before the hereditary surnames came into being in England. Besides, all the articles in the cat 'Surnames of Anglo-Saxon origin' are just modern English-language names anyway.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 22:48, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Many of the current members of these categories are clearly a dab page rather than an article about a surname (e.g. Levy, Hamon) so the page doesn't provide enough information about the surname to enable categorization by the origin of the surname. This is a problem caused by an interpretation of the exception for surname categories at WP:DBC. DexDor (talk) 04:59, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Reorganize as proposed Purge of all disambiguation pages or any unsourced set indexed lists. Not every language need be broken out - and if a surname comes from multiple languages but no one has thought to create separate articles, then into the highest level it should go, so that no people are misidentified as holding a falsely attributed surname (BLP). Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:32, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Reorganise as proposed - but possibly by a reverse merge. However, I have a problem with the Anglo-Saxon category. Some of its contents are placenames of AS origin, but they should be in surnames derived from English places. Others are derived from AS words, but they are not of AS origin, as surnames did not become establsihed until 13th-14th centuries. They are thus at best of Middle English origin. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:05, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The fact is that none of those names are Old English or Middle English. They're actually modern English surnames. That means they should be combined in the cat 'English-language surnames'.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 22:48, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We recently had a converse discussion, Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 February 24#South Slavic surname categories where I explained how we're using the language categorization for what is actually a cultural categorization, but was met with opposition, which I felt was largely unfounded in coherent arguments, but nevertheless was sufficient to overrule me. I see this discussion is moving in the same direction. That way lies a slippery slope to ((Surnames by language)) and a mass removal of a large number of relevant categorizations. Please, people, let's not go there. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 16:16, 7 August 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:Years by topic
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 consensusGraeme Bartlett (talk) 23:33, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This is a rename with potentially large repercussions. The naming style of this whole structure is mostly unidiomatic. From the top level down, the format "X by year" is usually more natural that "years in X" (e.g. "Literature by year" vs "years in literature"). This filters down to the page and category level so we end up with formations like 2013 in LGBT rights. While the current format is in much use in certain areas (e.g. 2013 in film, 2013 in sports), this is much less so for most topic areas. Perhaps a good example is the google results we get for "art in 2013" which is mostly within prose and "2013 in art" which is much less common and mostly found in page tags.
For a general and varied category structure as Wikipedia's, "X by year" is a better choice. When it comes to more unusual topics, the by year format is much more idiomatic, for example: 2012 in amusement parks vs amusement parks in 2012. Many categories already have this format and it makes sense to standardise to a format which is idiomatic for the majority of topics. SFB 09:19, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nominator. NickSt (talk) 16:30, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment would the old name remain as a category redirect? -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 07:13, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think that would be helpful, yes. SFB 19:34, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support See the broader rename proposal as marginally better, but not sure if it's worth effort.RevelationDirect (talk) 11:23, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose isolated move. This one might be viable and sensible, but needs careful consideration along with the surrounding categories Category:Dates by topic and Category:Centuries by topic. Consider re-nominating, or re-listing and adding those two. – FayenaticLondon 11:50, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Fayenatic. I'm aware of the issues involved in related changes, and it has been problematic. Given the action of the templates, I think we might need to deal with this on a much broader scale. Good Ol’factory(talk) 05:24, 19 August 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:Categories by year
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 consensusGraeme Bartlett (talk) 23:34, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: We have some splitting of the category structure between the contents of Category:Years by topic and Category:Categories by year. Nearly all the children in "Years by topic" are serving the same purpose of "Categories by year" -this is why no topic has independent branches from both of these structures. I suggest these be merged. The current title of "categories by year" is not appropriate as these are more generally referred to as topics, rather than categories of knowledge. SFB 08:57, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Duplicate categories with similar purposes. NickSt (talk) 16:27, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
By all means do a little tidying up if the split between the above categories has got slightly confused. Please add ((related category)) links on both category pages if taking away a hierarchical link between categories that have similar purposes. – FayenaticLondon 20:39, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The recent decision on June 11 to merge Category:Music by century to Category:Centuries in music has already given rise to multiple problems, in that it is populated by a template ((MusicInCentury)) which calls another even more intricate template ((WorksInCenturyHeader)). Moreover, that CfD did not consider the surrounding categories Category:Music by date or Category:Music by decade. As the next discussion up on this page acknowledges, there are potentially large repercussions in such proposals. – FayenaticLondon 11:46, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Fayenatic. I'm aware of the issues involved in related changes, and it has been problematic. Given the action of the templates, I think we might need to deal with this on a much broader scale. Good Ol’factory(talk) 05:25, 19 August 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.