Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 December 2

< December 1	December 3 >

`

December 2

Category:Military facilities of the Soviet Union and Russia

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. Bot will move all of these to the Soviet category but someone will have to create and populate Category:Military facilities of Russia manually. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:36, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Military facilities of the Soviet Union and Russia to Category:Military facilities of the Soviet Union

Nominator's rationale: Another category which fails to distinguish that the Soviet Union is not Russia and Russia is not the Soviet Union. Suggest renaming of this category to Category:Military facilities of the Soviet Union and creation of Category:Military facilities of Russia in order to differentiate between the two entities. Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 21:57, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support proposal, which is in line with what we've done in previous CFDs for similar categories. Cgingold (talk) 00:13, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I 100% agree that the USSR=/=Russia, however, isn't there a substantial overlap between the facilities in question? Secondly, the use of "of the Soviet Union". They are of the Soviet, but they are in Russia, no? This is a major problem with Category:Military facilities by country which mixes "of" and "in" recklessly. --Kevlar (talk • contribs) 01:48, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Territorially the USSR was far larger than Russia, so while there is overlap the two are not identical and a facility "of" the USSR was not automatically "in" Russia. Otto4711 (talk) 18:50, 6 December 2008 (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:New Year's Eve telecast hosts

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. Tiptoety ^talk 06:00, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - overcategorization of performer by performance. Otto4711 (talk) 19:37, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't this category be even more useful if it was broken into sub-cats by age and gender?? And also by city of origin, of course! What's that?? Otto, why are you grabbing your chest?! Is there a doctor in the house?? Please don't leave us, Otto -- I was only joking! It's alright, just go ahead and delete it if you really must. Cgingold (talk) 10:40, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would that be Female Bosnia-Herzegovina-American New Year's Eve telecast hosts from Atlanta, or American New Year's Eve telecast hostesses of Bosnia-Herzegovina descent from Atlanta, Georgia (U.S. state)? Can we organize them into groups or divisions? :) -choster (talk) 18:14, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.-choster (talk) 18:14, 3 December 2008 (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:New Year's on Television

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 fix capitalization - I'm not seeing any consensus on the other suggestions. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 00:43, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:New Year's on Television to Category:New Year's on television

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Capitalization fix. Trivialist (talk) 19:27, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename but why "Year's" at all - what is the possessive for? Use Category:New Year shows on television instead. Johnbod (talk) 20:33, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think somebody left out the word "Eve". Unless the category is supposed to include New Year's Day programming -- which is doubtful -- it should be Renamed to Category:New Year's Eve on television, or perhaps Category:New Year's Eve television programs/programmes. Notified creator with {{subst:cfd-notify}} Cgingold (talk) 05:44, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously most programmes run from New Year's Eve through into the day itself, so no! Plus there are programmes shown later in the day - see the first 2 in the category. Johnbod (talk) 20:39, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't concerned about the New Year's Eve programs that run into the next day -- but I didn't spot those first 2 articles. How about Category:New Year television programs/programmes? Cgingold (talk) 03:35, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well exactly! How about my suggestion, which avoids all these issues? Johnbod (talk) 04:58, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't recall coming across any other categories that use "show" -- do you know of any? AFAIK, they all use programs/programmes. Same question re "on television" -- isn't it standard to say "television program(me)s"? Cgingold (talk) 14:36, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A number of terms, especially "series" are used precisely to avoid the engvar issue. "Show" works fine for these one-offs, imo. Johnbod (talk) 15:46, 5 December 2008 (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:Narada songs

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. Tiptoety ^talk 06:02, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Narada songs to Category:Narada Productions songs

Nominator's rationale: To match parent article. Or just outright delete it since there's only one song. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 19:15, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - categorizing songs by the label that released them is overcategorization. A song recorded by a particular artist may be released through multiple labels (the artist may change labels or the song may be licensed by the initial label for re-issue and/or for a compilation). Songs may be covered by multiple artists recording for multiple labels, leading to category clutter. Otto4711 (talk) 02:24, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is probably a bit too fine. As long as the albums are associated with the label, we can maintain the connection to the label. Alansohn (talk) 06:03, 3 December 2008 (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:Narada artists

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 Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 17:11, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Narada artists to Category:Narada Productions artists

Nominator's rationale: To match parent article. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 19:14, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - categorizing artists by the label for which they record is overcategorization because artists can and do change labels through the course of a career. Otto4711 (talk) 02:22, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support rename The name should match the parent article. Most musical groups develop strong and defining relationships with labels that release their recordings. While there are multiple labels that an artist can be associated with, the number is almost always small. Alansohn (talk) 06:05, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note Category:Artists by record label and its subcategories; this is part of an established scheme. Postdlf (talk) 16:30, 3 December 2008 (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:Narada albums

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 NAC. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 17:11, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Narada albums to Category:Narada Productions albums

Nominator's rationale: To match parent article. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 19:14, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - categorizing albums by the label that released them is overcategorization. Albums may be released through multiple labels as re-issues. Otto4711 (talk) 02:21, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. (Circle gets the square.) Albums are almost never reissued on different labels, so it's perfectly acceptable to categorize by label, especially given how big Category:Albums by record label is. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 05:26, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I thoroughly agree with TPH on this point. It is quite rare for albums to be reissued on other labels. Cgingold (talk) 05:54, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. Cgingold (talk) 05:54, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Lugnuts (talk) 07:56, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to match parent article. Alansohn (talk) 12:23, 3 December 2008 (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:Narada

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 One article doesn't really need categorisation. Stwalkerster [ talk ] 17:17, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete Overcategorization. Contains only main article and three subcats. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 19:13, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - With 3 sub-categories, I was leaning toward "Keep but Rename to Category:Narada Productions", consistent with the to-be-renamed sub-cats. But after looking at the lone article in Category:Narada songs, I'm not sure there's a valid basis for that category, which appears to be the only one of it's type. So it depends on what happens in the CFD for that category. Cgingold (talk) 00:12, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - categorizing recording artists by label is overcategorization because artists can and do change labels over the course of a career. One precedent is found for Decca artists and there may be others. Otto4711 (talk) 02:20, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep / Rename to Category:Narada Productions. The parent article productively organizes the subcategories, and matches the corresponding entries in its parent Category:EMI. Alansohn (talk) 06:07, 3 December 2008 (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:Civil defense organisations based in the United Kingdom

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. Tiptoety ^talk 18:38, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Civil defense organisations based in the United Kingdom to Category:Civil defence organisations based in the United Kingdom

Nominator's rationale: Rename. UK category should have British spelling. David Biddulph (talk) 16:48, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support use consistent UK spelling. Alansohn (talk) 17:15, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support use consistent UK spelling (or go for 'defense organizations' - does anywhere use both 'defense' and 'organisations'?) Occuli (talk) 18:20, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Always British spellings for a British category 21stCenturyGreenstuff (talk) 19:17, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- British English is always Defence. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:23, 7 December 2008 (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:Walking in the UK

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: already SPEEDY DELETED. Postdlf (talk) 18:36, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete Category:Walking in the United Kingdom already exists JD554 (talk) 15:59, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Walking in the United Kingdom. Occuli (talk) 16:20, 2 December 2008 (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:Diseases

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 to Category:Diseases and disorders. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 23:16, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Diseases and disorders, a broader term which better encompasses a number of the articles and sub-categories currently residing in Category:Diseases. Hypothetically, we could move all material pertaining to disorders out of Category:Diseases and directly into Category:Diseases and disorders, or we could move that material into a new Category:Disorders -- but I don't see any real benefit in separating the array of material in that manner. In short, I don't believe any valid purpose is served by maintaining both of these categories. Notified creator with {{subst:cfd-notify}} Cgingold (talk) 14:43, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've also solicited input from WikiProject Medicine. Cgingold (talk) 21:06, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This would clear a few concerns I have seen regarding opinions on whether something is a disease or a disorder, to go one step further and address even more concerns I have seen in the past, maybe we could include another facet, 'conditions', i.e. Diseases, disorders and conditions, since there are a few cases where the abnormality could be considered each when looked at from different aspects. LeeVJ (talk) 16:11, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[Amended in the light of further reading] My sense is that "conditions" ~~can probably be considered to be included under the heading of "disorders"~~ is such an ambiguous term that it would be less than useful in a category name. Hopefully we will have some input from the WikiProject on this point. Cgingold (talk) 21:13, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Johnbod (talk) 20:34, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment One of them is probably not needed, but Category:Diseases appears to be far more thorough than Category:Diseases and disorders. Does adding "and Disorders" add anything, especially as Disorder (medicine) is a redirect to Disease. At this point I would lean towards a reverse merge. WP Medicine input would be useful here. Alansohn (talk) 06:11, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Diseases has the bulk of the contents entirely due to having been created 4 years ago, while Category:Diseases and disorders is a fairly recent creation. While it's true that "disease" has a range of gradations in meaning and can be construed expansively, in ordinary use that is not always the case, and it is very common for the two terms to be construed as distinct from another. That being the case, I think it would better serve readers and editors alike to use both terms in the name of this umbrella category. Cgingold (talk) 10:13, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, I've contacted the editor who wrote the recently-added Terminology section in the Disease article; hopefully we will hear from her about these categories. Cgingold (talk) 13:46, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. Yes, disorders are diseases, but some people object to the term 'disease', which makes them specifically think of contagious/infectious diseases (e.g., infectious diarrhea). 'Disorder' is considered a more neutral term for many non-infectious conditions, especially psychiatric conditions (particularly among those that think psychiatric conditions are primarily problems created by other people instead of functional neurological problems). Including both terms in the category saves us the trouble of splitting things up according to whether any given condition is considered to be a 'disease' or a 'disorder' this week. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:56, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your lucid explication, WhatamIdoing -- it was well worth taking the time to solicit your input. Cgingold (talk) 03:45, 4 December 2008 (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:Lincoln, England

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 as nominated. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:29, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Lincoln, England to Category:Lincoln, Lincolnshire

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Article is at Lincoln, Lincolnshire; a subcat is Category:People from Lincoln, Lincolnshire, and - just as a nail in the lid - there are other Lincolns in England. See also my comments below on the usual naming for categories on English cities and towns, at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 December 2 #Category:Plymouth, which show that the current name is not in line with the vast majority of similar categories. Grutness...wha? 10:43, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – which are the other Lincolns in England? BT phonebook and googlemaps are not aware of any. (I must say that Lincoln, Lincolnshire sounds pretty silly.) Occuli (talk) 11:02, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- My trusty old Johnston & Bacon shows one in Norfolk and one in Hampshire. Even if it were unique, as I've pointed out below, tand above, the vast majority of similar categories use the county name, not England, to disambiguate. And Category:Lincoln, Lincolnshire doesn't sound any more or less silly than Category:Oklahoma City, Oklahoma - and it is where the article is, for just the reasons I've mentioned. In any case, as far as I know "it sounds silly" isn't actually a valid reason to object to a change when the one that "sounds silly" is the more accurate or less ambiguous. Grutness...wha? 11:13, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - there are no other Lincolns in the UK with articles, Category:Lincoln, Lincolnshire contains redunancies. Category:Lincoln, England is close enough – England is less than 1/5 the area of Texas (ratio is 50,000:270,000) so is equivalent to a rather small US state. Occuli (talk) 15:35, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- ...and has a population twice that of California, the US's most populous state - and Wyoming's population is around 1/100 that of England (ratio is 523:51,092). Wyoming has a population equal to a rather small English county - only half that of Lincolnshire - and is impossible for non-Americans to pinpoint without studying a map. But would I suggest that Category:Cheyenne, Wyoming should be renamed to Category:Cheyenne, United States? Certainly not, because I recognise that other countries have equal rights on Wikipedia - this isn't an encyclopaedia only for Americans. Just because something isn't in the US doesn't mean its unimportant. Grutness...wha? 22:40, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom to match the article's name. Tim! (talk) 18:27, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename as per nom. Mayumashu (talk) 21:08, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom and others. Nothing silly about it. Johnbod (talk) 20:36, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 06:13, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Lincoln. This is the original from which all others take their name, and do needs no qulaifier. Alternatively Keep (a less good option). There are no other Lincolns in England, and even if there were the unqualified name would refer to this city. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:27, 7 December 2008 (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:Tanakh stubs

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: Close. This ain't Wikipedia: Stub types for deletion, which is where this proposal should be, per the instructions at the top of WP:CFD. Take it there. Grutness...wha? 10:30, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Tanakh stubs to Category:Hebrew Bible stubs

Nominator's rationale: Rename, to match parent Category:Hebrew Bible, which is readily understandable to both Jews and Christians (the most likely constituencies to expand these stubs). The stub template was renamed in Jan 2007 from HeBible-stub to Tanakh-stub mainly to match the Tanakh category - see the SFD discussion. Subsequently, most other Tanakh categories were renamed as Hebrew Bible, see CFD June 2007. This one should now follow. It seems that the category should be renamed first, then the stub. Fayenatic (talk) 09:44, 2 December 2008 (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:New Zealand Current 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.

The result of the discussion was: Delete. Tiptoety ^talk 06:03, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete Leaving aside the little matter of the faulty capitalisation for a category on New Zealand current events, the whole purpose of this category seems a little suspect. As far as I'm aware there are no similar categories for other countries, and given that this is not WikiNews i hardly see the point here. There's also the arbitrariness and temporality problems, with things being moved in and out of this when someone decides these are or are not "current" ((case in point - this category's only article relates to a current event from two years ago - hardly what I'd consider current now). Delete as first option; if consensus is to keep, change to Category:New Zealand current events. Grutness...wha? 08:10, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can envision a purpose for a category like this, but it appears that nothing much is happening in New Zealand at the present. Without a better explanation of what is to be included, what the definition of current is, how events will be rolled out of the category and a prospect for other article to navigate across, there's not much here to categorize. Alansohn (talk) 16:27, 2 December 2008 (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:Plymouth

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: Clear consensus to rename, w/ Category:Plymouth, Devon being preferred. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 17:03, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Plymouth to Category:Plymouth, Devon

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Plymouth is totally and completely ambiguous. It can be argued that the primary use for the for car brand Plymouth or for the place of the landing in the New world or for the colony there, Plymouth Colony. A rename to Category:Plymouth, England would be acceptable. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:43, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename as per nom, Category:Plymouth, Devon Mayumashu (talk) 03:56, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename either proposed name would be an improvement over the ambiguous single word. Alansohn (talk) 04:17, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support a highly confusing name for a category should not be used. 76.66.195.63 (talk) 06:46, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Plymouth, Devon. Places in the UK are usually dabbed by their county where appropriate, rather than by their country. Grutness...wha? 08:12, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, the article's at Plymouth, so consider my !vote only a weak rename. Grutness...wha?
Rename to Category:Plymouth, England. In my view places in the UK should be dabbed by county only if there is ambiguity within the UK. 'Plymouth, England' conveys meaning to those who have no idea where Devon is (I think we can assume that England has greater global recognition than Devon), and Devon (disambiguation) itself is ambiguous. (We have Category:Birmingham, England, not Category:Birmingham, West Midlands.) Occuli (talk) 09:42, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- ...and the United States probably has greater global recognition that any individual state, too - yet even when a place name is unique in the US, it's disambiguated by state name. And Devon (disambiguation) is at Devon (disambiguation) simply because Devon goes straight to the obvious one. It's as likely anyone would think Plymouth was in one of the other ones as it would be for them to think that we should name articles and categories "Miami, Florida" United States" on the offchance that someone might think Miami was in Florida, Peru. As for "Birmingham, England", I seem to recall a considerable number of protests when that was named that, and it wouldn't surprise me at all if it was renamed to match other similar categories (e.g., Category:Scarborough, North Yorkshire, Category:Rugby, Warwickshire, Category:Abingdon, Oxfordshire, Category:Reading, Berkshire, Category:Andover, Hampshire... and by my count, at least six other such categories). Birmingham is in a minority of two, along with Lincoln - which I've listed for renaming above (ironically, it's not a unique placename). For places in Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland, Category:Perth, Scotland is the only one which doesn't use a county name rather than the country name to disambiguate. As I said - the usual standard is "Place, County" - apparently by a ratio of at least 11-2 in England, and by a higher ratio if you add in the rest of the UK. And that's just the category names - if I'd tallied the article names, the ratio would be over 100 to 1. Grutness...wha? 10:50, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep to match article name, second preference Plymouth, Devon, per UK naming conventions. Tim! (talk) 18:30, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Tim, with Plymouth, Devon 2nd choice. This is certainly the prime meaning, & any confusion by users, which I doubt really, would be brief. Johnbod (talk) 20:38, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I highly doubt this is the prime meaning. I would say with fairly high assurance that most people around me would think of the car company. 76.66.194.58 (talk) 06:24, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Plymouth, Devon. The very fact that the primary meaning is disputable indicates that a disambiguated name would be beneficial to users. I am not exactly a car buff, but I also wonder at the offense some editors seem to be taking that a brand of millions and of millions of cars could somehow be as well-known as a city of only 250,000 or so residents.-choster (talk) 06:22, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to either. I personally would prefer "Plymouth, England" but Grutness's points are significant, I think, so Category:Plymouth, Devon would be my first choice. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:35, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment when renamed, a disambiguation category might need to be left behind, or just salt it. 76.66.194.58 (talk) 05:25, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is the original and so needs no qualifier. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:29, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- What does being the original have to do with this? Original is not the same as the primary use or an override for being ambiguous. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:04, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Peterkingiron, plus we had a discussion about this for the articles and the result was to keep it there. It would be a bit strange to have the categories at a different name to the article, as well as cross wiki. Wikipedia's articles shouldn't be viewed from just an American perspective. Jolly Ω Janner 17:29, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment it's not that strange, especially in ambiguously named categories, since they have maintenance issues. Besides, it was a "no consensus", and not a "keep at current name" result at that request. If articles should not be viewed from a US perspective, should they be viewed from a UK perspective? From a Canadian perspective, I can tell you that Plymouth England is NOT what should be contained in this category. 76.66.195.159 (talk) 04:00, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename (to Plymouth, England) - in an ideal world it would be useful for each and every article/cat such as this to be named explicitly by location. This isn't about a US-centric, UK-centric, or any other country centric worldview; it's about making articles and categories easier to find, and more effectively organised. Coldmachine^Talk 23:56, 12 December 2008 (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.

African American basketball players

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 - Please see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 December 2. Tiptoety ^talk 22:53, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose keeping the speedily deleted Category:African American basketball players

Nominator's rationale is that this cat page has as much ~~right~~ a valid reason for existing as Category:African American soccer players, Category:African-American chess players, and Category:African American baseball players. Category:African American sportspeople is an enormous list and having these sub-category pages are very useful for having the list be more navigatible. Mayumashu (talk) 03:37, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close and take it to WP:DRV. As an aside, no category has a "right to exist." Otto4711 (talk) 03:46, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

'Right', truly enough, not the right term Mayumashu (talk) 03:48, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If it would have any effect, Keep; Else take to DRV There are now 2,183 articles in Category:African American sportspeople. Logic would dictate that splitting the category up into meaningful groups by sport would make the category structure far more useful for navigation, the intended purpose of the category system. The problem is that in the CfD game, deleting is easy, but recreation requires a legislative act, even if any legitimate issues raised at the original deletion were addressed. Far more disturbingly, the close at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_October_27#Category:African_Americans_by_sport, used as the original precedent to justify the speedy deletion has to be one of the most egregious abuses of consensus I have seen. As no admin is likely to take the initiative needed to undo the the previous CfD, the next step is probably DRV. While I guess that one option is to treat this as a recreation of deleted content, I'm thinking that the best next step is to put the original CfD up for reconsideration at DRV. Any thoughts? Alansohn (talk) 04:17, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have been somewhat remiss in not having already taken that mass CFD to DRV, following the overturning of the earlier CFD for Category:African American baseball players (subsequently reinstated) which was cited as precedent for deleting all the rest of the African American sports categories. (All in all, one of the sorrier chapters in CFD history.) Well, I guess the time has come to open the proceedings and set things right. Cgingold (talk) 04:42, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
PS - I'm glad to see that you've changed your mind on these, Mayumashu. Cgingold (talk) 04:43, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have indeed. My feelings now that reducing list size is important (and/but I would not advocate an Cat:African American dart players should there be one such notable sportsperson who is African American) And that discussion from October 2007 shows greater than 2:1 support for keep! - amazing decision. At any rate, I shall attempt my first DRV Mayumashu (talk) 20:27, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and support drv for the whole caboodle. Occuli (talk) 15:42, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Close and take to DRV. These need to be cleaned up one way or the other. Off and on they are being speedily deleted as re-created material, but there is some question as to the validity of that CfD that deleted them, so let's work it out through the proper channels. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 20:40, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and support drv for the whole caboodle per Occuli etc. To GO, the drv case is better if this closes as keep. Johnbod (talk) 20:42, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That may be true, but I don't necessarily agree with "keep" in the abstract. I actually haven't made up my mind yet on the merits, though I'm leaning to keep, but I at least do agree that the previous CfD should be overturned. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:06, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Just thought I'd provide a link to the DRV that has been started. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:19, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - this should now be kept open for the result of that. Johnbod (talk) 00:07, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since that bunch of cats were deleted as a group, would it not make more sense to discuss them all together in a joint-CFD, if/when the first one is overturned? Cgingold (talk) 00:25, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That was my thinking; I suggested to the nominator of this one that we close it but he said he prefers to keep this open. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:08, 3 December 2008 (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.

Ancient Christianity

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:Ancient Christianity --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 22:35, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Ancient Roman Christianity to Category:Ancient Christianity

Nominator's rationale: Rename. This is a technical nomination following the close of this discussion with no consensus. It appears that there may be a consensus for a rename, hence the renomination. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:56, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support The word "Roman" adds nothing to the category, and could create the impression that there was some other variation or location in which Christianity existed at the time. Alansohn (talk) 04:00, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question - can't claim to be a scholar, but is there any delimiting date on what's "ancient" and what isn't? Otto4711 (talk) 04:14, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- 5th century AD or so in Christendom; see ancient history. -choster (talk) 06:46, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom.-choster (talk) 06:46, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. See also Categories for discussion/November 19 --Carlaude ^(talk) 18:03, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rename per nom. Majoreditor (talk) 15:45, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rename --"Roman" is redundnat unless there are articles on Christianity elsewhere. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:31, 7 December 2008 (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:Nationalist terrorism

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 at current name, noting a subcat could be created. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 22:31, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Nationalist terrorism to Category:Ethnic nationalist terrorism

Nominator's rationale: Rename. This is a technical nomination to consider what may have been a developing consensus in this discussion which was closed since it lacked a consensus. While the first nomination was based on the category being recreated material, there was a lack of support for deletion. There did seem to be support to keep with a new name. Hence this nomination with what I felt was the name that appeared to be developing a consensus. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:36, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Inserting the word "ethnic" presupposes that all forms of such terrorism is between ethnic groups. The King David Hotel bombing is often presented as one of the cardinal example of Category:Zionist terrorism, but would require jumping through hoops to ascribe an ethnic element to the incident. Nationalist better captures the unifying characteristic of these categories. Alansohn (talk) 03:57, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support rename, or as a new subcategory of Category:Nationalist terrorism. Please see my comments at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 November 15#Category:Nationalist terrorism. --Timeshifter (talk) 05:10, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Alansohn - I wouldn't consider the IRA's actions in Belfast in the 70s as being "Ethnic" either, given that their targets were also usually Irish (albeit frequently Anglo-Irish or Ulster-Scottish), but they were certainly nationalistic. Similarly, had the Taiyuan Incident not been suppressed, it could easily have developed into a situation which was nationalistic but not ethnic in nature. Timeshifter's suggestion of creating a new subcategory for the current category sounds like a reasonable compromise. Grutness...wha? 08:24, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose almost all terrorism has some ethnic basis. The IRA/Prod conflict in Northern Ireland was between two communities that had transformed themselves almost into rival tribes, separated by religious affiliation, though few on either side were practising Christians. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:34, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]