Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 August 24

< August 23	August 25 >

August 24

Waikato Region

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 nom.. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:08, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Waikato to Category:Waikato Region, plus similar renaming of one subcategory:

Category:People from Waikato to Category:People from the Waikato Region

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Per previous renames of New Zealand regions and discussion here and at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject New Zealand. Waikato is a region, a district, and the name of New Zealand's longest river. The article has been renamed to Waikato Region per the earlier discussions, and almost all of the category's subcats already use the proposed form. Grutness...wha? 23:22, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename ,even speedily, per previous discussion. Debresser (talk) 18:37, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Waikato region. The capital is superflous. Rich Farmbrough, 19:47, 25 August 2009 (UTC).[reply]
- Um, no it isn't. It's the standard usage. And given that all the other renames done to NZ regional categories have been to the capitalised form with no objections, why should this one be the only one with a lower case "r"? Grutness...wha? 23:12, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Indeed, "Waikato region" could in fact be a different area than "Waikato Region". "Waikato Region" is a defined geographical/political entity. "Waikato region" is the area of the country around the Waikato River, which may include some areas outside of "Waikato Region". Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:34, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename as nominated, to standardise these category names. With caps. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:33, 26 August 2009 (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.

Poles vs Polish people (test case)

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:

--Xdamr^talk 20:34, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Poles of Hungarian descent to Category:Polish people of Hungarian descent

Propose renaming Category:Poles of German descent to Category:Polish people of German descent

Propose renaming Category:Poles of Czech descent to Category:Polish people of Czech descent

Nominator's rationale: Rename. It has never made sense to me why many of these "ethnic descent" categories use a noun form "FOOs of GOOian descent" when the ultimate parent category is "FOOian people": Category:Polish people, not Category:Poles (which exists, but is for something completely different). For consistency, shouldn't we be using "FOOian people of GOOian descent"? No other categories use this form, and even these ethnic descent ones don't use it consistently. All of the immediate top-level subcategories of Category:People by ethnic or national origin use "FOOian people"—it's just the grand-daughter categories that start to diverge. The advantage of using "FOOian people" is emphasized when we consider that for many nationalities, there is no good noun form to use: would we really want to use "Frenchmen of GOOian descent"? No—and all of the subcategories of Category:French people by ethnic or national origin use "French people". For simplicity and cross-nationality and parent–daughter category consistency, I propose we use "FOOian people of GOOian descent". Yes, it adds a word where sometimes one could be eliminated, but I believe the benefits of cross-nationality and parent–daughter category consistency outweigh this benefit. Here I have nominated the Polish ones that use "Poles". If this proposal is supported, I am willing in the coming weeks to subsequently go through these various ethnic descent categories and nominate the ones that that use the noun form. It will be a big job, but it's about time the names for these get standardized. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:39, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support this nom, as there are many types of pole. And I will probably support the wider extension to "FOOian people of GOOian descent". Eg there are a lot of Swedes in Category:Swedish people by ethnic or national origin, which reminds me of the headline Swedes 2 Turnips 1. Occuli (talk) 00:27, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, for reasons given by nominator. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 14:52, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename I agree with the nominator's rationale. Actually, we has a "Danes" to "Danish people" nomination a few days ago, which I also supported. Debresser (talk) 18:36, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Kommentar -- Some nationalities can be used as a noun. Poles, Russians, Danes, Swedes, Norwegians, etc. In these cases the inclusion of "people" is redundant and thus unnecessary. Conversely, we talk of Frenchman, Englishman, etc (or woman), so that these require "people", similarly British (where there is no noun available. If I refer to a Pole or a Dane, I mean a man or woman, except for Great Dane (a breed of dog). Peterkingiron (talk) 17:13, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- As the nominator, I realise this, but the point is to bring a degree of inter-category consistency. Since not all nationalities have "noun terms", doesn't it make more sense to just consistently use "Fooian people" for all of them, as do all the parent-level categories at Category:People by nationality? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:22, 30 August 2009 (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:Pulp Fiction

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. NW (Talk) 22:36, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: This doesn't have enough articles to warrant an entire category. TTN (talk) 22:37, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Johnbod (talk) 13:03, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Indeed, 3 articles is a little on the low side. Debresser (talk) 18:35, 25 August 2009 (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:Unfree images

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Merge. (As suggested, Category:Wikipedia non-free files may be more correct, but this change would require nominating the target category.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:36, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Unfree images to Category:Non-free Wikipedia files

Nominator's rationale: Is there a difference between "unfree" and "non-free"? Hmm... — RockMFR 22:23, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Why is "Wikipedia" needed in the title? Does the category only contain files related to Wikipedia? Jafeluv (talk) 07:34, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nominator. That's a really good idea. Debresser (talk) 18:34, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Kommentar See Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(categories)#Special_conventions that "categories used for Wikipedia administration are prefixed with the word "Wikipedia" (no colon) if this is needed to prevent confusion with content categories". Whether that is indeed necessary in this case, I wouldn't know, but that is your explanation. Debresser (talk) 18:34, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If they are "prefixed", the category name should be Category:Wikipedia non-free files, amirite? Jafeluv (talk) 12:38, 26 August 2009 (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:Evangelical Association/Church Americans

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 Category:Evangelical Association/Church Americans to Category:American Evangelicals. --Xdamr^talk 20:32, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Evangelical Association/Church Americans to Category:Something

Nominator's rationale: Rename to something grammatical (this is one of Pastor Wayne's creations) or perhaps upmerge to Category:American Evangelicals. Occuli (talk) 21:29, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge But if kept, it should be renamed. ^{Carlaude:Talk} 11:23, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to something. I am indifferent to the upmerge proposal. Debresser (talk) 18:30, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename: I would suggest Category:Evangelical United Brethren Church, unless this is entirely about the period before the 1946 merger. However, where colleges merge, we treat alumni of the predecessors as alumni of the merged successor; so why not with churches. Oppose any upmerge as the parent is a general one for evangelical christians (who might belong to any one of many denominations), whereas this appears to refer to a single denomination. However, I lack personal knowledge of the subject. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:19, 30 August 2009 (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:Badfinger members

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Withdrawn. --Mike Selinker (talk) 01:18, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Very limited category and it isn't going to grow any further; this grouping is adequately covered by links from Badfinger itself. Rodhull andemu 20:51, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - part of the established Category:Musicians by band. Occuli (talk) 21:34, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On the basis of the above link, I'll withdraw this nomination. Rodhull andemu 23:26, 24 August 2009 (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:Sports World Rankings

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: Speedily rename per speedy criterion #2; simple capitalization fix. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:05, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Sports World Rankings to Category:Sports world rankings

Nominator's rationale: -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 20:11, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nominator. Was perhaps a mistake because of Sports World. Debresser (talk) 18:26, 25 August 2009 (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:Origins of Sports

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:Sports by country of origin. NW (Talk) 22:38, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Origins of Sports to Category:Origins of sports

Nominator's rationale: -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 20:05, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Sports by country of origin - what the category actuially covers. Johnbod (talk) 00:23, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, yeah. That is a better idea. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 04:27, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Sports by country of origin per all above. Debresser (talk) 18:24, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

rename to Category:Sports by country of origin and with all sports they should be categorised into which country they originated inYoundbuckerz (talk) 14:25, 28 August 2009 (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:Psychic film festivals

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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:09, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete per WP:OC#SMALL. Category has a single article International Psychic Film Festival which appears to be defunct. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:45, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator as too small a category. Debresser (talk) 18:23, 25 August 2009 (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:Indian Navy destroyers

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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:10, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Indian Navy destroyers to Category:Destroyers of the Indian Navy

Propose renaming Category:Regia Marina destroyers to Category:Destroyers of the Regia Marina (added)

Nominator's rationale: Rename. To match the naming style of the other categories in Category:Destroyers by navy. The first category was created after the conclusion of a recent CFD that addressed this naming style. The second listing was not itself properly categorized and, thus, missed in the last CFD, so I'm including it now. — Bellhalla (talk) 15:47, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy rename per nominator. Please note I supportedthe previous nominations also. According to wp:Cfd#Speedy_criteria #4 this is a speedy. Debresser (talk) 18:22, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That's nice to know, Debresser. Thanks! — Bellhalla (talk) 21:33, 25 August 2009 (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:The Family members and supporters

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. (As mentioned, a category solely for members might be feasible if more articles could be included; it would also need to be named appropriately—probably not Category:The Family members. The only member in the category at closing was Abraham Vereide.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:13, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Category attempts to connect persons to an organization woes article appears to have a heavy negative POV push and may violate guideline WP:COAT. Per guidleine WP:BLPCAT this may place the persons listed in this category in a false light. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 11:23, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments – the parent category is Category:International Christian Leadership but International Christian Leadership is a redirect to The Family (Christian political organization). We don't have 'supporters' categories; Category:The Family members could be anything (eg there was a band called Family); The Family (Christian political organization) members might be feasible. Occuli (talk) 11:45, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- When I looked the category contained two US politicians, whose articles appears to say nothing on the subject (though I may have missed it) and Abraham Vereide its leader. Is this enough for a worthwhile category? The parent Category:International Christian Leadership ought to be renamed Category:The Family (Christian political organization) to match the main article. There might be enough for one category. People who merely spoke at their prayer breakfasts should not be included in the category, as that would be a performance by performer category, which we habitually delete. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:32, 30 August 2009 (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:Pashto singers

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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:15, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Pashto singers to Category:Pashto-language singers

Nominator's rationale: Merge. Redundant category. Both contain singers that perform in the Pashto language. Jafeluv (talk) 10:58, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. Pashto is a language and not a nationality (whereas, for example, Japanese singers contains singers from Japan that don't necessarily sing in Japanese, while Japanese-language singers contains singers who sing in Japanese who aren't necessarily from Japan), making Category:Pashto singers redundant. — Σxplicit 05:20, 25 August 2009 (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.

Various converts

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 all per nominator's revised proposals. Given that there are no objections to the broad scope of these renames I intend to implement them as proposed and leave the ironing-out to future case-by-case nominations. --Xdamr^talk 23:40, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming

Extended content

Nominator's rationale: Rename. The category structure of Category:Religious converts is a mess, presently. First of all, "FOO converts" means converts to "FOO", so "FOO converts to GOO" is self-contradictory. I propose standardizing the form to "Converts from FOO to GOO". Most of them are already in this format; this proposal essentially changes the ones that aren't yet in this format. (There are some slight inconsistencies; e.g., I'm not sure why "Protestant Christianity" is used rather than "Protestantism", but I've just tried to conform with what's already out there. These could be changed later if desired.) Quite a few of these categories we could perhaps do without, but as a start I thought we could get the names standardized, and then users could nominate some for deletion as desired. The last one listed is being nominated for deletion/merging, since it is small and is most obvious among those that won't be needed for awhile. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:54, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support nom in its entirety. The last one is splendidly obscure - the single article is about someone who moved from being a Jehovah's Witness (which after some digging turns out to be non-trinitarian) to agnosticism to Catholic. Occuli (talk) 11:08, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support the general idea. However, I would prefer using "Protestantism" and "Nestorianism" instead of "Protestant Christianity" and "Nestorian Christianity". The category names are lengthy as is, and the shorter names would also match the way the corresponding articles are named. It might be a good idea to sort the religious converts category both by adopted religion and former religion, but that's beyond this discussion, I think. Jafeluv (talk) 07:21, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Those suggestions would be fine with me as nominator. In fact, I probably think on balance those adjustments are a good idea. I've included these options in brackets above. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:33, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I object to "Protestantism" as it is purposely avoided by many Protestant groups in favor of the label "Christianity". "Protestant Christianity" is better. This should at the least should be split out of this CfD as a separate issue. ^{Carlaude:Talk} 11:31, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Practitioners of "Mormonism" also purposefully avoid "Mormonism" and prefer to be recognized as practitioners of "Christianity". But we don't use "Mormon Christianity" just because they might like it. I think "Protestantism" is probably more commonly used in sources. Ultimately, neither is "wrong"—just a stylistic preference I suppose. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:49, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New proposed renaming

Extended content

Category:Muslim converts to Catholicism to Category:Converts to Catholicism from Islam (flipped)
Category:Orthodox converts to Anglicanism to Category:Converts to Anglicanism from Eastern Orthodoxy (flipped)
Category:Orthodox converts to Catholicism to Category:Converts to Catholicism from Eastern Orthodoxy (flipped)
Category:Anglican converts to Catholicism to Category:Converts to Catholicism from Anglicanism (flipped)
Category:Assyrian Nestorian converts to Catholicism to Category:Converts to Catholicism from the Assyrian Church (name correction, flipped)
Category:Hindu converts to Catholicism to Category:Converts to Catholicism from Hinduism (flipped)
Category:Protestant converts to Catholicism to Category:Converts to Catholicism from Protestant Christianity (flipped)
Category:Calvinist converts to Catholicism to Category:Converts to Catholicism from Calvinism (flipped)
Category:Buddhist converts to Catholicism to Category:Converts to Catholicism from Buddhism (flipped)
Category:Protestant converts to Eastern Orthodoxy AND Category:Converts from Protestantism to Eastern Orthodox Christianity to Category:Converts to Eastern Orthodoxy from Protestant Christianity (flipped)
Category:Zoroastrian converts to Christianity to Category:Converts to Christianity from Zoroastrianism (flipped)
Category:Orthodox converts to Islam to Category:Converts to Islam from Eastern Orthodoxy (flipped)
Category:Protestant converts to Islam to Category:Converts to Islam from Protestant Christianity (flipped)
Category:Converts to Islam from Atheism or Agnosticism to Category:Converts to Islam from atheism or agnosticism (flipped)
Category:Orthodox converts to Judaism to Category:Converts to Judaism from Eastern Orthodoxy (flipped)
Category:Protestant converts to Judaism to Category:Converts to Judaism from Protestant Christianity (flipped)
Category:Chalcedonian Christianity converts to Category:Converts to Chalcedonian Christianity (same)
Category:Catholic converts to Category:Converts to Catholicism (same)
Merge Category:Catholic converts by religion into Category:Converts to Catholicism (merge)
Category:Roman Catholic converts from atheism or agnosticism to Category:Converts to Catholicism from atheism or agnosticism (flipped)
Merge Category:Non-Trinitarian Christians converts to Catholicism into Category:Converts to Catholicism (same)

Support -- with Changes

There is no need to have "Converts from FOO to GOO" along side "Converts to GOO."

It is more Consistent and more clear to have instead "Converts to GOO from FOO." This also fits well with the fact that a person's article nearly always covers the new faith (part of their life) in more detail and with more notiblity than the old faith. ^{Carlaude:Talk} 12:50, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also the Assyrian Church considers the term "Nestorian" pejorative.
[Catholic converts by religion] is unneeded and can be upmerged since its parent (to be renamed) is so small. ^{Carlaude:Talk} 12:50, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know the term "Nestorian" was considered pejorative... I would suggest leaving the "converts by religion" categories as intermediate ones - that way, one could construct a subcategorization by both the former religion (like, Category:Converts from Catholicism) and adopted religion (like Category:Converts to Islam). Child categories like Category:Converts to Islam from Catholicism would then be included in both. I have no preference over "from X to Y" versus "to Y from X". Jafeluv (talk) 13:03, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Jafeluv that [Catholic converts by religion] should be renamed, not merged (there could easily be [Catholic converts by nationality], by century, by height etc); I have no views on the superiority of 'from/to' v 'to/from'; and take no position on the merits of Carlaude's other modifications, beyond noting that they sound reasonable. Occuli (talk) 13:56, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Catholic converts by height? Is that some delicious beans right there? Jafeluv (talk) 14:04, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Starting a parallel, competing nomination is a great way to have a nomination result in no consensus. ... Couldn't we have gotten the mess out of the way first and then worked on the kinks in future nominations? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:29, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This was not an effort at a parallel competing nomination and was not made a subhead by me. It was an effort at clarity for my view. ~~If you are seeing it as "competing" then I expect it is because you object to the each idea or you object to other folk's treatment of it as they have.~~ If you have a view on these ideas then please to state them.
I don't feel too strongly about merging away Category:Catholic converts by religion if others like it somehow, but I don't think Jafeluv's ideas are too well thought out. What would be the parent of his Category:Converts from Catholicism if Category:Catholic converts is renamed to Category:Converts to Catholicism? ^{Carlaude:Talk} 07:38, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just saying (as I said)—it's a good way to get no consensus. I'm not clear on the meaning of your third sentence, so I don't think I can respond to it. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:08, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am only asking you to discuss the renaming ideas, rather than just complaining. Failing to discuss is also a good way to get no consensus. ^{Carlaude:Talk} 18:32, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I would like to discuss my proposal. But as I mentioned above I'm having a hard time understanding both the content and rationale of much of what you have said, so I'm willing to just re-state in a general sense that I support my original proposal. As for specifics, I'm with Occuli in that I don't really have a view on the superiority of "to/from" vs. "from/to". If it is deemed to be of any significance, I would have thought that it would have best be taken care of in a follow-up nomination so that all of the categories that use the "from/to" format could be discussed together. Otherwise, if we change to "to/from", we are left in a position of having some one way and some the other way. Which is why I said it probably would have been good to work on getting some consistency first, and then tweaking the system as a whole later, if further adjustments are desired. I think you may find that a step-wise approach is most conducive to consensus building. (I've already presented "Protestant Christianity" or "Protestantism" as alternative possibilities. No view on "Nestorianism" issue—was just proposing to reformat what already existed.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:36, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not going to comment on how well it was thought out, but the parent of Category:Converts from Catholicism would be Category:Religious converts by former religion, of course. However, as I said the subcategorization scheme is really beyond this rename proposal. Jafeluv (talk) 08:34, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support revised version, as long as we are sure that the content does in fact match the proposal. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:38, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure what the concern is here, per "...sure that the content does in fact match the proposal." Maybe we can look into it if you say more. ^{Carlaude:Talk} 00:56, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support revised version except for the penultimate as stated below. Nomination will add consistency and clarity. At present, Category:Catholic converts is the only new-religion-head-category that has an intermediate sub-cat "by [former] religion" and I agree that the latter is not needed. I also slightly prefer the word order "converts to... from..." proposed by Carlaude.
Note that Catholicism is wider than Roman Catholicism. Taking all of Catholicism in one bite leaves the existing sub-category Category:Converts to Roman Catholicism with no analysis by former religion, but that can be worked on later. Meanwhile, following WP:PRESERVE, keep the one nominated "Roman", i.e. rename Category:Roman Catholic converts from atheism or agnosticism to Category:Converts to Roman Catholicism from atheism or agnosticism. - Fayenatic (talk) 22:07, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- On further inspection, there are existing sub-cats of Category:Protestant converts to Catholicism which are specifically named "to Roman Catholicism". I propose to move them down into Category:Converts to Roman Catholicism after this CFD finishes.
- Note to closer: I really don't mind whether from..to or to..from. I think that goes for most people commenting here. There is enough consensus to change from the existing names to something more clear and consistent. I want to come back later on some more details of the names, but am not raising these points now because I want the broad nomination (either original or amended) to go through. - Fayenatic (talk) 20:25, 1 September 2009 (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:People from Darlington

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. --Xdamr^talk 12:55, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:People from Darlington to Category:People from Darlington, County Durham

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Current name is ambiguous and needs to be moved to a non ambiguous name. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:12, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The town is at Darlington, indicating that it's primary topic. The category name should match the article. Jafeluv (talk) 11:16, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename – this is fairly marginal as Darlington seems the largest of the various Darlingtons by a factor of 10 or so. However there is Category:People from Darlington County, South Carolina, and clarity is a good thing. Occuli (talk) 11:19, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- In the US and racing circles, Darlington only means the Darlington Raceway where the common name is Darlington. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:09, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thankfully, Wikipedia does not operate only on what people in the US know. In the rest of the world (including the rest of the world's racing circles), Darlington means the place in northern England. Having said that, a rename does seem reasonable. Grutness...wha? 22:48, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nominator and Grutness. Debresser (talk) 18:19, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in keeping with the primary topic. Jeni ^(talk) 12:09, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 18:55, 3 September 2009 (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:People from Stanley

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 Category:People from Stanley to Category:People from Stanley, County Durham. NW (Talk) 22:41, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:People from Stanley to Category:People from Stanley, County Durham

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Current name is ambiguous. Proposed name matches the lead article. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:09, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename - per nom and Stanley, County Durham. Occuli (talk) 07:47, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Jafeluv (talk) 11:15, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nominator. Debresser (talk) 18:16, 25 August 2009 (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:People from Durham

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 Category:People from Durham to Category:People from Durham, County Durham.

Without entering into the fairly sterile debate over which 'Durham' is the more significant, per the closer's comments at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_February_17#Birmingham - "If there is a possibility that readers (or for that matter, editors, as evidenced below) would be confused, we should correct the situation." This is one of the situations where the requirement for clarity overrides the usual naming link between categories and their main articles. --Xdamr^talk 20:29, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:People from Durham to ~~Category:People from Durham (district)~~ Category:People from Durham, County Durham

Nominator's rationale: Rename. The target apparently was emptied at some point and the contents moved to the current ambiguous named category. It is better to return to the not ambiguous name. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:03, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. User:DShamen has created a slew of unnecessary categories of the form UKCity (District) where there is no corresponding geographical or political entity. Durham in contrast is a city in County Durham. Delete the empty Category:People from Durham (district). Occuli (talk) 07:43, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well Durham is still ambiguous. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:47, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Durham (district) has the same degree of ambiguity as Durham. Occuli (talk) 07:49, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge~~ Category:People from Durham (district) to ~~Category:People from Durham~~. Yes, Durham is ambiguous (City or County) but District has no meaning (in Durham) and is therefore worse than just Durham. Twiceuponatime (talk) 08:42, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What about the US city that has 217,000 residents? Yea, there may be a British city and county, but it is far from the largest or best know city. The current name is clearly ambiguous and there likely is no the primary use. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:54, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there is Category:People from Durham, North Carolina. I would support a rename to Category:People from Durham, County Durham per clarity (and a disambiguation category at Category:People from Durham, as in Category:People from Birmingham). Occuli (talk) 18:39, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename as per nom (to Category:People from Durham, County Durham), to avoid the ambiguity between two cities of some size Mayumashu (talk) 04:41, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:People from Durham, County Durham. There's also a discussion going on about moving the UK city to Durham, County Durham. Jafeluv (talk) 07:04, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Changing my merge above to RENAME as now proposed by nom. Twiceuponatime (talk) 08:27, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguate ~~somehow~~ to Category:People from Durham, County Durham per nominator. I agree this is ambiguous~~, but can not decide on what is thepreferrable way to disambiguate. Debresser (talk) 18:14, 25 August 2009 (UTC)~~ and after seeing the nomination above I choose Category:People from Durham, County Durham for consistency's sake. Debresser (talk) 18:17, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in keeping with the primary topic. Jeni ^(talk) 12:10, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename there are alot of Durhams in the world, and there's more than one in the UK (Durham the city vs Durham the county) 76.66.192.144 (talk) 03:14, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest Category:People from City of Durham. This should be sufficient to exclude other Category:People from County Durham (which should be its parent). Peterkingiron (talk) 17:41, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it is. Renaming to Durham (district) would be unneccasarily confusing as the area of the new Durham Council (i.e. the old two tier county area) is now also known as the unitary County Durham district. 07:23, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Keep, following article name. If it was necessary to rename then Category:People from Durham, England would sound less silly than "Durham, County Durham", despite WP:PLACE#England, following Category:People from Birmingham, England. See also Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 February 17#Birmingham. - Fayenatic (talk) 20:43, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep to match title of parent article. If it is ever disambiguated in the future I would support a rename. Alansohn (talk) 23:43, 3 September 2009 (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:Reclining sex positions

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 (merging to Category:Drawings of sex positions as suggested). Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:25, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: This category currently contains only a single image (which, incidentally, is not the best depiction of a reclining sex position since the female is not reclining), but since it could potentially be populated with a couple of articles I will address it in that context. Category:Sex positions contains only about 30 articles right now, so it seems unnecessary to further subdivide that category by type. The image is otherwise categorized, so there is no need to upmerge. (Category creator notified using {{cfd-notify}}) –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 05:26, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Category:Drawings of sex positions, since it's a very related image. Jafeluv (talk) 08:52, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge, but do not leave this overcategorisation in place. Debresser (talk) 18:13, 25 August 2009 (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:Kentucky State Thorobreds men's 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: Rename. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:23, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Kentucky State Thorobreds men's basketball players to Category:Kentucky State Thorobreds basketball players

Nominator's rationale: Rename. This is one of the relatively rare examples of a school where the men's and women's teams have separate nicknames. "Thorobreds" is used exclusively to refer to men's athletics at KSU; women are known as "Thorobrettes". See, for example, the "Quick Facts" page for women's basketball on the school's official athletics site. Dale Arnett (talk) 04:39, 24 August 2009 (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:Invulnerable characters

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. NW (Talk) 22:43, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. No defined criteria of inclusion, as the term "invulnerable" is pretty vague when talking about characters. What does it make a character invulnerable? To be immortal? To be untouchable? To be lucky enough to avoid harm (like James Bond or the Looney Tunes Roadrunner)? --LoЯd ۞pεth 04:07, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. It's not at all clear what this means. James Bond, the Roadrunner, Tintin—all invulnerable in their own way. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:37, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an in the last resort intenable proposition. Even AChilles wasn't after all completely invulnerable. Debresser (talk) 18:10, 25 August 2009 (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 World Order

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, underpopulated (1 article) on 04/09/09. --Xdamr^talk 19:42, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:New World Order to Category:New World Order (conspiracy theory)

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Disambiguate to match main article New World Order (conspiracy theory). New World Order is ambiguous. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:33, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Löschen - single-item category. Otto4711 (talk) 09:53, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It had some other stuff in there earlier, but I see it's been emptied. Agree with deletion if it remains unpopulated. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:57, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Concur with comment of Otto4711. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 11:39, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename or Delete if will stay this small. But in general I always feel an urge to take steps against editors who empty categories under discussion. Starting with a 24h ban... I take this highly. Debresser (talk) 18:09, 25 August 2009 (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:Arts redirects

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:

--Xdamr^talk 23:23, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete There is no clear reason for these categories. Tracking redirects does not seem to be a reason to keep these categories. These were all created by one user, and I cannot find a discussion about the necessity of them all. See also:Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_August_16#Category:Artist_redirects (result was delete).Clubmarx (talk) 02:32, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'd also like to nominate the many subcategories of Category:Dance_redirects, (too many to list manually). I've requested help on this. Clubmarx (talk) 02:47, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While categorizing pages as redirects can be considered useful, I don't see the point in creating categories for different types of redirects. Unlikely to be useful. Jafeluv (talk) 09:07, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Kommentare – I rather like Category:Dance redirects having the main article Dance redirects. Also Category:Redirects with 900+ top level members, states that it should only consist of subcategories. These are all administrative categories (affecting only redirects, which are not seen by the casual reader) so it seems to me that anyone who wishes to corrall them into subcategories is welcome to do so. Occuli (talk) 16:24, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Now that you mention it, I see that Dance redirects is a redirect to Dance that seems to serve no other purpose than to act as the "main article" of that category. I think I'll take it to RfD as well... Jafeluv (talk) 08:55, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Listed here. Jafeluv (talk) 09:05, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To your second point: Category:Redirects is indeed a valid administrative category, but its contents are not subcategorized by type of target article, but rather by type of redirect. There are, for example, the subcategories Category:Redirects from alternative names, Category:Redirects from misspellings, and Category:Redirects from plurals. I hope this helps to clear up the issue. Jafeluv (talk) 17:25, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my rationale at a similar proposal here. -- œ ^™ 18:28, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. Completely unnecessary. We don't usually do this and there's no need to start now. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:50, 9 September 2009 (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.