Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 August 29

< August 28	August 30 >

August 29[edit]

Category:British Government Programs[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. 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.

The result of the debate was rename. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 19:51, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:British Government Programs to Category:Programmes of the Government of the United Kingdom

Nominator's rationale: Rename, Standard naming, spelling and capitalisation conventions. Tim! 18:31, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom, a program is something you put into a computer. DuncanHill 21:03, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm, I've always seen the thing you put into a computer referred to as a "programme" in UKish sources. But that shouldn't be relevant; the category should follow national conventions, so rename per nom. Xtifr _tälk 22:44, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Rename to match usual standards. Incidentally, Xtifr, my experience is that the usual UK usage is indeed "computer program", as opposed to a "concert programme" or "the Government's legislative programme". Bencherlite ^Talk 12:53, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Johnbod 01:40, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The programmes mentioned here are variously described as initiatives, schemes, & programmes. There could be many others added from all manner of government sources, such as the United Kingdom Climate Change Programme. This cat could become a general bucket for anything that flies out of the UK government's think tanks. Is that what we intend? Ephebi 14:29, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think so. After all, it is hard to remember them otherwise. But this nomination just covers the spelling in any case. Johnbod 14:31, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Astrophysicists[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. 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.

The result of the debate was merge. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 19:52, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Astrophysicists to Category:Astronomers

Nominator's rationale: Merge and then redistribute individual to the relevant sub-categories. The difference between "astronomy" and "astrophysics" is extremely vague, with the latter term increasingly used as a synonym for the former rather than for a clearly defined subfield of study. See Astronomy#Use of terms "astronomy" and "astrophysics". Indeed astrophysics & astrophysicist redirect to astronomy & astronomer respectively. Having a separate category implies more clarity about the term than there is. This has been up for CFD before but the outcome was no consensus. Timrollpickering 17:21, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support as per the redirects. Hiberniantears 18:11, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose argument for merging is only relevant to the last century. You could merge astrologers and astronomers with such an argument in a different century. 132.205.44.5 23:41, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom, mainly based on the arguments last time. Johnbod 01:06, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to match the redirects. If there is a good reason in the future to have different articles for the two terms, then different categories can be created to match. Bencherlite ^Talk 12:54, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Films re-edited by the studio or otherwise[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. 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.

The result of the debate was delete. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 19:53, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: An odd duck of a category. The header suggests multiple sources and motivations for re-editing: "This category is for films that have been re-edited by the studio (either against the wishes of or at the request by the director), but some of the films seen here have been edited not by the studio, but by either the director or the film's actor (against the director's wishes)." This seems a lot better as part of the List of films recut by studio, though that too could stand a bit of renaming ("List of studio recuts"?). Delete.--Mike Selinker 15:34, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Casts too wide a net, far better served by a list that can explain why the films were cut. Otto4711 19:30, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Law Schools in Northern New Jersey[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. 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.

The result of the debate was merge. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 19:54, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Law schools in New Jersey, convention of Category:Law schools in the United States. -- Prove It ^(talk) 15:29, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support as per convention... and (jokingly) the state's small size. Hiberniantears 18:13, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Johnbod 14:32, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Law Schools in Long Island[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. 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.

The result of the debate was merge. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 19:56, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Law schools in New York, convention of Category:Law schools in the United States, or at least Raname to Category:Law schools in Long Island. -- Prove It ^(talk) 15:20, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support - as per convention. Hiberniantears 18:14, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. Johnbod 14:32, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Law Schools in the New York Metropolitan Area[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. 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.

The result of the debate was merge. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 19:56, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Law schools in New York, convention of Category:Law schools in the United States, or at least Rename to Category:Law schools in the New York metropolitan area. -- Prove It ^(talk) 15:11, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge this, Category:Law Schools in Long Island, and Category:Law Schools in Northern New Jersey as nominated. The state cats are reasonably sized, and not growing quickly. Also, it is not appropriate for the New York metro cat to contain the New York and New Jersey cats. ×Meegs 15:37, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Law schools in the New York metropolitan area. Hiberniantears 18:18, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Johnbod 14:33, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Emily Osment Movies[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. 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.

The result of the debate was delete. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 14:57, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, please see discussion of August 28th. -- Prove It ^(talk) 14:40, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 Cottingley[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. 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.

The result of the debate was rename. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 14:56, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:People from Cottingley, Bradford, to match Cottingley, Bradford. -- Prove It ^(talk) 14:20, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SupportHiberniantears 18:18, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:LGBT scholars[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. 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.

The result of the debate was no consensus. Question for anyone still listening: Why couldn't we just recat these 7 or so people into the already existing Category:Gender studies and Category:Academics. Do we need a new category? Just a thought in case someone wants to renominate this. After speaking with Meegs, who pointed out that nobody wanted it kept as is, and there probably wouldn't be a problem with either name, I've overridden myself and changed this to merge to Category:Gender studies academics. ~~Kbdank71 15:23, 4 September 2007 (UTC)~~ --Kbdank71 13:29, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: ~~Delete~~ This category is an intersection of sexual orientation and occupation, in a field where such an intersection is not notable. It isn't for scholars in the field of LGBT studies, as shown by its parents - Category:Academics and Category:LGBT people by occupation. Timrollpickering 14:18, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Changed opinion per discussion below. Timrollpickering 21:51, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:LGBT academics to match the parent category. A perusal of the category contents indicates that the category is capturing people involved in LGBT studies. That they all seem to be LGBT may or may not be a coincidence. If there is a sudden influx of non-LGBT people involved in LGBT studies then we can revisit the appropriateness of housing the category under the LGBT by occupation parent but that's a matter for the talk page, not CFD. Otto4711 16:43, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That target does not address the abiguity. What would the department or field be called at a university? Our article is called Queer studies. Despite the awkwardness, I suggest Category:LGBT studies academics, Category:Queer studies academics, or a broader Category:Gender studies academics. We have Category:Gender studies and Category:Queer studies, and either could stand an academics subcat. ×Meegs 22:04, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Gender studies academics or one of my other suggestions above, or delete. It should not be retained as a by sexual orientation cat. If it is converted to an academic field cat, it should be removed from Category:Academics and Category:LGBT people by occupation, and added to Category:Academics by subject. ×Meegs 22:04, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Queer studies is a defined subfield of Gender studies so if this is to be changed into a subject academics category then Category:Queer studies academics may be best with parent category Category:Gender studies academics. Timrollpickering 22:12, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm fine with creating both cats, and, in the future, one for women's studies too. Since all these fields combined aren't that large, though, I wouldn't mind sticking with just one cat for gender studies either. ×Meegs 22:24, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I would object to a lone "gender studies" category. LGBT studies or Queer studies is fine. Otto4711 21:04, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Queer studies academics and move from Category:Academics & Category:LGBT people by occupation to Category:Academics by subject & Category:Queer studies, per discussion above. As Queer studies is a clearly defined sub-field and has its own category it makes sense to categorise its academics distinctly. Timrollpickering 21:51, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I note that Morton Beiser is gay, but not apparently engaged in Queer studies professionally, and Mary Daly is a radical feminist whose sexual orientation does not emerge from reading her article & much of her website, and who does not seem engaged in LGBT issues. I don't know if any UK university is yet calling its courses/departments "Queer studies" & on the whole, given that possibly only leaves 5 Queer studies academics in the category, it might be better to go for a wider name like "gender studies" for the moment. Johnbod 22:26, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename and rescope to Category:Gender studies academics per John's comments, though if a category were to be created, it should be named Category:Queer studies academics. Tewfik^Talk 07:37, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Ed, Edd n Eddy[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. 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.

The result of the debate was delete. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 14:53, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - unnecessary eponymous category for a TV series. The small amount of material is appropriately interlinked through text and template and the category isn't warranted. Otto4711 13:37, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Jewish Roman Catholics[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. 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.

The result of the debate was delete. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 12:40, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Jewish Roman Catholics to Category:Roman Catholics of Jewish origin

Nominator's rationale: This category is now proposed for Speedy Deletion, based on Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 September 8#Category:Jews who converted to Christianity and see also a subsequent warning to its creator: See User talk:Kingstowngalway#Jewish converts to Catholicism.

The name of this category is misleading and confusing. There are no universally accepted criteria for such a category. While Category:Israeli Roman Catholics would make sense (Israel is a state), this one does not because a Jew is part of both a religion and an ethnicity -- not of a state of any kind (see the Jew and the Judaism articles that explain this) and thus this category makes the grave error of logic and theology by postulating that one can be a member of two conflicting and opposite religions at the same, which cannot be (only in the imaginations of misinformed people who are not familiar with these grave religious issues.) In addition, the category includes people, such as Madeleine Albright ("parents, who had converted to Catholicism") , Bernard Nathanson ("described himself as a 'Jewish Atheist' "), Mieczysław Horszowski ("family was of Jewish origin"), Maria Ratisbonne ("developed a hostile attitude toward all religion"), who were never actively Jewish, were not known as Jews, and surely never practiced Judaism, but were essentially (at "best") secular Jews and in some cases even born and bred Catholics since childhood, so what gives this category the "right" to label them "Jewish" in a "definitive" way?! As it's named now this category probably violates WP:NOR and WP:NEO. (By the way, will there be Category:Hindu Roman Catholics or Category:Roman Catholic Hindus or Category:Muslim Roman Catholics or Category:Roman Catholic Muslims etc etc etc next?) IZAK 12:22, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. IZAK 12:32, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Rename~~ Delete, for above reasons. IZAK 12:22, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Current name is confusing. Number 5 7 12:31, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per (original) nom. This category is different and, if renamed, greatly preferable to the deleted one, though (as before) very early Christian figures should be excluded. Johnbod 12:58, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Note that this appears to be an intersection of Jewish ethnicity with Roman Catholic religion, and as mentioned in WP:OCAT categories that randomly intersect ethnicity and religion are usually deleted. Also note the prior deletion of Category:Jewish Christians which essentially the same idea but with a slightly different final religion. See [1] for that cfd, and also note the very similar cfd discussion currently going on for Category:Jewish atheists at [2]. Dugwiki 15:34, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Don't speedy delete based on DRV precedent from earlier this month. I refrain from an opinion on whether the category should exist. GRBerry 22:24, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename I originally created this category as a part of a breakdown of Category:Converts to Roman Catholicism which I entitled Category:Catholic converts by religion. I really do not understand the hostility to it, as I have created similar categories for Catholic converts from Islam, Protestantism, and Buddhism. Kingstowngalway 23:16, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Category:Jews who converted to Christianity was deleted in the past so should this category

it is overcategorization should Jews make the Category:Mormon Jews for Mormons who converted to Judaism or Category:Muslim Jews for Muslims who converted to Judaism absolutely not it is confusing and will no doubt be misinterpretated--Java7837 17:56, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, confusing ambiguous category, as expressed when a similar category was deleted here. --MPerel 06:43, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Kibbutz Dati[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. 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.

The result of the debate was rename. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 12:40, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Kibbutz Dati to Category:Religious Kibbutz Movement

Nominator's rationale: Main article has been renamed to Religious Kibbutz Movement so makes sense for category to follow suit. Number 5 7 08:05, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested alternative: Rename to Category:Orthodox kibbutz movement. After all, "religious" is ambiguous, also "movement" is with a small "m" IZAK 12:43, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Religious Kibbutz Movement is what the group calls itself (in English), so I think it is the best option. Number 5 7 12:46, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom, or per IZAK if concensus goes that way. Johnbod 13:03, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. The organization translates their name to english directly as the article is called. Teh cat is about the organization, not the entity of religious kibbutz. --Shuki 15:28, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletions. Shuki 15:35, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. --Eliyak T·C 15:47, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to match lead article is always a good idea. I have my doubts about that capital "M", but that can be discussed on the article's talk page, and, if necessary, changed without waiting five days. Thus, I suggest that the closer check where the lead article has actually ended up when closing, if there's a consensus to rename (which it looks like there will be). Xtifr _tälk 22:55, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:South Tyrol[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. 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.

The result of the debate was keep (no rename). After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 12:57, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:South Tyrol to Category:Province of Bolzano-Bozen

Propose renaming Category:Cities and towns in South Tyrol to Category:Cities and towns in the Province of Bolzano-Bozen

Propose renaming Category:Districts of South Tyrol to Category:Districts of the Province of Bolzano-Bozen

Propose renaming Category:Lakes of South Tyrol to Category:Lakes of the Province of Bolzano-Bozen

Propose renaming Category:Monasteries in South Tyrol to Category:Monasteries in the Province of Bolzano-Bozen

Nominator's rationale: Rename, South Tyrol was moved to Province of Bolzano-Bozen. Suppar luca 07:21, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename all. Obviously the category name should match the article name. —Ian Spackman 09:52, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all. Per Supparluca and Ian. Icsunonove 09:22, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The article was renamed through vote abuse. Votes were held at least three times on the issue with clear majorities in favour of keeping the name "South Tyrol" [3] . By constantly holding vote after vote, regular participants tired of the issue by the fourth vote, which was held not even half a year after the last one in March 2007. Wikipedia rules state that the most commonly used name in English be used, and that is "South Tyrol" by a large margin next to anything else. Besides, category names do not have to follow article names, it is not a rule written anywhere AFAIK. Gryffindor 08:32, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Gryffindor is trolling now because his point of view has been overruled by a neutral and multiethnic article title... Check out Talk:Province of Bolzano-Bozen for some recent examples.. *sigh* Icsunonove 09:22, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose renaming. The article title itself is still unstable, it's been contentious for many months and its present state is the result of a "vote" that was, as Gryffindor rightly points out, of dubious value. Transferring the same dispute on the category names is just a disruptive way of widening the fracas and opening yet new frontlines of contention. Leave the categories where they are until a true consensus has been established over the articles; until then they do no harm whether they are here or there. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:09, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the work that was done at the page wasn't just doing more votes. It was a discussion to find a compromise and neutral solution. That, at least to me, is more important than having countless votes where people from all over non-English Wikipedia projects are brought in to give an 'opinion'. Most of the opinions we got were just downright crude. We are in the continuous pursuit of a neutral and fair article location, that is it. Saying it was dubious is really not fair to those who worked on this the past month. Icsunonove 21:37, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Official English title of province is South Tyrol. Who is preventing the article from being so named and why? Number 5 7 10:36, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose South Tyrol is what it is called in English, and this is an English-Language Wikipedia. DuncanHill 10:46, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Province of Bolzano isn't English? Interesting. :-) Icsunonove 20:35, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: while I partly agree with the above personally, I don't think we ought to be duplicating here the discussion that really needs to be resolved first and foremost at the article itself (and which has been ongoing there for a long long while). For the record, both "South Tyrol" (as the traditional name of the historical region) and "Province of ..." seem to be in use in English. Actually, the very link Number 57 gives above contains examples of both. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:09, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the traditional name of the overall County was Tryol; The term South Tyrol isn't anymore historic than Province of Bolzano. Icsunonove 20:35, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, this wasn't meant to be a discussion about the name of the article. Simply, when the article title was x, the category was x, now that the article title is y, the category should be y.--Suppar luca 11:36, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's true, the question is just: is the article going to stay at y? I don't see any amount of stability there right now. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:57, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose for now until the main article title is stabilised; recommend that the closing admin note that the option can be revisted once the main article location is settled. Timrollpickering 13:19, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is a good point, we can hold off on this discussion until things settle down at the Province of Bolzano-Bozen page. Icsunonove 20:36, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Certainly I appreciate the desire for stabilising nomenclature in this seemingly volatile Alpine region. (Or this region of Wikipedia which seems to attract volatile editors.) Nevertheless I do think that that it is confusing for readers when there is a mismatch between article and category names. It seems much simpler to accept as a matter of principle that cats should automatically follow the articles. Discussion on what the names should be—and, which is actually much more important, on how they can be stabilised—can then take place on the article talk page.—Ian Spackman 04:42, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.