Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 July 6

< July 5	July 7 >

July 6

Category:Wikipedians who like The Price is Right

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: Speedy Rename Category:Wikipedians who like The Price is Right to Category:Wikipedians who like The Price Is Right per The Price Is Right. While the commenters below are correct about venue, this is a simple capitalisation fix, and meets speedy criteria. - jc37 07:42, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Wikipedians who like The Price is Right to Category:Wikipedians who like The Price Is Right

Nominator's rationale: "Is" should be capitalized. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 23:14, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close and take to WP:WCFD. Otto4711 (talk) 00:22, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close and take to WP:WCFD per Otto. JPG-GR (talk) 02:02, 8 July 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.

(Ethnic group) Democrats (United States)

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. Kbdank71 20:25, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename, since having both "American" and "(United States)" in the category name is redundant and not consistent with other Democrat/Republican subcats (i.e., the ones broken down by U.S. state). Tom (talk - email) 22:11, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. These are overcategorizations. They are essentially quadruple intersections (Americans X Politicians X (Political Party) X (Ethnicity). I doubt that there is a single member of any of these categories that can be shown to have the category as a defining characteristic. These should all be upmerged. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 07:55, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. Sam's quite right, this is a case of overcategorization. — Lincolnite (talk) 12:44, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. Quite useful when looking for party history. Dimadick (talk) 23:31, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If they are useful, they can be made into lists. We have guidelines about overcategorization because creating multiple intersections creates tremendous amounts of clutter. Imagine that an article is in 8 primary categories, and then calculate how many more there will be if we include each level of intersection. If we add double intersections the 8 categories grows to 36. I'll leave it to you to calculate the permutations including triple and quadruple intersections. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 08:07, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete - References. These need references, per WP:BLP. What, you say that references can't be individually added to a category? Why then, per WP:CLS, they should probably be lists so that such references could be provided. That alone is enough for these to be deleted. Things like WP:OC#OPINION, and other sections of WP:OC are just "extra" good reasons to delete. - jc37 08:15, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all, overcategorization on basis of race/ethnicity. --Soman (talk) 21:06, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all as overcategorization, being non-notable intersections of race and political affiliation. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:21, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all, overcategorization. Postdlf (talk) 22:11, 10 July 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:Elsie J. Oxenham

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 Category:Elsie J. Oxenham - and not rename because the extra material doesn't belong in Category:Novels by Elsie J. Oxenham. There's lots of precedent which is not binding but does count for something. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:22, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Elsie J. Oxenham to Category:Novels by Elsie J. Oxenham

Nominator's rationale: ~~Rename~~. Delete - Contains nothing but articles about novels. Otto4711 (talk) 22:10, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Target category already exists and contains the same three articles. Otto4711 (talk) 12:23, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Remark These are actually about series of novels, like the Stabenow cfd below. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 07:51, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Originally this category also contained the article about Elsie J. Oxenham as well as those about her books - not sure why/when that was removed from the category? - but that was my original rationale for creating the category, i.e. in order to bring the articles about the books and their author together. I have not re-added the category to the author page because of the request on the category page not to make changes/additions to the pages within it, but not sure what the best move is now - would welcome advice Abbeybufo (talk • contribs) 21:10, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no objection to adding material to a category during cfd - indeed it is the best way of demonstrating a need for the category. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 00:29, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, done that - maybe it would be better to delete the category Category:Novels by Elsie J. Oxenham instead?? Abbeybufo (talk • contribs) 13:13, 13 July 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:Molière

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. Should ultimately be as well-populated as Category:William Shakespeare, no? Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:13, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - eponymous overcategorization, not needed for the single subcat which is housed in an appropriate alternate parent. Otto4711 (talk) 21:55, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep now 2 subcats & 2 make that 6 articles, plus the original subcat should have many more entries. No Moliere template, and the bio is long, so the category is well worth keeping. Johnbod (talk) 22:04, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What is the point of having Category:Plays by author and the like if we're just going to keep the eponymous author categories too? And is anyone, upon opening Molière, really going to have any trouble finding Molière#List_of_major_works? I mean come on. Otto4711 (talk) 22:11, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

None of the 5 adaptations (very incomplete I'm sure) are mentioned in the article, as I know, having had to root around to add most of them. This is exactly what categories are for. The "appropriate alternate parent" for the adaptations cat is a silly maintenance cat. Johnbod (talk) 22:16, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Irrelevant, since the adaptations would not go in Category:Molière regardless. I don't see anything on Category:Works based on works that indicates it's a maintenance category, "silly" or otherwise. Otto4711 (talk) 22:18, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Er, what? The adaptations are a sub-cat, as they should be, and always are in such cats. Johnbod (talk) 22:26, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – fr.wiki has a lot of articles in Catégorie:Molière (but no adaptations as yet) which indicates room for growth. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 08:10, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We don't keep categories because someday they might somehow become needed. Categories are not anticipatory. Otto4711 (talk) 12:17, 7 July 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:Dana Stabenow

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:Dana Stabenow to Category:Novels by Dana Stabenow. Near enough is good enough. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:15, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Dana Stabenow to Category:Something

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Should be renamed to something but I'm not sure what. Contains two articles about series of novels by the author so clearly it's not useful as an eponymous category. Category:Novels by Dana Stabenow? Category:Dana Stabenow novel series (but we don't have a Novel series by author structure at this time, and I'm loathe to start yet another novels categorization scheme)? Just merge it to Category:Novel series? Otto4711 (talk) 21:23, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Novels by Dana Stabenow for simplicity and to avoid yet another novels categorization scheme. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 07:55, 7 July 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:People appearing in lesbian pornography

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 - jc37 09:23, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Broadly vague. Most female participants in pornography will typically appear in lesbian scenes; in time I would expect this category and Category:Female porn stars to be near mirror images of each other. Tabercil (talk) 20:58, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the logical sibling category to the (still IMHO poorly named) Category:People appearing in gay pornography. Restrict only to those women who have appeared in actual lesbian pornography and exclude those who appear in a lesbian scene within a larger film. Otto4711 (talk) 21:16, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as redundant. Lesbian porn is part of the job description for female porn stars. This subcat would include nearly 100% of its parent. • Gene93k (talk) 22:15, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Female porn stars who haven't done girl/girl scenes would be a more notable group. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 23:13, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - "Lesbian pornography" does not equal "Pornography marketed to straight men that includes girl-on-girl action as a warm-up act to the 'real thing'." There is actual pornography produced by lesbians for lesbians that has nothing to do with the male-gaze fantasy of two chicks with fake tits and fake nails pretending to like licking each others' naughty bits. Otto4711 (talk) 00:31, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Right on.--Old Bella (talk) 11:07, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – You know, it actually is possible to comment on the actual issue at hand without getting on your high-horse and editorializing about the ostensible superiority of your tastes in porn. Just sayin'. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 02:27, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Er, I'm not sure if this is directed toward me or Bella, but I can assure you that my tastes in pornography run about as diametrically opposite to lesbian or girl-on-girl as it is possible to get. Otto4711 (talk) 22:56, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with the nominator, as it stands this is way too broad. I would go along with "rename" if, as suggested by the previous comment, this were limited to only actresses who appeared in porn that was directly aimed at the lesbian audience. Although, this could potentially widen the opening of a can of worms. Should we then create cats for mainstream films such as Category:People appearing in kids films, Category:People appearing in action films, Category:People appearing in comedy films, etc? In coming up with those cats, I was only thinking of one actor, Arnold Schwarzenegger. The films being Kindergarden Cop, Last Action Hero, and that one he did with Danny DeVito. If so, we're likely to end up with the Cindy Crawford problem where we had models with over 70 different categories. One based on each clothing company, perfume company, cosmetics company, etc. that they had ever modeled for. Dismas|^(talk) 01:51, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not a parallel at all, as with very few exceptions porn actors are not notable for appearing on film outside of pornography. If they are then they are categorized simply as "film actors." Otto4711 (talk) 12:20, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You missed my point. I'm not saying that the same people will be in those other categories that I named but that if we start breaking films down too much, like this category does, then it sets a precedent for other films, porn or mainstream. Dismas|^(talk) 19:16, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep No reason to delete because it is widespread. In fact, we need an Lesbian denialism article just like the AIDS denialism article.--Old Bella (talk) 11:06, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Actually AIDS denialism is a movement that has spanned decades and continents. Denying someone is a lesbian needs to be shown as notable, that's why that article is at AfD. Banje boi 23:46, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per Otto4711. Lesbian porn is certainly notable but at least subcategories for those who are appearing in actual lesbian porn verses girl-on-girl scenes for a straight audience would be helpful. Banje boi 23:46, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Over-categorisation, and is always going to have WP:POV issues due to the "real" lesbianism performed for Women, rather than performed for men. Mayalld (talk) 06:17, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think Otto is correct. The category description should make it clear that this it is just about appearing in pornography for lesbians, and not the broader set of pornography with lesbian scenes, The latter might fit our criteria for overcategorization, but the former seems to be a much smaller subset of Category:Female porn stars, and thereby a reasonable subcategorization. I wouldn't think it is difficult or POV to determine the difference between lesbian porn and straight porn with lesbian scenes. But then I am just guessing, because I watch neither. --☑ SamuelWantman
Delete per nomination. Kelly ^hi! 01:01, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm leaning toward deletion unless there's some way of 1) re-titling this so its clearly about performers who have appeared in the by-lesbians for-lesbians porn genre, and 2) that there's actually enough performers in such porn that have articles here on Wikipedia. Nina Hartley and Sharon Mitchell come to mind - but who else? In fact, by the criteria mentioned here, I don't think any of the performers on the present list actually belong on it. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 02:35, 13 July 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.

General elections

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 but United States to "General elections in Foo"; No consensus on United States. Kbdank71 13:47, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Pick something and stick with it. We have some four different naming formats among eight subcats. The choices seem to be: Foo general elections; Fooian general elections; General elections in Foo; and General elections of Foo. The parents appear consistent as Elections in Foo so rename all to Category:General elections in Foo is my preference. We also want to decide if we want to rename the US category from "Federal" to "general." Otto4711 (talk) 19:31, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment. I don't know about other countries, but in the United States, elections are run at the state (county election commissioners) level, not by the central (Federal) government. Federal (national) elections are elections for the US President, US senators and US House of Representatives members. Generally, there is a 'primary' election that precedes the 'general' election by some number of months. The 'general' election has voters choosing among nominees, one from each participating political party. The 'primary' election (when a state political party uses this method of selecting its nominee) has voters of their party choosing the nominee from their party for the general election. At the state and local office level (and for state and local referendum of assorted kinds), there are also primary elections and general elections (with the same meaning as at the Federal level), the dates of which often, but not always (state by state rules), coincide with the federal election dates. Other federal, multi-party democracies may have similar intricacies. Category names should actually reflect the election reality of the country involved, but should not conflate the primary/general classification with the federal/state and local classification. Hmains (talk) 21:02, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Addition: In the US, there are also 'special elections' which may be used to fill seats vacated for any reason. So the US classifications are at least primary/general/special and federal/state and local. Hmains (talk) 23:04, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – I concur with Hmains's points. "General" elections are different from "Special" or "Primary" elections. "United States" elections are different from "state" or "local."—Markles 23:08, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Category:Federal elections of the United States, per other users' comments. It is distinct from state elections. General elections are not synonymous with Federal elections. —Markles 14:31, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom (to Category:General elections in Foo) and per Category:Elections by country. (I have no views on the US category.) -- roundhouse0 (talk) 20:48, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete parent category – Category:General elections. As this discussion makes clear, the words "general election" have different meanings in different parts of the world and the existence of the parent cat does nothing to aid navigation for the overwhelming majority of readers. Each of these sub-cats can be reached through their respective Category:Elections in Foo category, which is surely how most readers would go about finding them. The existence of Category:General elections adds nothing. — Lincolnite (talk) 12:55, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all except Category:Federal elections of the United States‎ to Category:General elections in Foo. The only general election in the US is the one for the house and it is the only one that should be listed in Category:General elections, Category:Federal elections of the United States‎ should not be considered a subcat of Category:General elections and I have dropped the extra category. Since there is a lead aticle for Category:General elections, I don't see deletion of tyhat parent category as a viable option. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:32, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all except Category:Federal elections of the United States‎ to Category:Elections in Foo, delete the parent cat category:General elections. 'General elections' is not a suitable subcat to elections, rather presidential, legislative, local elections are more reasonable subcats. --Soman (talk) 21:11, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- In some countries 'General elections' is the correct term. While this may not apply to the US, it is valid outside of the US. Having said that, in the US the formal name for the two elections in the cycle usually are the 'primary election' and the 'general election'. The usage of general in the US does not match what is used in most other countries using that term. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:38, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all to "...of...". I know that others above have deferred to the "in" convention because quite a few other cats use it, but the simple thing is that this is an issue of a governing body, not of geography. Therefore, just as it would be "the goivernment of Italy", not "the government in Italy", these should be "the elections of Italy" not "the elections in Italy". Here's the main naming convention: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (country-specific topics). (Noting that it provides an elastic clause at the end.) And check out a few naming convention pages of a similar nature: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (political parties) and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles). - jc37 09:45, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all to Category:General elections in Foo. Here are examples of when the other forms sound weird: Category:Canada general elections; Category:Northern Irish general elections/Category:Equatorial Guinean general elections; Category:General elections of Foo (the election of Foo? Is Foo being elected?). I can't think of a strange example for "...in Foo", so I think it works best. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 23:06, 20 July 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:Federal elections in Missouri

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2008 July 21.
For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review.

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. Kbdank71 13:43, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Federal elections in Missouri to Category:United States elections in Missouri

Nominator's rationale: Rename. "United States elections…" is better and possibly more consistent with other states' elections. —Markles 18:24, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless there is a plan to organize and populate Category:United States elections by state. This category is currently empty and is not part of a series. I did cleanup the template to only place articles that use the template into the categories. If kept, Rename. Category:United States elections by state needs to be looked at in light of this discussion since it might merit deletion. Elections are already split out by state in categories like Category:United States Senate elections by state. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:43, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There is an additional reason for deletion. {{MissouriFederalElections}} does a much better job of navigation, and while navigation templates and categories can coexist, I think this is a case where the template is clearly the only option needed. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:41, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If renamed, not to this - "United States elections in Missouri" is a very odd construction. What other country could possibly hold elections in Missouri? This whole structure is a mess but a good cleanup plan is not really manifesting itself to me at the moment. Category:Federal elections of the United States needs a looking at too. Otto4711 (talk) 18:57, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I've taken the liberty of adding Category:United States elections in Massachusetts to this nomination. It's the only sibling to the Missouri category and they obviously should have the same result. Otto4711 (talk) 19:03, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Answer - There are state, local, and national elections. These categories are for national ones, as opposed to elections for state or local office. The CFD/CFR notice for the Massachusetts category did not link correctly to this discussion (can you correct that somehow?).—Markles 19:36, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep and rename~~ There could be 50+ categories under Category:United States elections by state. Give it a little time.—Markles 19:36, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep parent~~ – Category:Federal elections of the United States should be kept. It is already suitibly populated. (And like its Massachusetts subcat, it doesn't point to this discussion (can you fix that, please?)—Markles 19:37, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -you only get one !vote per CFD so I've stricken your two additional !votes. I'm not sure why the MA cat isn't linking here but it does link to the page at least. Category:Federal elections of the United States is not part of this nomination so your comments about it should be posted one CFD up. Otto4711 (talk) 19:42, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- My first original vote was to rename the Missouri category. One of my "additional" votes was to keep the parent category. —Markles 22:45, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The parent cat isn't nominated here. It's nominated for discussion in the CFD above this one entitled "General elections." Otto4711 (talk) 22:55, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you. I've commented there.—Markles 23:09, 6 July 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:Lists of insects in the British Isles

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 - jc37 09:26, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Lists of insects in the British Isles to Category:Lists of insects in Great Britain

Nominator's rationale: More accurate name - all articles refer to Britain. Bardcom (talk) 17:28, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Probably even more accurate to use "United Kingdom" rather than "Great Britain", as I suspect some of the articles include Northern Ireland, which is not part of Great Britain—GRM (talk) 18:08, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If so, I suspect that such insects would also be found in the Republic of Ireland, which is not part of the United Kingdom, hence "British Isles" status quo. — CharlotteWebb 18:45, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot say for other insects, but there are certainly several butterflies that occur in the UK that do not occur in the Irish Republic. In fact, there is a separate List of butterflies in Ireland—GRM (talk) 20:33, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as supercat to encompass country cats. --Kbdank71 14:47, 14 July 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:List of beetles in the British Isles

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 - jc37 09:28, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Lists of beetles in the British Isles to Category:Lists of beetles in Great Britain

Nominator's rationale: More accurate category name - all articles refer to Britain. Bardcom (talk) 17:24, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Probably even more accurate to use "United Kingdom" rather than "Great Britain", as I suspect some of the articles include Northern Ireland, which is not part of Great Britain—GRM (talk) 18:09, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as supercat to encompass country cats. --Kbdank71 14:47, 14 July 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:Lists of Disney people

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: upmerge. Kbdank71 14:41, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Lists of Disney people to Category:Multiple targets

Nominator's rationale: Merge. Single-entry category. Upmerge to Category:Disney people and Category:Disney-related lists. Otto4711 (talk) 14:25, 6 July 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.

Sub category pages of Category:People by first- (and second-) level administrative country subdivision

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 to "People by Foo in Country" (except for the British one, I have no idea what it should be). Kbdank71 13:44, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming

Nominator's rationale: 1. to have naming uniform for categories of this sort - the 10 items not listed already follow this pattern 2. better to reflect that not everyone listed as being from a city, state, or other jurisdiction within a country is a citizen of the country that jurisdiction belongs to (ie. not everyone listed under a subcategory of Category:People by French region or Category:People from Paris is a citizen of France, etc, etc). Mayumashu (talk) 13:59, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename all per nom, unless problems are produced. Seems sensible to me. Johnbod (talk) 15:36, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
rename all This seems a reasonable pattern. Hmains (talk) 23:26, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
While I agree with the basic goal of avoiding the implication that all people of these areas are citizens of the country in which the region lies, I think I prefer the style of, for example, Category:People by county in Norway over Category:People by Norwegian county. Why do we even use the "Fooian" as an adjective when it's easy enough to rephrase it as "county in Norway" or "state in the United States", for example? This would also solve the problem of those who fine the adjectives "obscure", which is a continual issue. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:02, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Good Olfactory regarding the disdain for adjectives. Rename to People by xxxx in Country. Neier (talk) 00:30, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the Nominator's rationale, but I agree with Good Ol’factory about the adjectives. Result would be that half a dozen on the list would not change, but those that incorrectly imply race or citizenship would have those elements removed. HOWEVER, I disagree with the use of "American". Brazil has 26 American states, for example, and the Organization of American States covers quite a few, mostly outside USA. Why not use the well-defined term "U.S. state", as in the subcategory Category:Lists of people by U.S. state? And the Welsh - er - people of Wales are not all in counties (see Local government in Wales), so how about "by unitary authority" (22) or "preserved county" (8)? Robin Patterson (talk) 15:15, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with GOs version; the Welsh category uses the Historic counties of Wales in most cases, except I think for Powys & Credwhatsit. Johnbod (talk) 15:52, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As one who has previously quibbled about Marshallese and Equatoguinean (which I have now mastered, just in time for Simon Mann's equatoguinean incarceration) I am delighted to support the People by xxxx in Country suggestion of Goodolf's. As a further quibble ... oblast is obscure, to me at least. I have no objection to finding 'oblast' in an article but can we not use an alternative in traditional English for titles of articles and catgories? -- roundhouse0 (talk) 16:54, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oblast is pretty generally used in English in discussing these countries, here & outside. Anyway, what would you call them? Not states & they are often too small to be provinces. Johnbod (talk) 17:08, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not used here in Derbyshire, as far as I know. Is English wikipedia not supposed to be accessible to someone in say Nigeria whose 2nd or 3rd language is English? I'd use Province and define oblast at the top of the article/category – I approve entirely of Provinces of Bulgaria. The article is actually Administrative divisions of Ukraine. (Voivodeship sejmik is worse.) -- roundhouse0 (talk) 17:24, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to "People by [political unit] in [larger political unit]", not per nom (I share the above frustration with clunky, non-obvious demonyms). — CharlotteWebb 18:49, 11 July 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.

Missing film lists

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. Kbdank71 16:40, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging:

and propose renaming:

Category:WikiProject Missing Film articles by year to Category:WikiProject Films missing article lists by decade

Nominator's rationale: - Categorization for these WikiProject Films red link lists is currently all over the place; duplicate categories exist, category naming is haphazard, and use of "WikiProject Missing Film" implies that there is a WikiProject by that name. Having a seperate category for the Australia lists smacks of overcategorization. Proposed scheme reorganises these into a single parent cat and two appropriately named subcats based on their contents. PC78 (talk) 03:25, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - while I support the general idea, this is way too complicated! I propose that we just recat everything to Category:Missing film articles and delete the other cats. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 04:32, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not really complicated - the country and decade lists are already categorized separately; this proposal simply renames them and groups them under a single parent category, whre at present there are two parent cats. But if you really wanted to simplyfy it, I don't have a problem with dumping everything into Category:WikiProject Films missing article lists and deleting the rest. Category:Missing film articles isn't really an appropriate category name - it's ambiguous with Category:Lost films, and is for article lists, not actual articles. PC78 (talk) 14:56, 6 July 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.

Podlachian Voivodeship

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. Kbdank71 13:37, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest renaming:

Nominator's rationale: Rename - "Podlachian" is a term invented by EN.WP. The correct name in English, according to the Polish government and the EU, is Podlaskie (see Talk:Podlaskie Voivodeship for references.

Ajh1492 (talk) 13:01, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Merged these very similar nominations --Eliyak T·C 03:58, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Remark Has the word Voivodeship been slipped into the English language when I wasn't looking? Why are we not using 'Province'? See eg Category:Provinces. (There is 'Oblast' in the cfd above as well.)-- roundhouse0 (talk) 20:57, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Remark It has slipped in.

voivodeship. (2008). In Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary. Retrieved July 6, 2008, from http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/voivodeship

Ajh1492 (talk) 03:04, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom. And voivodeship certainly appears in various English dictionaries.--Kotniski (talk) 11:15, 14 July 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:Dutch baseball managers

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, without prejudice to recreation if other articles are written/found. Kbdank71 16:37, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Dutch baseball managers to Category:Baseball managers

Nominator's rationale: Merge - single-item category with unlikely growth potential. Not part of a wider Baseball managers by nationality structure. Otto4711 (talk) 02:46, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support merge, or alternatively rename to Category:Managers of Dutch baseball teams or Category:Netherlands national baseball team managers, as all other subcategories of Category:Baseball managers are team-centric—by league, team, or country where the teams are located. Postdlf (talk) 06:19, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or rename to Managers of baseball teams in the Netherlands. Neier (talk) 00:32, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
rename to Category:Netherlands national baseball team managers (cf Category:Netherlands national football team managers) as the single member is the national team manager (and might well be the only notable manager in Netherlands baseball). -- roundhouse0 (talk) 00:47, 8 July 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:Philip Reeve

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. Kbdank71 16:35, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - no need for the category to hold the author's article. Otto4711 (talk) 02:43, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, there is no need. Delete. Bencherlite ^Talk 07:12, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This raises a wider issue as to the merit of Category:Categories named after writers. The sample that I have looked at either contain articles on individual works ot a subcategory for such. This has none and should thus be upmerged to the parent category Category:Writers, but without prejudice to recreation if there is more content for it. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:31, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For categories named after writers, my outlook is the same as for other sorts of eponymous categories, that they should only be created if the material about the writer him- or herself is so complex that the main article can't serve as an appropriate navigational hub. Since we have structures for Works by artist including both Books by author and Novels by author and since an author's article is in all likelihood going to include links to all of his or her literary output, subcats for the authors' works don't mandate an eponymous category. Otto4711 (talk) 19:10, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ per all - in fact we already have the 7-strong Category:Novels by Philip Reeve, but now I see Roundhouse has added the characters sub-cat, so Keep. Johnbod (talk) 15:40, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Much as I hate feeling like a deletionist, there is also {{Hungry City Chronicles}}, which links the world of Philip Reeve together very well. Bencherlite ^Talk 07:42, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – there's a vast amount of stuff pertaining to this chap (eg fictional organisations, on the template) who is also an illustrator of books (so there are books + images, not on the template), and as he is relatively young (b 1966) I would expect more to accrue. (Do we have tfds on the grounds that there is already an adequate category?) -- roundhouse0 (talk) 10:31, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We don't keep categories because someday there might be more stuff to go in them. Otto4711 (talk) 11:28, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is the 'small with no potential for growth' argument, the counter to which is presumably 'there is potential for growth'. So I think we do. In any case there is a $200 mill film of Larklight in the offing - see eg here. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 11:49, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, no, we keep categories if there is material to put in them, not because there might someday be such material. Articles related to the film adaptation of his works wouldn't go directly in an eponymous category anyway but in an adaptations category, so the existence of the upcoming film is irrelevant. Otto4711 (talk) 12:26, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand this new doctrine you are trying to push (see Moliere above). Adaptations would be a sub-cat here, and the existence of subcats is a factor in the usefulness of valid parents. If there were such a category, it would certainly be relevant. Johnbod (talk) 12:47, 7 July 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.