Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 November 10

< November 9	November 11 >

November 10

G7

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 DELETE, G7. postdlf (talk) 23:26, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Category created by mistake. Category is unnecessary for WikiProject Sexology and Sexuality's assessment. Clifflandis (talk) 22:23, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merged 3 proposals with the identical label, reasoning, and signature/timestamp.- choster 22:26, 10 November 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:Billboard Hot Alternative Tracks number-one singles

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. postdlf (talk) 15:57, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Billboard Hot Alternative Tracks number-one singles to Category:Billboard Alternative Songs number-one singles

Nominator's rationale: The "Hot Alternative Tracks" chart has since been renamed to Alternative Songs. Dylan 620 (contribs, logs, review) 21:18, 10 November 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:Industrial fires and explosions

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. postdlf (talk) 15:56, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: We already have Category:Industrial accidents and incidents and Category:Industrial fires, so this category seems redundant. Delete. - Eureka Lott 17:38, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Some industrial fires and explosions occur separately from each other. However, industrial fires and industrial explosions are often highly inter-related, and they often occur together. Since the above nomination has been made, I have made Category:Industrial fires and explosions a subcategory of Category:Industrial accidents and incidents, and Category:Industrial fires a subcategory of Category:Industrial fires and explosions. So far, there is no Category:Industrial explosions as such, but there are various other explosion categories. Category:Industrial accidents and incidents has various other subcategories, and I see no reason why Category:Industrial fires and explosions should not be one of them. Category:Industrial fires and Category:Industrial explosions can be subcategories of Category:Industrial fires and explosions. Someday, I hope to write the article Industrial fire or explosion to discuss these kinds of disasters in general, with Industrial explosion, Industrial fire, and Industrial conflagration being Redirects to it, when I can muster the time and ambition to write it. I previously made Industrial fire and Industrial explosion redirects to the unstarted Industrial fire or explosion, but a bot deleted them soon afterward. H Padleckas (talk) 11:56, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are now 50 articles in this category and there will no doubt be more. Before taking any possible action, this matter should be run by Wikipedia:WikiProject Disaster management. H Padleckas (talk) 13:20, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

keep a well populated category with endless opportunity for expansion. Clearly no overlap Hmains (talk) 05:28, 20 November 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:United States Naval Submarine Bases

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 per nom. postdlf (talk) 15:49, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:United States Naval Submarine Bases to Category:United States Navy submarine bases

Nominator's rationale: Rename. To match the parent cat Category:United States Navy bases and to fix the capitalization. Tassedethe (talk) 11:42, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "Naval Submarine Base" is the U.S. Navy's formal designation for such facilities (Naval Submarine Base Kitsap, Naval Submarine Base New London, etc.).- choster 14:32, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per choster. Debresser (talk) 23:11, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:United States Navy Naval Submarine Bases per choster. 65.94.252.195 (talk) 04:59, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Only two of the ten articles in the category are titled using the "Naval Submarine Base" prefix. The suggested name from the nom makes the best sense (and avoids the ugly construct of "…Navy Naval…"). — Bellhalla (talk) 16:25, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, postdlf (talk) 16:48, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

rename per nom. This is not a category about just those places named 'Naval Submarine Bases', but a category about US Navy Submarine Bases, no matter what their name, most of which are multi-purpose. Hmains (talk) 04:07, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rename to include submarine bases of all types. Alansohn (talk) 14:28, 11 November 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.

WWE SmackDown

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) 01:25, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming:

Nominator's rationale: To match the current typesetting in parent article WWE SmackDown and also to specifically indicate that the latter category is based around video games as opposed to other types of games. Θaks ter 16:34, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support Renames to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 18:01, 10 November 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:28 Days Later

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. postdlf (talk) 15:53, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Given the amount of items in the category and the lack of any new articles on it any time soon (and even if they do make the next film, that's only going to contribute one, maybe two, articles for the category), it seems a pointless one to have in existence. Thejadefalcon ^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 14:45, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Theres's 5 articles. Is that not enough for a category? Bosco (talk) 14:47, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Categories, by my understanding, are only for massive groups of related pages. Anything else uses a template at the bottom of the page (which already exists on the pages). --Thejadefalcon ^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 15:01, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no navigational use. Declan Clam (talk) 18:29, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Whatever happens to this one should be applied to these categories as well: Category:Blind Dead films and Category:Resident Evil films. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 18:34, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- After the close of this CfD, you could list those and link back to this discussion as relevant; but this CfD could not automatically apply without that process happening. postdlf (talk) 12:15, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Now we just need this CfD to close. --Thejadefalcon ^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 13:36, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. {{28 film franchise}} seems to be dealing with these quite well. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:14, 18 November 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.

University of Cambridge alumni subcategories

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. The upmerege will not be done since the category was not tagged. That will need to be a follow on nomination. Editors are free the adjust the parents of the wrangler categories outside of this discussion. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:52, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete all. I raised this new category scheme at this WT:CFD thread, as I had a feeling that previous categories of alumni by subject / degree name had been deleted. After some comments there, and some digging around, I found this list of similar previous discussions that resulted in deletions (including various "degree title" and "degree subject" deletions), and a deletion of PPE graduates (another "degree subject" deletion). As pointed out at the WT:CFD discussion, to have multiple alumni categories (college, degree title and subject) for every Cambridge graduate is overcategorisation; alumni by college is sufficient. It is not a defining characteristic of someone worthy of categorisation that, for example, their post-graduate studies were rewarded with an MPhil as opposed to a PhD. The categories involved are:

If the discussion results in a deletion, then Category:Alumni of the University of Cambridge by college can be upmerged to Category:Alumni of the University of Cambridge, as the phrase "by college" will be redundant. Bencherlite ^Talk 13:02, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (or upmerge as needed) per nom. All these categories accomplish is the proliferation of alumni categories on individual articles for one institution; along with Category:Alumni of the University of Cambridge by college, all alumni (who earned a degree at least) would now have at minimum three categories for the same institution. When you take into account that most notable people will have multiple degrees (my non-notable wife and I have five between us), this will just cause unnecessary clutter when the scheme is inevitably expanded to other institutions. Further, the "students of..." categories have no clear inclusion criteria that I can discern; most modern university educations require students to study a wide variety of topics at the undergraduate (or equivalent) level, and even if it is limited to a declared major (if there's a British equivalent), people often change that throughout their studies. If the goal is just to subdivide the alumni category, lists can dissect that information however narrowly you want, without burdening articles with multiple categories for the same underlying fact of having attended one particular educational institution. postdlf (talk) 17:00, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Type of degree isn't defining. As for the subject of the degree, if the subject of an article has gone on to make a contribution to sociology, zoology, etc. it will be reflected in other cats, otherwise it's just trivia. Disagree slightly with previous comment, "most modern university educations require students to study a wide variety of topics at the undergraduate (or equivalent) level" - that isn't the case for the majority of English universities, Cambridge included. Declan Clam (talk) 18:21, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't think the type of degree awarded or subject studied in school is not defining in and of itself, let alone when that is combined with the school attended. Categorize people by what they do in life, not what degree they have or where they went to school. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:56, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Notify~~ the talk pages of the membership first. Should probably be deleted. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:04, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no such requirement at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion#Procedure; if you would like to propose such a requirement at WT:CFD, feel free, but I don't see the need to spam the article talk pages in this case. The category structure is very new and the work of a single editor, who has been notified, but who has yet to join in this debate. There is no wider "alumni by degree subject" or "alumni by degree title" categorization scheme that this would affect. Bencherlite^Talk 13:46, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Did a single editor added the category links to the member pages? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:10, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes, see Special:Contributions/The_Sage_of_Stamford for 8 November. Bencherlite^Talk 20:15, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - I that case, notifying The_Sage_of_Stamford (talk · contribs) is sufficient, and I see that you did that immediately upon listing this discussion. Delete as per nom. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:39, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all subject items and BA & MA. BA is the universal degree. MA is a BA who paid extra fees. MD is effectively mere a subject item for medicine. I suspect that B Mus is a higher degree (but unsure). Cambridge DD should be kept as a notable distinction. I would strongly oppose upmerging by college. There are so many notable Cambridge graduates that they need to be split, not merged. Both Oxford and Cambridge have always had a strong collegiate system, so that this split is (exceptionally) appropriate. WE must have 1000s of notable graduates. In writing a bio article on a graduate, I always categorise him by college. York, Durham, St Andrews (and perhaps others) have "colleges", but they seem to be little more than Halls of Residence. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:57, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I am not proposing upmerging the categories for the individual colleges, otherwise I would have listed and tagged them. All I am pointing out is that the container category for the individual college categories, Category:Alumni of the University of Cambridge by college, can be upmerged to Category:Alumni of the University of Cambridge: at present, Category:Alumni of the University of Cambridge has three subcategories ("by college", "by subject", "by degree") and if "by subject" and "by degree" are deleted, having an intermediate sub-category of "Alumni by college" between "Cambridge alumni" and "Alumni of Foo College, Cambridge" is unnecessary. Bencherlite ^Talk 08:43, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As the original creator of these new categories, I am now of the view that their creation was a mistake and they should be deleted. These additions were prompted by the existence of Category:Senior Wranglers and Category:Second Wranglers as sub-categories of Category:Alumni of the University of Cambridge, where they fitted uneasily in a grouping which was otherwise only sub-categorised by college. Following the logic set out by others above, these wrangler categories should perhaps be deleted altogether (rather than moved, as I did, to my new Cambridge students of mathematicians category) as they take categorisation to an even further level, i.e. by subject and by degree class, since this is just peculiar Cambridge terminology for people placed in the first class of the mathematics tripos. --The Sage of Stamford (talk) 23:39, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The Wranglers categories were the subject of much debate, including a DRV (see Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2009_March_24 for a taste). I think the consensus was that being first in the year in mathematics at Cambridge was defining of an individual in a way that, for example, being first in theology wasn't, given the whole Wranglers-related interest in newspapers of the time etc. Bencherlite^Talk 08:43, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - If the wrangler categories stay, they should stay only as sub-categories of Category:Mathematicians since being a wrangler is a defining characteristic qua mathematician, not qua Cambridge alumnus.--The Sage of Stamford (talk) 21:24, 15 November 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:Wikipedians working to improve CfD

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more user 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. This started as a rename. If you look a those opinions, there appeared to be a consensus to keep the current form. However the option of deletion was introduced and received minimal opposition. So, there is a clear consensus to delete. We can not make a decision here without considering the close of the last version of this category and the closers comments there. While there may have been agreement that this name is better then the last, the result from this discussion comes out with the same result. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:45, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Administrative nomination: moved from speedy renaming section due to objection. Material from speedy section is copied below. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:38, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians working to improve CfD to Category:Wikipedians working to improve Cfd No.2 - usual capitalisation is for small 'd'. --Xdamr^talk 01:59, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Beyond the fact that this rename is pointless, "CfD" is a fairly standard spelling and does not fit the "usual capitalisation" criteria. If you look at the category, it is included in Category:CfD 2009-11 which lists all categories up for discussion this month. Alansohn (talk) 15:58, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

True, but at the same time it is 'Categories for discussion', not 'Categories for Discussion', and 'Cfd' seems to be the preferred form used on WP:CFD (and subpages) by a factor of around 10,000.02 to 1. No argument from me re. it being a minor rename, but if a thing is worth doing then it's worth doing well, as the man once said... --Xdamr^talk 16:11, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:AfD describes itself as "Articles for deletion (AfD)" and "XfD" is standard usage across Wikipedia. WP:CfD is variously referred to as CfD, CFD and cfd, making the insistence that "Cfd" is the "usual capitalisation" rather questionable. I do notice that WP:CfD now starts out by describing itself as "Categories for discussion (Cfd)". While that might have supported the "Cfd" variation, the change was made in this edit, by the same editor who has nominated this rename. As there is no "usual capitalisation", the speedy criteria is not met. Alansohn (talk) 16:35, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That was one edit, made in the context of expanding the lead - it certainly doesn't account for or explain away the many remaining instances of 'Cfd' in the page. --Xdamr^talk 16:39, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Expanding our horizons, Wikipedia:Files for deletion refers to itself as "Files for deletion (FfD)" and Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion opens with a self-description of "Miscellany for deletion (MfD)". We have "AfD", "FfD" and "MfD" as preferred abbreviations. Shouldn't we be consistent and refer to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion as "CfD", rather than create a standard that conflicts with one widely used for (almost) all XfD processes? Alansohn (talk) 16:51, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I smell a full discussion coming on. Oh goody. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 20:51, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

End of copied material. Please make new comments below this line.

Oppose as XfD is the standard usage, and in the interests of maintaining accessibility, our documentation should reflect standard usage, not (some particular) ideality. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:20, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This category is effectively a reincarnation of Category:Wikipedians who say CfD is broken, which was deleted at CFD only hours before this one was created. It's great that the new category does not have such a factionalising name, and I note that the previous CfD was closed without prejudice to some new creation, it seems in practice to be serving the same function of creating a talk page for those who believe that CFD is broken. Whilst I agree that many aspects of CFD need to be reviewed, and I welcome the less factional category name, the same problem remains: that category talk is the wrong place to discuss and desire for reform. As I noted at the previous CFD, the place to discuss changes to CFD processes is initially WT:CFD, and this looks yet again like an attempt to create a separate space.
Please folks, some of you raise important concerns ... but the appropriate course of action is to discuss them at WT:CFD, not to create a category which implies that other editors are perfectly happy with CFD as it currently exists and use its talk page as a forum for a ginger group. I'm very open to the concerns raised, but this is not the way to pursue them. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:10, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The talk page is not serving the same function; this time it is the vilified letting off steam, non-destructively in my opinion. The discussion is not at an inappropriate (ie too high) level for an obscure place. Serious reform discussions are under control at Wikipedia_talk:CFD#Increasing_openness_and_transparency and Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Reform, and Good Olfactory (talk · contribs) has even resumed CfD admin tasks without further breakages. Live and let live. Motions to delete here are likely to cause more problem than what they are supposed to solve. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:31, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - "Good Olfactory has even resumed CfD admin tasks without further breakages." That not entirely accurate. Apparently, I have still been thinking I'm God. Shortly thereafter, more breakage occurred. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:53, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Category:Wikipedians working to improve CfD was created days before the CfD was closed. It was recreated after the close of the previous CfD only because it had been improperly deleted several days earlier. As with anyone in recovery, the occasional slip is to be expected, and hopefully the earlier out-of-process speedy deletion of this category is an unfortunate aberration that won't be repeated. So far, half of the (two) members of Category:Wikipedians working to improve CfD are admins. User:Xdamr has grabbed the ball here, expanded the description of the purpose of the category and helped push the discussion I started regarding increasing community awareness of CfD discussions, for which we have discussed options including tagging CfD nominations on articles where the category is used or on their talk pages. For less than one day's work, this category has already served effectively towards improving CfD. More editors are invited to add Category:Wikipedians working to improve CfD to their user page and to jump in on finding additional ways to make CfD more representative of the Wikipedia community as a whole. Alansohn (talk) 13:06, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sorry Alansohn, but God doesn't do recovery programs. God just is. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:33, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Sorry God Olfactory. You may want to check into the Kfar Shaul Mental Health Center, which has had much success in dealing with those with similar delusions of deityhood. Alansohn (talk) 00:27, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - "God Olfactory"--that's funny. If only such attributions could be limited to good-natured discussion. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:49, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - If part of the problem with CFD is poor community awareness of CFD discussions, and to fix that problem you wish to make CFD more representative of the Wikipedia community as a whole, why on earth do people insist on shoehorning this very important discussion on the talk page of an obscure user category? --Kbdank71 21:43, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - I find that curious as well. postdlf (talk) 23:32, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        I find it curious that the same suggestion has been made months ago -- and studiously ignored -- at both WT:CAT and WT:CFD ([see here] for one of many). The attention that this category (and the forthcoming WikiProject) is creating seem to be the only thing that has prodded a handful of people out of their belief that all is hunky dory in the Bizarro world of CfD. Real improvements may well be possible after all. Maybe we can move onto defining the undefined term "defining", one of CfDs most fundamental problems, once we've made progress on the greater participation front. Alansohn (talk) 00:27, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        I can make a guess as to why your suggestion was ignored, but I'll stay on topic. You were ignored at both CAT and CFD, and so you think the solution to that problem is to talk about it in an even more unknown place? And you find this curious? Really? Maybe it's not CFD that is bizarro after all. --Kbdank71 01:10, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Well, the original reason was to workshop on what the problems of CfD are, as perceived by those who felt they saw problems. Instead, the issue received pretty impressive high level advertising at CfD, DRV & WP:AN. I don't think there is any showhorning to be done at this stage. However, things have moved on, and there is currently a very refreshing gust of fresh air with some non-XfDers contributing to Wikipedia_talk:CFD#Increasing_openness_and_transparency. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:53, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No opinion on the capitalisation issue, because who cares, but I want to say to BrownHairedGirl that it is deeply unrealistic to hope for all CfD-related discussion to take place on WT:CFD.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 14:10, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure, people will discuss these things on their user talk pages or at the village pump, or wherever ... and that's fine. But the fact that people discuss things in non-specific places is no reason to create a new formal discussion place to fragment the discussions which people want. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:18, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per BHG. If, as SmokeyJoe states, this time it is the vilified letting off steam and Serious reform discussions are under control at Wikipedia_talk:CFD#Increasing_openness_and_transparency and Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Reform, then this category is not only not needed, it is incorrectly named as well. Categories, even user categories, are not to let people vent. --Kbdank71 18:05, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above and my own comments in previous discussions. Make use of an existing venue...RFC, CfD talk page, Village Pump, etc...rather than creating your own grandstand. Tarc (talk) 19:53, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per BHG, if the only justification for maintaining this category is to have a category talk page for discussing changes to something other than the category itself. I still don't get that at all. Additionally, the name is certainly better than the original, but it still implies that there are those participating at CfD who aren't working to improve it. postdlf (talk) 23:32, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~Indeed~~Actually, I think the deleted category was better named ~~and focused.~~ because it didn't cast implied commentary on nonmembers. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:57, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, I said the current category is better on both counts than the deleted one. postdlf (talk) 00:03, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - reworded. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:12, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
One side has to drop the stick, so might as well make it official and !vote delete.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 23:48, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per convention. We do not capitalise titles, except for proper names. So it is Categories for discussion and Categories for discussion, which makes for Cfd. This should have been a speedy and all objections ignored. I have long ago nominated CfD dated subcategories for renaming, which was not accepted because of the personal attack of a certain editor clouding the discussion, but no doubt that it is wrong. Although there are some parts of Wikipedia that still have the second capital, Tfd and most of Cfd are free of it. Debresser (talk) 17:23, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Oppose rename, Propose creation of additional categories.
Keep per the precedent set with these categories. Like those, this category fits the very definition and purpose spelled out in WP:USERCAT: "...the purpose of user categories is to aid in facilitating coordination and collaboration between users for the improvement and development of the encyclopedia." This category serves to better the encyclopedia and has a clearly defined scope and purpose stated directly on the category page itself. Furthermore, per this CFD and DRV mess [1] [2] [3] it is painfully obvious that there are indeed some major issues that still need to be addressed and resolved with regards to the current CFD processes.
Oppose rename per the XfD and XFD standard forms in widespread use across Wikipedia, WP:NC, and WP:NCCAT. The most common forms of the term actually seem to be CfD and CFD, with Cfd seeing very little use site-wide.
Propose creation of Category:Wikipedians working for process reform by process and related subcategories to help bring together editors wishing to improve various Wikipedia processes and to focus more attention on the various process reform issues.
--Tothwolf (talk) 20:57, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Collaboration categories may serve a useful purpose in bringing people together when the subject of the collaboration is diffused, and when editors may therefore be working on the same subject (or issues) in different areas. But since this category relates entirely to one process, there is already one logical place to turn, viz. WT:CFD ... so I don't see how this category helps the collaboration, unless the category talk page is to be used as a forum. And that's not what category talk is for. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:58, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment That's easy to fix. [4] Now any editor following the category link from a user or user talk page will (like the flagged revisions categories) have direct links where more information and discussion can be found. That is the very purpose of user categories. --Tothwolf (talk) 00:15, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Reply. What does that achieve? A category is the wrong tool for the job you describe.
      To find those links, an editor needs to scroll down a user page to find categories, then follow the link to the category, then follow one or both of the links.
      If the intention is to help editors find those discussions, then a userbox template would do the job much more effectively, because it could be placed more prominently, and would need no scrolling. There could even be several versions of the template depending on the size desired.
      So I still see no reason to use a category ... unless there is some more plausible reason for its existence. I want to believe that those advocating retention of this category are being open about their intentions for it, but the answers so far are not making that belief very easy. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:54, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - I don't agree with your assessment that a category is the wrong tool for the job. A category in general is much more visible than a userbox, especially with the massive amounts of userboxes in use now (surely I'm not the only one who tends to ignore them?). A userbox also does not replace a category, although they can sometimes complement one another. Often it is a matter of preference as some editors tend to prefer userboxes and some prefer categories. I'm not really a huge fan of userboxes, although I have created a number of them in the past. I actually find categories much more informative than userboxes when they are properly structured and link to their subject. A category page can also contain much more information than can fit into the typical 120 characters of an infobox with a tiny 8pt font. --Tothwolf (talk) 06:37, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        ... which brings me back to my earlier points. A 120-character infobox is more than enough to link to one or two discussions, so it would be helpful to know exactly what further verbosity is planned for the category page. Tothwolf, your explanations continue to suggest to me that the category has some sort of ginger group purpose. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:10, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ginger group? --Thejadefalcon ^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 19:13, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I see I haven't voted yet. I too think BHG has hit the nail on the head. I quite like the phrase "ginger group". I still don't understand the apparent fascination with attempting to pursue reform through use of a user category talk page. If kept, rename as nominated, or expand abbreviation completely so that it actually can mean something to cfd-"outsiders". Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:33, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per BrownHairedGirl, this has already been dealt with. If you have problems with the process, use the talk page. JBsupreme (talk) 06:51, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note for closing admin The above !vote by User:JBsupreme should be discarded as it is part of a large wikistalking effort by this individual against myself. He has shown no past interest in this category or CFD and has continued to follow my contribs to !vote against anything I present in XfD and to AfD articles I edit. This matter has been referred to AN/I and now RFAR and his behaviour has continued even during these processes. --Tothwolf (talk) 17:51, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

cf Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Hounding of Tothwolf. --Xdamr^talk 18:16, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Though the instigator of this discussion, with my speedy rename nomination above, I should make it clear that I am not at all opposed to deletion if that is consensus opinion. This category is certainly a vast improvement over Category:Wikipedians who think CfD is broken; with its more moderate, less factional tone, this category could conceivably include all those involved with Cfd - surely we all all are surely looking to improve and develop the process, whether we subscribe to the view that it is currently 'broken' or not? That said, as has been noted, such an expansive category definition is of doubtful utility in fostering cooperation. Further, per the recent Cfds and DRVs on this topic, I certainly see it as inappropriate to try to use a category as an alternative discussion group, bypassing the established community fora such as WT:CFD. It has been claimed that this category has been responsible for kick-starting a discussion on increasing community awareness of CfD discussions (per User:Alansohn), though it is worth noting that this discussion only really took off when it was cross-posted to WT:CFD from the category's talk page and publicised at WP:VP. For collaboration - too broad. For discussion - redundant. For ginger-group POINT making - too moderate. Other than its vaguely laudable sentiment re working to perfect the Cfd process, this category doesn't seem to accomplish too much, from anyone's POV - whether pro or contra Cfd.

Xdamr^talk 11:16, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Postdlf's comments in the "who say cfd is broken" nom, and BHG's comments in this nom. While this name is a vast improvement, and I wouldn't be particularly annoyed if this were kept, I think Wikipedia is better off without these sort of categories. I supported and still support deletion of the "who support/oppose flagged revisions" categories as well, as I have a distaste for double standards. If kept, I oppose a rename, I think CfD is fine. VegaDark (talk) 21:04, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - superfluous. A user category has the primary function of helping editors to identify other editors who have a certain characteristic (such as interest in a topic, knowledge of a language, expertise in a subject, willingness to undertake a certain task, et cetera). The characteristic of "working to improve CfD", however, is not particularly meaningful—not because the activity itself is not valuable (on the contrary, it is very valuable if pursued constructively), but because it says nothing specific about what the user is doing. Every editor who makes an effort to add meaningful comments in category discussions, to evaluate and close CfDs, and/or to initiate constructive discussions at a CfD-related talk page is "working to improve CfD". Ultimately, there is no need for such a broadly-defined user category because WP:CFD/WT:CFD serve as central locations where all CfD-related activity is coordinated. –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 02:03, 22 November 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:Georgia (country) international footballers

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. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:52, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Georgia (country) international footballers to Category:Georgia international footballers

Nominator's rationale: Standard naming conventions for international footballers; and international footballers by definition represent a country, not a state. Giant Snowman 00:55, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related discussions. Giant Snowman 00:57, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Copy of speedy nomination:

Category:Georgia (country) international footballers to Category:Georgia international footballers — GiantSnowman 12:53, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose, though I can see the point. Standard practice, however, seems to be to use the disambiguator for all Georgia (country) categories, irrespective of whether the U.S. State is ever likely to have a similar category. Grutness...wha? 23:50, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Object there's a US state with the name "Georgia", so the requested name is highly confusing. 65.94.252.195 (talk) 05:58, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support What's confusing about it? International footballers by definition represent a country, not a state. -- Zsero (talk) 17:07, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support The link to the category is never going to be on anything relating to the US State. It is evident that if you are reading an article about a footballer who has represented a country in the Caucasus that the category is the link to where you will find other players who have represented the same nation at the same sport. Zero opportunity for confusion. Are the categories Category:Cobb County, Georgia, Category:Morgan County, Georgia etc going to be renamed to make it clear that Georgia USA is intended? Kevin McE (talk) 18:23, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, as I don't believe it's confusing, and a sentence on the category page can clarify it if it is. • Anakin ^(talk) 19:08, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- oppose. Contradicts speedy criterion #6 as it currently stands. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 20:51, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - any international footballers from Georgia the state would be US international footballers. It's not confusing at all. matt91486 (talk) 23:22, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Has been moved to a full discussion. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:31, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I don't see how this can be confusing, which is going to be the primary argument against it. Footballers from the state of Georgia cannot, by definition, be classified as internationals. They would fall under the category of Category:United States men's international soccer players. It's terribly US centric to argue that this confusion is legitimate (and I say that as an American). matt91486 (talk) 03:06, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I do not see how this could fail to not be confusing, since players from outside the US playing in the US state of Georgia would be international players in the US state of Georgia, and players from the US state of Georgia playing internationally would be Georgia international players, and Georgia US state as opposed to Georgia nation state, is an English speaking locality. 65.94.252.195 (talk) 04:46, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - it is unbelievably unconfusing - one Georgia is a country, one is a state. 'International', by definition, only refers to the country...as Matt says this is just shockingly US-centric. Giant Snowman 12:20, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

oppose Violates established pattern for categories for this country. Don't make make the reader have to guess. That is not the goal of WP. Hmains (talk) 05:03, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - yes, but it also violates the established patern for international players, as seen in Category:Football (soccer) players by national team. Giant Snowman 12:20, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Per Hmains, current name is consistent with other categs relating to Georgia (country) (see Category:Georgia (country)). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:13, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The article is Georgia (country), the category is Category:Georgia (country), and in my view it is more straightforward to use 'Georgia (country)' throughout rather than ponder every individual subcat of Category:Georgia (country) to see whether ambiguity is present. Occuli (talk) 11:32, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - if that's the case, then surely article such as Columbus, Georgia and Athens, Georgia should be moved to Columbus, Georgia (U.S. state) and Athens, Georgia (U.S. state), to avoid ambiguity from locations in the country by that name...Giant Snowman 12:20, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose we have a rather consistent rule of matching category titles to their parent articles. While this does create some awkwardly-named categories, the benefits of providing a clear association between a category and its associated article outweighs the occasional oddly-titled category. Alansohn (talk) 13:08, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - OK then, how about matching the title to those in its parent category, Category:Football (soccer) players by national team? Giant Snowman 13:16, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support: There is only one Georgia national football team. The US state does'nt even field a team at a similar level. So what's the confusion ? Djln--Djln (talk) 15:53, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support The link to the category is never going to be on anything relating to the US State. It is evident that if you are reading an article about a footballer who has represented a country in the Caucasus that the category is the link to where you will find other players who have represented the same nation at the same sport. Zero opportunity for confusion. Are the categories Category:Cobb County, Georgia, Category:Morgan County, Georgia etc going to be renamed to make it clear that Georgia USA is intended? Kevin McE (talk) 18:23, 9 November 2009 (UTC)(copied from speedy discussion Kevin McE (talk) 16:58, 10 November 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Additional evidence: a categories only search for Georgia reveals a very large number of cats in which the Georgia intended is not specified. The objectors would have more credibility if they were to turn their attention to cats that really do have the possibility of misinterpretation, like Georgian tennis players, or Georgian Jews, as opposed to this ambiguity free category. Kevin McE (talk) 17:15, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. The fact that some other categories break a long-established convention (and need fixing) is not a good argument for breaking a useful convention for this category. but thanks for drawing attention to the need to fix the others. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:12, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, "Georgian" has never been disambiguated in the same way as "Georgia". That may or may not be a a good thing, but it helps if we actually compare apples with apples. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:52, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good Olfactory, you raise a good point. "Georgian international footballers" might be a better name than the original proposal. I argued below for consistency with related cats which do not use "(country)", but I've only just realized most of them use "Georgian". It's better grammar too. • Anakin ^(talk) 20:43, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The consistent, established format for footballer nationality categories has it as 'Wikipedian footballers' and 'Wikipedia international footballers' i.e. 'English footballers', 'England international footballers' and 'Welsh footballers', 'Wales international footballers' etc. Giant Snowman 20:52, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, yes, you are absolutely right. Thank you for the clarification. Makes sense, as it's "players by national team" rather than "national team players by nationality". • Anakin ^(talk) 21:38, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support - one would have to be quite spectacularly ignorant of geography, football and the meaning of the word "international" to be confused by this. Declan Clam (talk) 18:26, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support To match the main article. Lugnuts (talk) 18:54, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
oppose, I understand and sympathise with the nominator's rationale, but I oppose simply because I still support speedy rename criterion #6, and it can't be a speedy criterion unless it can be applied universally. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:05, 10 November 2009 (UTC) [vote changed due to elimination of speedy #6 — Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:12, 12 November 2009 (UTC)][reply]

Comment - but this is no longer a speedy nomination...Giant Snowman 21:07, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's true, but it contradicts the speedy criterion. If the change was successful, the new category would be theoretically open to speedy renaming under #6, which of course would be ridiculous since we would have just had a full discussion about it. Therefore, it would render #6 problematic. #6 can't exist unless it can be applied universally. On balance, I still support keeping #6 as opposed to making exceptions. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:10, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But Number 6 at that page reads "6. Deprecated, kept blank for numbering purposes" So what is there to support? Maybe you mean paragraph 4, which refers to "bringing a category or categories into line with established naming conventions for that category tree", but goes on to say that "Such a convention must be well defined and must be overwhelmingly used within the tree" and I have proivided evidence that this is not the case, so a speedy reversion of the proposed change could be validly challenged. Kevin McE (talk) 07:42, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's a mistake. There was a recent discussion about getting rid of it, but there was more support for keeping it than for getting rid of it. I've changed it back. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:04, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, let it be noted that the section of the speedy deletion criteria that you think renders this move invalid is itself contentious, and is only presently posted at that policy because of your edit to that change. Having read the discussion I would have to challenge your assertion that there was more support for retention than for deletion: indeed, when there was a movement towards resolution, four people commented, of whom you were the only one seeking to preserve this clause. I think it would have been more honest if you had acknowledged that curren issue of debate, and declared your interest in that, in the first instance. Kevin McE (talk) 17:48, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We must be reading different discussions, because my opinion was more nuanced than that. I was in favour of deprecating it or keeping it, depending on its effect on other less controversial changes; there were 2 others clearly in favour of deprecating it and 2 others clearly in favour of keeping it. A perfectly divided discussion of only 5 editors isn't really enough to make a final determination on this, which is where it stands right now. It's been deprecated on that basis. You can think whatever you want about "honesty", but it's wrong. Maybe you should assume that users are telling the truth as they view it to be rather than assuming they are lying or being untruthful. I've struck my reasoning which you have objected to and provided a new one below. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 20:39, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per my comments when this was at speedy. Why aren't the comments for the speedy discussion listed here? They should have been copied in immediately after the nomination! Grutness...wha? 00:39, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Apologies, my bad, this is my first ever CfD. I have included them now. Cheers, Giant Snowman 01:02, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough - it's a steep learning curve :) No offence intended. Grutness...wha? 01:11, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, don't worry, none taken! I thought notifying everyone who participated in the speedy discussion about this CfR would be enough. Cheers, Giant Snowman 01:13, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Disambiguation is needed. Debresser (talk) 17:21, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, nearly strong support, per nom, matt91486, et al., as I don't see it as that confusing. Lingering confusion can be abated by a simple clarification on the category page. This change will also yield consistency with Georgia national football team and Category:Georgia national football team, as well as the entire tree of parent and sibling cats. See Category:Georgian footballers and Category:Georgian sportspeople and work your way up. Virtually none of them feel the need for explicit clarification in the name of the category. Also see Commons:Category:Sportspeople from Georgia and its parent tree. • Anakin ^(talk) 20:34, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support per earlier !voters. This, that and the other (talk · contribs) as 203.208.92.26 (talk) 04:15, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The current name is more clear. While the proposed name can make sense in the logical sense when it is considered, we've never really assumed readers are logical in this manner. (I've seen many people from the U.S. state categorized in the undisambiguated "Georgian foos" categories.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:10, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose change -- We have to disambigate Georgia (Country) and Georgia (State). The reference to the National football team does not help: that is obviously for the country. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:02, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - if it is "obviously for the country" then why do we need to bother disambiguating? Giant Snowman 21:27, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support, context leaves no ambiguity. Hiding T 16:13, 16 November 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.