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 current name probably is the WP:COMMONNAME. "W. V. Quine" gets far more google hits than the full name. And anyway, no one has proposed this on the article talk page, and there's no sense having the article and the category be different. Good Ol’factory(talk)22:30, 4 February 2011 (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.
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.
Nominator's rationale: Not quite sure if this qualifies as speedy. Refers to the River Lea in the UK and so should match parent category. However the River Lee Navigation should not be renamed as that is its name. Simply south......23:39, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support - but isn't it wonderful that we still have parts of old England with variable spelling? I just ran foul of that old chestnut Stixwold/Stixwould. And then there is Wyville cum Hungerton which is also Hungerton and Wyville... --Robert EA Harvey (talk) 14:40, 10 February 2011 (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.
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.
Nominator's rationale:Delete?. I don't think this is a widely used term or a widely recognized genre. There are Google results but a lot of them are false positives. If kept it should be renamed to "Cavalry Western films" to match the other genre categories. I Want My GayTV (talk) 23:23, 2 February 2011 (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.
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.
Nominator's rationale:Rename. Most of the other categories for Western films follow the convention of the proposed rename. Renaming it gets rid of the clumsy parenthetical. I Want My GayTV (talk) 23:16, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, or at least look at more closely. My research is showing that "Western comedy film" and "Comedy western film" are used approximately equally outside of Wikipedia. Within WP, the "(genre)" parenthetical is standard. Good Ol’factory(talk)04:59, 7 February 2011 (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:Timelines in comics / Category:Comics in-story histories
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.
Rationale: Both categories are small. I took the liberty of moving the last three entries from "in-story histories" to "timelines" where they were a better fit, making one category empty. The distinction isn't strong enough to warrant two categories for these few articles. Shooterwalker (talk) 17:23, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Functionally an "in story history" covers more than just a timeline, so it seems wrong to move, or force, articles that fall outside "just a timeline" to the narrower category. There is also an issue of whether the articles are in story ot not. The 3 article currently in Comics in-story histories are trying hard to present the real world history of the characters, not just a plot dump detailing their in-story "biography". The should be in a different category at this point. The timeline category also contains mostly chonology based lists presented in a real world context (the lone exception is currently up for AFD). It likely shouldn't have been subbed to Comics in-story histories. - J Greb (talk) 17:37, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The long and the short of it? It's miscategorization. At this point it would likely be best to inter-link the 3 pub history artices at "See also", de-parent Timelines in comics, and deep six Comics in-story histories. Especially since the premise for histories - the in-story toned bios - is a no-go by recent AfDs. - J Greb (talk) 21:37, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would support that as an alternative to merging the categories. We definitely have a consensus that the current state of affairs doesn't make sense. Shooterwalker (talk) 07:55, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If it helps... the proposals on the table are either to merge the two categories together, or to delete "comics in-story histories" and de-parent "timelines in comics". I'd support anything that tries to re-organize these two tiny categories into one slightly less tiny category. Shooterwalker (talk) 14:52, 6 February 2011 (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.
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 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.
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.
keep No valid reason for deletion. Having a list is not such a valid reason. Lists and categories go in parallel, not one substituing for the other, as they serve different purposes. Hmains (talk) 03:14, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
keep with the existing categories mentioned above there is precedent for having this category. Also the list wouldn't be displayed on all substance articles. __meco (talk) 10:31, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not particularly defining for these substances, with the exception of nicotine. This is the kind of thing that belongs in lists, not in categories, because we can't reasonably add a category for each product a particular substance is added to. Good Ol’factory(talk)20:42, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I found—I read every article in the category, and you can't really say this is defining for any of them except probably nicotine, and maybe solanone. The rest are stuff that is found in and added to a lot of different things. How anyone could claim that it is defining for, say—alanine—is beyond my understanding. Good Ol’factory(talk)04:41, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Good Ol'factory. A brief look through the full list suggests that the pattern is fairly typical: the fact of being a cigarette additive is not defining for most of the listed cigarette additives (which include rum, vanilla extract, vinegar, water, yeast, and many other common substances which are not known primarily for their use in cigarettes). -- Black Falcon(talk)20:00, 16 February 2011 (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.
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.
Nominator's rationale: To clarify that the scope of the category is not "Wikipedians with an interest in two or more religions", as the current title suggests, but "Wikipedians with an interest in the topic of religion (inclusive of interest in one or more religions)". -- Black Falcon(talk)16:59, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Interested in religion" seems overly broad. Is this category's scope small enough to adequately group users in a meaningful way to collaborate on articles? Someone interested in collaborating on Zen Buddhism, for instance, isn't necessarily going to have the knowledge or interest to collaborate on Hasidic Judaism. I think this might serve us better named Category:Wikipedians by interest in a religion with only subcategories titled "Wikipedians interested in religion x", and remove all individual users from the category. I agree that the nom's proposal is an improvement from its current name, however. VegaDark (talk) 07:43, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is difficult to know for certain when faced with a userbox-populated category (see {{User:UBX/Religion interest}}—at least the text of this one has not changed since it was created). In principle, at least, I think that the category could be useful for editors interested in collaborating on content related to religion as a (historical, political, psychological, sociological or other) phenomenon rather than to one particular religion. -- Black Falcon(talk)05:30, 15 February 2011 (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.
American independent professional wrestling promotions
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 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.
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.
Conditional support "West Coast" is not a national term, though Wikipedia lists it that way. "West Coast of North America" is a more workable title, in purely geographic terms, though I haven't looked at these lists to see if they are delimited by the US-Canada and US-Mexico border, but various articles are not so-limited. For those of us who live there, "West Coast" is a shared identity/concept whether it's Vancouver or LA or Tijuana or Mazatlan, much the same as "Pacific Northwest" is ultra-national or extra-national. When other Canadians say "West Coast", they mean all of BC; when it's used in BC, in the cultural/regional sense, it means the shared "space" with Seattle-Portland-San Francisco-LA-northwesternmost Mexico (within BC it can mean the outer coast of Vancouver Island only).Skookum1 (talk) 17:56, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That is, Category:West Coast of North America-related lists should be considered, especially if any of these lists include Alaskan items (and hence imply the inclusion of British Columbia); I note there's no hyphen in the original proposed title, to me that looks/sounds wrong but I'm old-fashioned I guess....and "West Coast" should be capitalized; it's a proper name in common use as suchSkookum1 (talk) 18:00, 10 February 2011 (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.
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.
Support because it would be less awful. But the elephant in the room is how the whole space is made up of poorly defined terms with any number of local dialect and slang meanings. There is in no way shape or form a "standard" English meaning within ten miles of minibike or any other small bike. Such attempts to rationalize the definitions of minibike, pit bike, mini moto, midi moto, etc. is pure original research. Wikipedia editors often feel frustrated because the English language is such a mess, but that doesn't empower us to fix it ourselves. Yet if an article and category are to exist on the subject, we have to name it something... --Dbratland (talk) 21:29, 10 February 2011 (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.
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.
Nominator's rationale:Delete. I think that this topic would be better addressed exclusively in the article climbing injuries. Most of these injuries—carpal tunnel syndrome, tennis elbow, golfer's elbow, etc.—are not injuries that are limited to (or even most commonly experienced by) climbers. If every sport or activity categorized what injuries could be suffered while doing that activity, we would have mass overcategorization. Good Ol’factory(talk)02:32, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - missed this one on the first time through. I agree with Good Olfactory that the majority of injuries here are much more commonly the result other external causes. As a result I don't see that being caused by climbing as defining for the particular injuries. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 05:22, 3 February 2011 (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.
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 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:History of Native Americans in the Pacific Northwest
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.
Nominator's rationale: "Native American" is a completely incorrect term to use for indigenous peoples in Canada, and is widely rejected by them and is also not part of Canadian English, which is one reason why the articles Indigenous peoples of the Pacific Northwest Coast and Indigenous peoples of the Northwest Plateau are titled the way they are. The category, which spans the Canada-US border, should be globalized to take into account Canadian English usage and also sensitivities pertaining to the use of "Native American" in reference to Canadian First Peoples. There may be other "Native American"-named categories with the same issue out there (in fact there are several) but so far this CfR is about only this one and a child category (below). For the template on the category page I proposed Category:History of indigenous peoples of the Pacific Northwest but given this one's existing preposition "Category:History of indigenous peoples in the Pacific Northwest" may be more in line with MOS/Category naming conventions.Skookum1 (talk) 08:13, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The "gods", "goddesses" and "deities" categories are problematic and are a juxtaposition of concepts not found in North American indigenous culture, not very far north of Mexico anyway; what else they could be called I don't know but I do know that "gods" and "deities" and "goddesses" are not appropriate as names.Skookum1 (talk) 09:48, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Someone else has proposed "spiritual beings" though other candidates might be "supernatural beings", "spirit-beings", "supernatural entities" etc.....it's been proposed these and the "gods/goddesses" subcategories be a different CfD, with input from WP:MESO, WP:SOUTHAM as well as WP:IPNO and WP:Central America, WP:Caribbean, WP:Anthro etc....I'll try and get to it later tonight. With any of those names, the genderized categories could probably be merged/done away with, and the "legendary creatures" category likewise merged as there's really only an arbitrary distinction....Skookum1 (talk) 21:51, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment While I'm hoping that more input is forthcoming on the Native American vs Indigenous peoples of North America changes above so that this CfR doesn't wind up with "no conensus" and the currently untenable names are retained, the sub-discussion about gods/deities/goddesses is now here, or has moved there, and it's there I'll invite input from the other WPs, before launching a CfR for them....I see your point about "spiritual beings" vs "supernatural entities" and note also that "religious locations" vs "spiritual locations" or some other such term be also considered/developed...eg. the Skwxwu7mesh have designated, now, "Wild Spirit Places" and there are various places that are sacred, on teh one hand, and others which are used for spiritual retreats/"training". But that's off-topic for here and I encourage ongoing input at the linked discussion on TALK:NORTHAMNATIVE or whatever shorthand there is for the WP:IPNO's talkpage.Skookum1 (talk) 08:58, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also, re the "religious figures" cat-name above, is that supposed to be for spiritual leaders of traditional practices, or is it also for priests and missionaries and native saints and beatified native individuals of the Catholic church, for example? Is it fair, even to draw a distinction? The term bothers me, as does "gods" and "deities", and I wonder what its intent was....Skookum1 (talk) 09:01, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This set of categories is not the set I would use to evaluate the term "Native American" on Wikipedia. I suggest nominating Category:Native American people first, and we can get an honest discussion about the term. But these lesser-used categories should not be the ones on which we attempt to build consensus.--Mike Selinker (talk) 20:54, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You don't get it, Mike - it's not just the US-only Category:Native American people (which is US-only only because I and others removed Canadian First Nations and Inuit from it...), thsse categories are subcategories of other parents, and all include items which are not "Native American" - i.e. First Nations, Metis, Inuit and also Alaskan Native as well as Mexican indigenous peoples; "Native American" is not an acceptable term, not at all; and not all these are "minor", esepcially not given their potential scope in the long run. USian terminology is not acceptable on categories addressing Canadian and Mexican articles, not in the slightest.Skookum1 (talk) 20:31, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Yes, to be clear: "Native American" is a perfectly reasonable term when discussing Indigenous peoples of the United States, so those categories should remain. However, when discussing Indigenous peoples of all of North America, it isn't reasonable. There's no need to change/discuss Category:Native American people, but these categories reach beyond the United States. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 03:23, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Note to closer, if and when that happens - the gods/goddesses/deities and similar categories may yet go further name changes - will go through further name changes, but they should be changed away from "Native American" here in the meantime, for reasons explained in reply to Mike Selinker above. It's either that or they be purged of their Canadian, Alaskan and Mexican articles and separate (and pointlessly redundant) categories created for them separately.Skookum1 (talk) 20:34, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Native Americans disambiguation page and the Native American name controversy page list five possible definitions for Native American, only one of which is limited to the US: All indigenous peoples of the Americas; All Indians of the Americas, thus excluding the Yupik, Inuit, Aleut, native Hawaiians and others who arrived later; "Indian, Native Hawaiian, or Native American Pacific Islander." (Native American Languages Act of 1990); All indigenous peoples of the Americas, including the U.S. and Canada but not including Mexico or further south; and Anyone born in the Americas, including those of European descent, for example (with "native" typically spelled with a lower case "n"). It's complicated, and likely will remain so.--Mike Selinker (talk) 13:21, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Agreed, but the fact that it does have a disambiguation page suggests that it's unclear. This proposed move would make things clearer for these specific categories which do not relate exclusively to US Native Americans. - 14:02, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Comment It's also only complicated because only Americans use the term "Native American" for all five definitions on that dab page and all the shifting variations in the name controversy page; it's not used in ethnographic literature about Canadian first peoples or Inuit or Metis, nor about Mexican indigenous peoples, certainly not about Greenlanders either (other than by US ethnographers publishing within and for a US perspective), it's certainly not used by Canadian First Nations peoples or in Canadian English to mean any Canadian aboriginal peoples, and it's not used by those people either (in fact, it's partly because they didn't like "Native Canadian" or especially "Native American" that the term First Nations was coined in the first place, though really it's a reference to the Deux Nations concept underlying the colonialist/"settler" perspective on Canadian nationality/identity. The n/N issue you mention is trivial and an old shibboleth and irrelevant anyway, as it's not complicated at all on our side of the border; it's only complicated because Americans insist on wanting to use their term to mean all aboriginal peoples in the New World, whether in Tierra del Fuego, the Amazon, the Canadian Subarctic or in Alaska ("Native American" is not used in Alaska, where "Alaskan Native" is the proper usage). It's not complicated at all, Mike, and that simplicity is reflected in the name of Wikipedia:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America and in the many articles already reflected the "indigenous peoples" convention, which can be used no matter which country or people is being discussed.Skookum1 (talk) 14:49, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support The Pacific Northwest includes at least as much of Canada as it does the United States. The term "Native American" is not appropriate in Canada. "Indigenous peoples" is, and it is likewise appropriate in the United States, even if not quite as widespread. This is an international region, so we should use a term acceptable in both countries. The same logic applies to any category that includes peoples outside the United States. Pfly (talk) 09:33, 19 February 2011 (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.
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.
Nominator's rationale: Seems redundant to have Health informatics and Health care informatics as a subcat. Propose merging into Health informatics. Even main article of Health informatics refers to them as synonymous. jsfouche ☽☾Talk05:53, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support - hadn't noticed this anomaly before. While there are subtle differences, they are really just two ways of looking at the same datasets, so upmerge looks good to me. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 05:14, 3 February 2011 (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.
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.
Nominator's rationale: This category attempts to group U.S. Air Force squadrons, wings, and groups that operated the B-29 bomber. This isn't a category type I've seen before, and I'm pretty sure it isn't one we need - it would quickly become a maze of categories, most of them incomplete. Also, upon seeing the category I think 'air forces that operated it', which it isn't. The BushrangerOne ping only02:09, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Presumably this is what categories are for. To group similar entites together so the readers can find like pages. As these weapons systems are historical, and not current, the many pages that are grouped in these categories are complete. Bwmoll3 (talk) 18:33, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In this case, this is what the "Operators" section of Boeing B-29 Superfortress is for. Not a category. Categories should group weapons systems by country of origin, not operating countries, or, as in this case, worse, UNITS operating X. Otherwise you get horrific pileups like the disgusting mess at the bottom of AIM-120 AMRAAM... - The BushrangerOne ping only18:52, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I don't like the precedent this would set, in agreement with Bushranger's nom. Each aviation squadron typically usues many different aircraft over it's history (some dating back to the pioneering of military aviation in the 1910s have used dozens!), and I don't think it would be useful to categorize an aircraft by the units that fly it. If we move up the chain to larger units, like groups and wings, the problem gets worse as we realize that they may fly more than one type (not including variants) of aircraft simultaneously, which makes a messy web of categorization; if we take it all the way up the tree, we reach the national militaries and thier branches, which are already categorized by aircraft article (the reverse of this scheme). Most aircraft articles already include a list of national militaries and/or branches that operate the aircraft, as well as each unit's article specifying when it flew what aircraft. If someone really wants to demonstrate aircraft operators by squadron, I think a list (as a sub-article of the aircraft page) would be a much cleaner alternative than categorization, and could actually be referenced that way. bahamut0013wordsdeeds21:33, 3 February 2011 (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.
Relisted to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 February 19. -- Black Falcon (talk) 20:17, 19 February 2011 (UTC)