Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 July 26

< July 25 July 27 >

July 26

Category:Demand management

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge. the wub "?!" 11:03, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:Demand management to Category:Electricity distribution
Nominator's rationale: Merge. Single entry category for Intermittent power source. Intermittent power sources are not restricted to renewable energy. While that may be the focus of the current article, it is better included in the more compete category. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:14, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as nom. Beagel (talk) 23:18, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Renewable energy power conditioning equipment

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge. Kbdank71 15:41, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:Renewable energy power conditioning equipment to Category:Solar energy
Nominator's rationale: Merge. Very very weak ties to power conditioning. One article even includes land. In any case power conditioning is generally not unique to the method of generation. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:09, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Renewable energy in the third world

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. Wizardman 00:07, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Renewable energy in the third world (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: We already have categories for renewable energy by country. And the only content here is also proposed for deletion. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:03, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Solar energy in the third world

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. Wizardman 00:08, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Solar energy in the third world (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Single article and it is a device used everywhere, even in the US, so unless we are going to add the US the the third world countries, this category can go as OCAT. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:00, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Energy from Ocean and Water

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 to fix caps problem, no consensus on merging with Category:Hydropower. Kbdank71 15:57, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Energy from Ocean and Water to Category:Energy from oceans and water
Nominator's rationale: Rename. I considered this as a speedy for the caps, but I was not sure of the need for the extra 's' so I brought it here. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:38, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Category:Hydropower or merge and rename Category:Hydro energy. This was discussed here quite recently with some support to merge these categories.Beagel (talk) 23:30, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I can support this merge. I was trying to cleanup after the last failed attempt to rename. So if the merge fails, this still should be renamed. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:48, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Agree. In case the merge fails, I support renaming per nom.Beagel (talk) 09:11, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Category:Hydropower as essentially duplicate categories. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:39, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I just touched up the definition of hydropower and added it to the Category page. Assuming that it's correct to say that hydropower is restricted to power derived from moving water, then it would not include those forms of ocean energy that derive from gradients (salinity, thermal). Cgingold (talk) 10:45, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hydropower will not be going anywhere. It is simply too notable and well know of a topic without any POV or OCAT issues. The question here is more about these other sources. I'm not suggesting you are proposing this but just making this clear. If there is a broader water power generation category then clearly hydropower would logically be a subcat. I would oppose a merge that eliminates Category:Hydropower. If we go in this direction, where would power generation from tides go? Vegaswikian (talk) 20:00, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - would Category:Energy from water serve to include Category:Hydropower and these other watery methods? Occuli (talk) 11:16, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Maybe in this case Category:Water energy?Beagel (talk) 14:17, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, so all hydrogen based articles would be sub cated into Category:Water energy? After all, water is expected to be the major source of hydrogen by many. Another part of the problem here is that hydropower is used to generate both electrical power and mechanical force. Most of the new technologies are only used to generate electrical power. Category:Water energy may be the best solution for now as the parent for Category:Hydropower. So those those pushing this view are supporting a Rename of Category:Energy from Ocean and Water to Category:Water energy? Vegaswikian (talk) 20:00, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • OMG, Category:Water energy??? Don't make me shoot my computer! :) You do realize that Water energy sounds for all the world like those "free energy" scams that are always popping up? The last thing we want is people putting those articles into this category. This is gonna require some careful thought. Also, since you touched on hydrogen -- as I'm entirely certain you already know, VW (but for the possible benefit of other editors), water per se is not actually an energy source when it comes to hydrogen, since it requires the application of energy (electricity) to split those H20 molecules. So I'm not sure it would make sense to include those articles -- I guess it depends on the exact name we settle on. Cgingold (talk) 21:58, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Category:Energy from Ocean and Water is a parent category which consists of two subcategories: Category:Hydropower and Category:Ocean energy. There are actually two questions which need to be answered. The first question is if that kind of parent category is needed. The second question about the name of this category raise only after deciding that this parent category is needed and should remain. Trying to summarize above discussion, I see following options:
  • Option A. Category:Energy from Ocean and Water is not needed.
  • Option B. Category:Energy from Ocean and Water is needed as a parent category.
  • Variant 3. Rename to Category:Energy from oceans and water per Vegaswikian.
  • Variant 4. Rename to Category:Energy from water per Occuli.
  • Variant 5. Rename to Category:Water energy per Beagel.
  • All I ask is that if we are still working on a consensus over need, that the proposed rename happen. The current name is just bad. I don't think there have been any objections to fixing the name while the broader discussion goes on. I think that all of these are valid questions about the need for the category and the structure but it may take a while for consensus to develop. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:39, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It is a difficult one, I think if we are going to define Category:Hydropower as energy derived from kinetic movement of water (and its a good definition) we need to be consistent. Maybe thermal ocean energy can fit into Category:Geothermal energy? Salinity gradients is a bit rough though, maybe just put into Category:Renewable energy? Ultimately I would like to see a Category:Alternative renewable energies (maybe with a different name) but until that day comes... GG (talk) 12:54, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Sheikhs in the United Arab Emirates

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename all. the wub "?!" 11:04, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming the following seven (7) categories:
Nominator's rationale: In the United Arab Emirates (where both Arabic and English are widely used), the most common spelling is "sheikh." While "shaikh" and "sheikh" can be used alternatively in English, "shaikh" is not very common in the United Arab Emirates (UAE). The most common form of the word is with the "e": sheikh. I propose renaming the above categories to be consistent with the spelling in the UAE. Leitmanp (talk | contributions) 21:59, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename as nom. The problem is that the Arabic letter in question can be correctly transliterated wither way. However the spelling with "e" is now the usual one, certainly in UK. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:06, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom; and the article is at Sheikh. Occuli (talk) 22:30, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom for consistency within WP; however, none of the categories are yet tagged. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:29, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. - Darwinek (talk) 22:33, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all per nom and the article at Sheikh. Timrollpickering (talk) 23:38, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:RNVR Wartime Service

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 Peterkingiron. Kbdank71 16:01, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:RNVR Wartime Service to Category:Royal Navy personnel of World War II
Nominator's rationale: Merge, RNVR = Royal Navy Volunteer Reserve. Essentially a part of the Royal Navy. The category is covered by the Royal Navy category. Additionally the category is unclear as to content for the casual reader. Most people will not know what RNVR stands for and which war? Kernel Saunters (talk) 19:17, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose instead rename to Category:Royal Navy Volunteer Reserve personnel of World War II (or such like), which should be a subcategory of Category:Royal Navy personnel of World War II. CErtainly the abbreviation should be expanded. The wartime RN consisted of the regular navy (including wartime conscripts and volunteers) and RNVR, who were (and are) the naval equivalent of the Territorial Army, a volunteer reserve. They were distinguishable in their officers' uniform even after they were called up, having wavy stripes rather than straight ones. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:51, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nominator endorse rename - Lets get this renamed as per PeterKingiron. May re-nom in future for a merge though... Kernel Saunters (talk) 11:23, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support rename per Peterkingiron — Bellhalla (talk) 11:39, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Partition managers

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename. Kbdank71 16:05, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Partition managers to Category:Disk partitioning software
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Less ambiguous and matches Disk partitioning article. "Partition manager" is frequently used as part of a brand name, e.g. Paragon Partition Manager, Acronis Partition Manager. Ham Pastrami (talk) 14:47, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

US Navy ships by state

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename. Kbdank71 15:54, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging for each of the following 27 categories:
Propose deleting
  • Category:Ships of the United States Navy by place of construction
Nominator's rationale: Merge/Delete. Based on a discussion with the creator here and at WikiProject Ships here, I'm proposing an upmerge of the first 27 categories. The creator of those categories was not familiar with the "Ships built in Foo" style of categories. I'm also proposing a deletion of the final listed category which I created as a temporary umbrella category solely for the 27 "United States Navy ships built in Foo" categories. — Bellhalla (talk) 13:12, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As creator of almost all of these categories (United States Navy ships built in STATE) it appears more appropriate to place them in (Ships built in STATE). This does not cause any confusion since when a USS Ship is place in "built in state" it becomes obvious by its listing name that it is a USS ship. --

I request that they all be converted as I was the original creator except for (United States Navy ships built in Michigan).Wikited (talk) 13:34, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support - the alphabetical ordering could sort the Navy ships (USS XXX) together anyway in case there are non-Navy ships in some of these (eg see Category:Ships built in Oregon; admittedly the sort is not doing this at present). Occuli (talk) 13:49, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • However they are still listed in a USN ships category, just not by the state they were built in. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:42, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Per nom. --Brad (talk) 16:09, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support and leave the sort the way it is. Sorting by the name of the ship and not it's owner or method of propulsion is the correct way to sort ships. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:13, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment I am unsure why these changes would be a WP improvement. Wouldn't it be better to just have have a cat/subcat arrangement, such as Category:United States Navy ships built in Virginia as a subcat of Category:Ships built in Virginia and keeping Category:Ships of the United States Navy by place of construction which has a navigation benefit in the US military area that is lost by this nom. Hmains (talk) 16:26, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are no other categories of the form "Ships of the Foobian Navy by place of construction" for any other navies. I believe that the current structures is over-categorization (and maybe a little too indiscriminate, too). Ships in the merged categories would still be listed by the state of construction and would still be in one or more U.S. Navy categories. A good many states would have no notable ships listed apart from U.S. Navy ships, so it seems a little silly to have a category with one subcategory and no articles in it. (Also, to match existing naming conventions, they should be renamed in the style of "Ships of the United States Navy built in New Foobakota" if the consensus is against the proposal.) — Bellhalla (talk) 21:43, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

People from US counties

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename all. the wub "?!" 11:06, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming each of the following six categories to match the other 43 in Category:American people by county.
Category:People from California by county to Category:People by county in California
Category:People from Michigan by county to Category:People by county in Michigan
Category:People from New Jersey by county to Category:People by county in New Jersey
Category:People from Pennsylvania by county to Category:People by county in Pennsylvania
Category:People from Virginia by county to Category:People by county in Virginia
Category:People from Washington by county to Category:People by county in Washington
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:American people by county

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 conflict here is over adding some additional words in the target. Given the basic support for a rename from the existing name a rename to fix the baic issue has consensus. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:26, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:American people by county to Category:People by county in the United States
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Recent discussions moved all of the categories in Category:People by second-level administrative country subdivision and Category:People by first-level administrative country subdivision to the "People by foo in country" standard, rather than adjectival forms. This one was just recently catted into one of them, so, it was missed in the original go-round. Neier (talk) 09:18, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom for consistency. Good find. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:41, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • rename to Category:People by state (and by county) in the United States since the subcats are all 'by state' and then 'by county', a fact that is lost by the current and proposed name. Hmains (talk) 16:32, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename maybe per Hmains (who is perhaps using the brackets convention explained on the July 27 page by Sam in the scientists cfd). It is certainly not just by county. Occuli (talk) 17:37, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename but to Category:People by county by state in the United States, as per point made by Hmains Mayumashu (talk) 20:35, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I almost slapped a CFD on this instead of CFR because of the fact that these are all by state and listing the cat in Category:American people alongside the more obvious Category:People by state in the United States seemed like overkill. But, since there is already Category:People by second-level administrative country subdivision, it made borderline sense to keep it. I think that the same things being said about "counties in the United States" can be said for all the other categories in the second-level cat (that is, Sweden doesn't have counties; but, Sweden's provinces do). I've no strong feelings either way about renaming all of them in some form or another; but, I also think it is a separate issue that needs to be dealt with on all those cats at the same time. Neier (talk) 22:59, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename for consistency among all the states. 8th Ohio Volunteers (talk) 20:12, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Isn't Category:People by county by state in the United States or a variant a bit of overkill? I think users may find it very difficult to understand exactly what the category means, on its face. I don't see anything wrong with Category:People by county in the United States being subdivided by state without explicitly stating that in the category name. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:47, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom and per GOF. While we here may understand what it means, Joe Reader may not. Renaming it per nom is certainly clearer. --Kbdank71 16:11, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Pan-European advocacy groups

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: re-list to 2008-08-01 due to lack of participation. — CharlotteWebb 22:29, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Pan-European advocacy groups to Category:Advocacy groups at European level
Nominator's rationale: The advocacy groups listed in the "Pan-European advocacy groups" category have been set up by entities in >1 country to lobby the EU/EU institutions/EU&EEA. Their distinguishing characteristic is their intent in lobbying such bodies to gain advantage. So far, so good. The problem is the use of the "Pan-European" prefix in this context. It's a problem because Pan-European nationalism is an extremist political ideology advocating nationalism for a single-nation Europe. The use of the "Pan-European" prefix in this context is therefore misleading. The suffix "...at European level" (sometimes rendered as "...at a European level" or "...at an European level") is usually used for transnational bodies interacting with EU/EU institutions/EU&EEA (e.g. "parties at European level", "groups at European level", "foundations at European level", and so on). So unless anybody seriously thinks that the Europe a Nation and Quaker Council for European Affairs belong in the same category as each other, renaming "Category:Pan-European advocacy groups" to "Advocacy groups at European level" is probably a good idea. Anameofmyveryown (talk) 04:12, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Laotians of Fooian descent

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 wub "?!" 11:08, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming
  • Category:Chinese Laotian people to Category:Laotians of Chinese descent
  • Category:Vietnamese Laotian people to Category:Laotians of Vietnamese descent
Nominator's rationale: as per recent precedent Mayumashu (talk) 03:28, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per much precedent. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:54, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per much precedent. Occuli (talk) 22:08, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy close. No reason for a rename was given ("precedent" isn't a valid reason). --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 01:11, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose/Keep. "Descent" means anyone with any Chinese ancestor, even if the one ancestor lived hundreds of years prior. Thus, the category is undefining. A person is not defined in any way because they have one Chinese ancestor. Any inclusion limitation imposed by Wikipedia editors will not work because, among other reasons, any limitation will be violative of the English language. The current standard, although a bit too vague, is the better option because the term can be limited and defined by Wikipedia editors. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 01:11, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support for consistency reasons. Dimadick (talk) 09:39, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom for consistency with other changes which have been done recently (i.e., "precedent") and because their meanings are much clearer. (Any concerns with the potentially broad scope of "descent" is easily dealt with by normal rules for categories — if it's not defining, the category doesn't apply. Since being of Chinese descent wouldn't be defining for a person with on Chinese ancestor hundreds of years ago, the problem shouldn't arise if other WP guidelines are followed.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:22, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Nigerian American sportspeople

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: double upmerge. Kbdank71 16:13, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:Nigerian American sportspeople to Category:African American sportspeople, Category:Nigerian Americans and possibly Category:Sportspeople of Nigerian descent
Nominator's rationale: as per nomination and comments thereof below Mayumashu (talk) 03:05, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support dble upmerge This does seem an unnecessary subcat of Category:African American sportspeople. (Please do not even mention Category:Sportspeople of Fooian descent.) Occuli (talk) 16:10, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question -- How are Americans categorising those recetnly arrived from Nigeria? Is the term African American not used mainly as a synonym for "Black American" (now no doubt a politically incorrect term), largely referring to the descendants of those brought to America against their will in the slave era. If so, the nomination has an unintended implication. In my view, "of Fooian descent" should be used only for recent arrivals, where their origin is still a significant characteristic. No vote -- I am English and insufficiently familiar with the current usages in USA. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:04, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obama is African American, is he not? He has acquired the following categories: various African American ones; Afro-Caucasian; Dutch descent; English descent; French descent; German descent; Irish descent; but not Kenyan descent. (The article establishes Kenyan descent but none of the others unless I have missed something.) Occuli (talk) 02:12, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:African American coaches, baseball players

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename Category:African American coaches to Category:African American sports coaches. the wub "?!" 11:12, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging
Nominator's rationale: so-called triple intersection of ethnicity, nationality and sport - convention is for categorizing by ethnicity end at type of occupation and not particular occupation (sportspeople and not particular sport) Mayumashu (talk) 03:00, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep for both. - Oh ferkrisake, how many times do we have to go through this, Mayumashu??? There's just no end to it. To begin with, have you forgotten that you took Category:African American baseball players to CFD on April 8, 2008 -- completely disregarding the fact that it had recently won approval here after having its deletion reversed at DRV. That time, of course, it was closed Keep -- and this time it should be closed Speedy Keep. (And there really should be a limit to how often the same category can be taken to CFD.)
    As for the rationale you've offered -- first of all, it's just plain w-r-o-n-g to call these categories a "triple intersection of ethnicity, nationality and sport". They're nothing of the sort. "African American" is their ethnicity, and "coach" or "baseball player" is their occupation. Secondly, there is no such "convention" as you allude to. Saying that somebody is a "sportsman" is almost meaningless -- Category:Sportspeople is merely a super-cat that groups together all of those very disparate (some of them barely-related) sub-cats for navigational purposes. It's not even comparable to, say, Category:Scientists, where at least you can be sure that all of the individuals are actually scientists. Cgingold (talk) 06:43, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Cat:African American football players, tennis players, and a few others previously existed and then were deleted. I m not against having these pages as much as having them suggests that there should be a schema Cat:Ethnicity-national-sport, as in Category:Irish American baseball players. This is definitely in a very real sense a triple intersection of nationality - American, ethnicity - (Black) African, and sport. I agree however, that African-American does constitute an ethnicity in itself, and from that viewpoint (one I didn t consider), I can see how this constitutes a unique case. ('Chinese American' and 'Italian American' are more dubious considerations for being their own ethnicities and Scottish American and French American almost certainly not ethnicities.)
  • Keep both - have to agree with Cgingold on all points. Occuli (talk) 14:13, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep rationale for deletion is wrong on all points as ably pointed out by Cgingold Hmains (talk) 16:01, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Keep per Cgingold. Even if it were a "triple intersection" (which it's not, in my opinion), it seems like one that's helpful and worth keeping. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:28, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • While we're at it, we may as well rename Category:African American coaches to Category:African American sports coaches to keep it consistent with Category:American sports coaches (which was similarly renamed a couple of months ago). Cgingold (talk) 02:32, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support rename to 'sports coaches' Mayumashu (talk) 21:01, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support rename to 'sports coaches'. Well-spotted. Occuli (talk) 21:19, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Deaths by type of illness

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename all. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:50, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming the following:

Nominator's rationale: this is follow-up to complete the rationalisation of category names under Category:Deaths by type of illness, as follow-up to CFD 17 July 2008. Again, these categories should be consistently named in the pattern Deaths from <illness>, which from the previous CFD seems to be consensus. Dl2000 (talk) 00:06, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rename - per nom.--SRX 01:24, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all - per nom. Cgingold (talk) 02:41, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all as per nom, to have uniform naming pattern Mayumashu (talk) 03:06, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename, uniformity. --AEMoreira042281 (talk) 04:02, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all per nom. Lugnuts (talk) 08:26, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all Seems like a better way to organize them.--Dr who1975 (talk) 01:02, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_July_26&oldid=1138390589"