Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 May 22

< May 21 May 23 >

May 22

Category:LGBT UK MPs

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 Category:LGBT UK MPs into Category:LGBT politicians from the United Kingdom. Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:44, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:LGBT UK MPs to Category:LGBT members of the United Kingdom Parliament
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Consistency with parent category, Category:Members of the United Kingdom Parliament. — Lincolnite (talk) 23:59, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't know about this - it's a "current" category, and Simon Hughes cannot really be called someone who "identifies as gay" since he denied it strenuously for decades before being exposed by the Sun & grudgingly admitting past activity. Johnbod (talk) 03:19, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, I'd agree that the "current" element should be removed to bring it into line with the parent category Category:LGBT politicians from the United Kingdom. As to Simon Hughes, he has publicly confirmed his bisexuality (and is therefore LGBT). That said, this discussion – whilst interesting – has nothing to do with renaming. — Lincolnite (talk) 10:13, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • rename - I created this article and I agree that it should be renamed. I actually considered this myself as the I thought the category name had too many abbreviations in it. --86.165.63.218 (talk) 17:22, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Rename for consistency. DWaterson (talk) 13:10, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Category:LGBT politicians from the United Kingdom only has 63 people filed in it, and this subcategory only has 13 — of whom 11 are being dual-filed in both categories simultaneously. A group of 65 people isn't exactly screaming out for subcategorization by their particular political role, meaning that this is pretty solidly in WP:OCAT territory. Delete as not needed, and upmerge the two non-duplicated entries (Barker and Betts) back into Category:LGBT politicians from the United Kingdom — which, incidentally, was itself created per CFD of 2005-12-22 precisely because an earlier iteration of this very thing (except named "Gay UK MPs" instead of LGBT) was deemed to be categorizing people too narrowly. Bearcat (talk) 14:54, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Upmerge and delete per Bearcat. -Sean Curtin (talk) 21:48, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete and upmerge per Bearcat also. -mathwhiz29 02:43, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Rename sorry but we're not talking about whether the article should be deleted or not children, we're discussing its renaming. I think people are interested to see how many as well as who is LGBT and sits in the UK House of Commons...
  • Upmerge - per Bearcat and past history. Once a category is brought to CFD, all options, including deletion, are on the table. Otto4711 (talk) 19:42, 4 June 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:Swiss-German Americans

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 Category:Swiss-German Americans to Category:Americans of Swiss-German descent. Two steps forward, one step back. Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:47, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:Swiss-German Americans to Category:Americans of Swiss-German descent
Nominator's rationale: Merge. What is the difference between these two categories? Vegaswikian (talk) 23:42, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note Not these again, we just discussed them two weeks ago Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_May_4#Swiss-German_diaspora! Johnbod (talk) 03:24, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot how I ran into that recursive loop that led me to this pair. While there was no consensus for everything in that discussion, I think that this pair should be able to gain consensus for some action since they appear to be the same thing unless there is some hair splitting between the two membership criteria that I'm missing. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:29, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Mayumashu (talk) 00:04, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to parent Category:Americans of Swiss descent. To categorize someone as a Fooian of Booian descent is one thing. To say they are a Fooian of Booian Gooian descent is quite another. Do we really want to allow every Fooian Booian category to be able to be subdivided into Fooian Booian-Gooians and Fooian Booian-Wooians? Poo-poo-ian, I say. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:57, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
this isn t a random intersection - Swiss Germans form a distinct ethnicity Mayumashu (talk) 03:29, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say it was random. There are many "Booian Gooian" ethnicities that one can be descended from, thus making the triple combo; none of these are "random". I just don't think setting up that number of intersections is a good idea category-wise, especially when Swiss Germans are also just as equally "Swiss". Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:46, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The point is Swiss-Germans are not an intersection at all; they have nothing to do with Germany beyond sharing a language. It is only by an accident of history and terminology we don't call virtually all Austrians "Austrian-Germans". See the other debate. Johnbod (talk) 03:53, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I realise all of this, but what's preventing us from calling them simply "Swiss"? It certainly does set up another level of intersection once one acknowledges that they may also be so classified. This is reinforced by the fact that not all Swiss people are Swiss German. Thus, it has to be an intersection of something, otherwise the categories would be co-extensive. Good Ol’factory (talk) 10:52, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom, but not to the parent Category:Americans of Swiss descent, per my reasons last time. Johnbod (talk) 03:24, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge both to parent Category:Americans of Swiss descent. Even the 'Swiss people' categories are not divided into Swiss-German etc (they are categorised by canton, unless I have missed a tree). Johnbod is entirely correct about Swiss(-)German but does a reader from Taiwan (say) appreciate the difference between Swiss-German, Swiss German, German-Swiss and Swiss-German German? (Or indeed Swiss German-Swiss French? Add/remove hyphens to taste.) -- roundhouse0 (talk) 11:20, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A cantonal division is (almost entirely) a division by language, since the cantons are essentially single language. People proposing the uber-merge need to explain why, apart from using two words instead of one, the German-Swiss are different from Category:Walloon people (French-speaking Belgians) and Category:Flemish people (Dutch-speaking Belgians). Johnbod (talk) 15:22, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would have no problem at all with Category:Swiss-Germans (Category:Swiss Germans provides a classic case of the Booian Fooian problem as these turn out to be Germans - the German-speaking Swiss are Swiss-German, Schwyzerdütsch). I would wish to upmerge Category:Walloon Americans and Category:Flemish Americans to Category:Belgian Americans. These divisions are defining locally but not (or not so much) 4000 miles and a generation or 2 away. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 20:35, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's precisely the issue of a triple versus a double intersection. "Swiss German people" is fine, as are "Walloon people". Begin combining the double-intersection ethnicities with other nationalities, and you're into different waters. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:12, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Walloon and Flemish are two very different things. Bearcat (talk) 15:09, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And yet both may be Belgian, which was the point. Good Ol’factory (talk) 10:13, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment first terms should be defined then usage should be determined--as things are now these discussions just go around in circles with no logical analysis. First, are 'fooian Americans' all those people who moved from 'foo' to the US or only those immigrants from 'foo' to the US who became US citizens? Next, are 'fooian Americans' also those of full or partial descent from the original immigrants? Or is the name 'Americans of fooian descent' the proper term for all the people who are not the actual immigrants? Then, even though the American usage for 'some set of people' is 'fooian American', is this usage going to be totally ignored and replaced with 'Americans of fooian descent' (however defined) just make WP for all countries the same? Finally, and only finally, are Swiss Germans an ethnic group within Switzerland to be identified in separate WP article and categories? If they are, then are those Swiss Germans who migrated to the US of such significance or number or separateness that they should be identified in some fashion as American Swiss Germans? These questions and their answers should deal with concrete fact and not be a result of pushing some theoretical agenda or another onto WP. Hmains (talk) 17:55, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy rename - We have had this discussion far too often. "Swiss-German" is a necessary and appropriate division since there are also French and Italian-speaking areas of Switzland. The Walloon/Flemish problem is similar linguistic issue (French/Dutch speaking), but different since because the adjectives apply to little else. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:42, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Having asked for clarification in other similar cases in the past, I can point out that the difference between Category:Swiss-German Americans and Category:Americans of Swiss-German descent is meant to represent the difference between Swiss-Germans who were born in Switzerland and moved to the US later in life vs. people who were born in the United States to a family of Swiss-German heritage. I'm not wholly convinced that we actually need to use the category system to draw this kind of distinction, but there are so many similar pairs already on Wikipedia that it would probably take until Christmas to discuss and deal with them all. I'd favour a comprehensive review of how best to organize these things, but until that's done I don't see a hugely compelling reason to organize this one differently than the others. No !vote, just $0.02 for the pot. Bearcat (talk) 15:08, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. --Wulf Isebrand (talk) 18:03, 26 May 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:Free video games

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, and considering Eliyak's point a reverse merge might have been in order. Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:50, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:Free video games to Category:Open source video games
Nominator's rationale: Merge and possibly rename (for example) as Category:Free, open source video games, they refer to more or less the same thing. Note that Category:Open source video games is a subcategory of Category:Free video games and Category:Free software, among others. —Kakurady (talk) 23:25, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - All open source software is free software, but not all free software is open source. Something like Dwarf Fortress wouldn't fit into the proposed renamed and merged category (you'd need a seperate category called, well, uh, Free video games.) Marasmusine (talk) 23:32, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Thats like "kleenex" is more or less the same as "tissue". Merging free games into open source games dilutes the meaning of open source. --ssd (talk) 17:46, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The actual criteria for the category is free software, not freeware, which may be confusing the issue -- for example, Dwarf Fortress would not go into this category anyway, because it is not "free software". This should be merged per nom since "free software" and "open source" are functionally identical phrases ("open source" being less ambiguous and less politicized). Ham Pastrami (talk) 07:53, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Free software video games. -Sean Curtin (talk) 21:53, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. These two things are not even close to the same thing (many games are free but not open source), but in this case the "Free" category is entirely composed of open source games. So this merge should occur to avoid further confusion.--Mike Selinker (talk) 07:16, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Category:Open source software was merged to Category:Free software in September. [1] --Eliyak T·C
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:Amorites

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. Vegaswikian (talk) 08:12, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:Amorites to Category:Amorite people
Nominator's rationale: synonymously named pages. I created Category:Amorite to house all things Amorite (a la Category:Aztec but edits to do so have been reverted, and this contributor has redirected Category:Amorite to Category:Amorites Mayumashu (talk) 23:14, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree The already existing Category:Amorite people is for notable personages. There's no need to change the already existing umbrella Category:Amorites to an adjective. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Categorystuff (talk • contribs) 23:28, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
there is no need to keep articles on individuals separate from other articles related to Amorite people - both should link to a single category page Mayumashu (talk) 00:07, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Amorites is a parent category which collects together misc. things like the language and the main article itself, as well as the subcategories of Category:Amorite people and Category:Amorite cities. You don't want to mix a subcategory in with the parent category. Categorystuff (talk) 02:45, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And with what I ve proposed, that Category:Amorite be the parent cat instead of Category:Amorites, there isn t mixing. To state matters a bit further, most parent categories of this sort go by the name of the country, civilization, empire or other geopolitical entity and what is unusal in the case of the Amorite is that they (apparently) did not form or were not formed into such an entity. Mayumashu (talk) 04:57, 23 May 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:Hawaii articles needing images

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 Category:Hawaii articles needing images to Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in Hawaii. Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:49, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Hawaii articles needing images to Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in Hawaii
Nominator's rationale: Rename. The proposed new name matches all of the other states' categories. More importantly, the syntax of the {{Reqphoto}} template requires the requested photograph categories to be formatted this way. Powers T 22:46, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
rename per nom.--Lenticel (talk) 02:43, 23 May 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:Fictional life forms

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. Angus McLellan (Talk)
See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 May 17#Category:Fictional species for the previous discussion.
Rename Category:Fictional life forms to Category:Fictional creatures

In the previous discussion there was consensus for the "Fictional species" category to be renamed to "Fictional life forms.

However, commons:Category:Fictional creatures is the category name at commons. And Wiktionary uses the term wikt:Category:Mythological creatures. And even here on Wikipedia, we have Category:Legendary creatures. so the convention would seem to be "creature".

Note also that "Life-form" redirects to organism. - jc37 22:42, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rename - as nominator. - jc37 22:42, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Something about the implications here bothers me. To me, "fictional creatures" (or "life-forms") implies a category of individuals, while "fictional species" is clear that the categorants are classes of life-forms. "Creature" also seems an unusual descriptor for sentient beings. Powers T 22:51, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm going to go with Keep. "Life forms" is better than "creature", although the latter would make a fine subcategory. Powers T 23:18, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • [Note: the following paragraph was posted intact following an edit conflict, and without awareness of a critical change in the proposal, as explained below] - Strong oppose - None of this makes any sense. In fact, I'm not even sure what it is you're requesting. To begin with, there most certainly was concensus for renaming Category:Fictional species to Category:Fictional life forms -- that is precisely how that CFD was just closed. Category:Fictional species could be re-created and utilized as I suggested, but it would be absurd to rename either of these categories to Category:Fictional creatures, since there are life forms that can't properly be described as "creatures", and there would be no compelling reason to rename a re-created Category:Fictional species. I suppose it's possible that some use could be made of Category:Fictional creatures, but that doesn't require a CFD decision. So I really think this CFD should be withdrawn and/or speedy closed. Cgingold (talk) 22:59, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: You just made a critical alteration in the wording of this nomination without indicating that you had done so, jc37. That is very poor form, as it makes my subsequent comments look rather idiotic. I would appreciate it if you would go back and restore the orginal wording with strike-thru lettering so that it's clear to other readers what I was responding to. (This is standard practice when modifying one's posted comments.) Thank you. Cgingold (talk) 23:11, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • First, the change was prior to your posting (which you did out of chronological order - I'm guessing it was an edit conflict? - and I've "fixed" that). Second, the change was to change "species" to "life-form". You might wish to check out User talk:Vegaswikian, to see what had happened. And if I might offer a suggestion, please calm down. I doubt anyone would consider your comments "idiotic" for referring to the previous form of the "just-posted" nom, especially had you simply added an additional note rather than decide to attack me. Anyway, adding "strikeouts" would make this more confusing than it need be. Feel free to clarify your comments, and let's please move on. - jc37 00:27, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, there was an edit conflict when I first tried to save my comment. I know what the changes were -- they completely altered the proposal (you also claimed that there was "no concensus" for renaming to Category:Fictional life forms). And good grief, if you feel like that was an attack, you might want to consider taking your own advice. I'm not accusing you of deliberately sandbagging me, but it was an awfully careless move on your part to make such a critical alteration without using strike-thru letters. Between the original nonsensical proposal and the sudden switcheroo, you can hardly blame me for being a bit perturbed by the whole mess. So -- now that we've aired this out, yes, let us move on. Cgingold (talk) 01:21, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • In looking over the edit (here), I don't see the "no consensus" you note. But perhaps I'm missing something. And calling my actions "poor form" (among other comments) seems like an "attack", though I suppose I wouldn't call it a personal attack, per se. My apologies for not being clearer when I guess, emotions may or may not have been a bit high. - jc37 02:03, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment on reformulated proposal: Renaming (actually, merging) this category to Category:Fictional creatures would take us backwards, leaving us with a name that is no better (and probably worse) than Category:Fictional species. My original argument for renaming to Category:Fictional life forms still makes the essential point (just substitute "creatures" for "species"):
"The very diverse contents of this category are not fully encapsulated by the term 'species', so the broader, all-encompassing term 'life forms' is required."

It is an undeniable fact that many of the life forms that are currently or potentially in this category simply cannot be characterized as "creatures". Just to touch on one of the most obvious illustrations: viruses, bacteria, fungi and plants are certainly not "creatures" under any conceivable definition of that term. There's no getting around that, and I really don't know what else can possibly be said on this point. As far as I can see, "life forms" is the broadest and most inclusive term available -- and there was solid concensus on that in the previous CFD.

Lastly, Commons:Category:Fictional creatures is not remotely comparable, as it has nowhere near the diversity of this category -- and the fact that some editor happened to redirect Life-form to Organism is really quite meaningless.

I rest my case. Cgingold (talk) 12:37, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Lists of birds appearing on stamps by country

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:Lists of birds appearing on stamps by country to Category:Lists of birds on stamps. Angus McLellan (Talk)
Moved from speedy. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:35, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Category:Lists of birds appearing on stamps by country to Category:Lists of birds on stamps. For consistency with Category:Lists of people on stamps and Category:Lists of fish on stamps (I kid you not). - Fayenatic (talk) 16:06, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not really speediable under any of the criteria, that I can see. Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:59, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
New discussions
  • But I support the rename now that it's been moved. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:00, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • renamne per nom for the good consistency reason stated Hmains (talk) 02:51, 23 May 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.

Canadian Soccer Leagues

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 the suggested title. One seems as good as the other. Flowerparty☀ 14:37, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Moved from speedy. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:35, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Category:Canadian Professional Soccer League (1998 — 2005) teams to Category:Canadian Professional Soccer League (1998–2005) teams - typographical error (uses emdash instead of endash) – PeeJay 08:43, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Canadian Professional Soccer League (1998 – 2005) teams Mayumashu (talk) 16:04, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree, per above. – PeeJay 20:20, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Category:Canadian Soccer League (2006 — present) teams to Category:Canadian Soccer League (2006–present) teams - typographical error (uses emdash instead of endash) – PeeJay 08:43, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Canadian Soccer League (2006 – present) teams Mayumashu (talk) 16:04, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree, per above. – PeeJay 20:20, 17 May 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:Surf breaks in the United States

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename all. Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:53, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Moved from speedy. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:35, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Surf breaks in California to Category:Surfing locations in California
Category:Surf breaks in Hawaii to Category:Surfing locations in Hawaii
Above 2 added and all tagged. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:28, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. This seemed rather odd when I read it. Looking at Surfing it seems that a surf break is unique to a spot in the water. So unless these articles are about each individual spot, the current name appears to be wrong. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:17, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • rename all 3 per nom and consistency with subcats of parent cat Category:Surfing locations by country Hmains (talk) 02:55, 23 May 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:Trolleybus vehicles

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 Category:Trolleybus vehicles to Category:Trolleybuses. Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:54, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:Trolleybus vehicles to Category:Trolleybuses
Nominator's rationale: Merge, the two categories both contain specific trolleybus models Arsenikk (talk) 22:22, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge for simplicity and clarity Hmains (talk) 17:58, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, seems to be insufficient need here for distinction between the topic and the specific vehicles. --Eliyak T·C 22:17, 6 June 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:Black Catholics

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. Doczilla STOMP! 08:13, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Black Catholics (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Deadly combination of the colour of the skin and religion. This category is silly like "White Catholics" or "Yellow Protestants" would be if created. Darwinek (talk) 21:16, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think something like "African American Catholics" could be a notable intersection though. The vast majority of African-Americans are in some form of Protestantism or Islam. In the Jim Crow era Catholics also sometimes suffered so "Black Catholics" at times may have suffered from a double burden/isolation. I created the article on the National Black Catholic Congress, but I certainly didn't invent the organization or its notability.--T. Anthony (talk) 06:03, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notified creator with {{subst:cfd-notify}} Cgingold (talk) 22:18, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I'm not necessarily persuaded that this category should be kept, but I certainly do not think there is anything "silly" about it. If I was a Black Catholic, I would take personal offense at that remark. The fact is that African Catholicism is quite distinctive (viz. Category:Roman Catholic Church in Africa), and to a lesser degree so are the Catholic churches that serve predominantly African American congregations. So this should not simply be dismissed out of hand. Cgingold (talk) 22:44, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - If there is a Category for Black Jews, which there is, the i see no good reason why there can't be one for black catholics. Indeed, some would think it source of pride and uniqueness bieng a "Black this or that". Personally, i'm not a fan of the Category "Black Jews"--Briaboru (talk) 23:02, 22 May 2008 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Categories like "African American catholics" or "Nigerian catholics" could make some sense, but simply "black" is pointless. And I'm not a big fan of Category:Black Jews either. --Wulf Isebrand (talk) 18:32, 26 May 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:Manifestations of Yahweh

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. Doczilla STOMP! 08:18, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Manifestations of Yahweh (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: POV category that states it can only contain two articles. To Jews, Yahweh clearly didn't manifest as Jesus, nor the holy spirit. Category seems pointless, not expandable, and a poorly chosen title (how many "Christians" use the word "Manifestations" to refer to God/the trinity, and how many exclude God the Father, but include the Son and the Holy Ghost? Now that I'm thinking about it, this category is quite bizarre and would like to hear the creator's intentions behind it. Andrew c [talk] 21:10, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, that would be User:Names of gods, and he has just been blocked from editing for 30 days. In any event, this is a clear Delete in my book. Cgingold (talk) 22:21, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:47, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, if possible speedify - POV, borderline vandalism by banned user and suspected puppeteer. gidonb (talk) 23:29, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The present title might refer to something for which technical theological term is "theophany", but that refers to God's manifestation in the Old Testament - to Abraham before the destruction of Sodom and to Moses on Sinai. The presnt content is a probably heretical view of doctrine of the Trinity, that is if one may dare refer to a POV as heresy in WP. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:53, 26 May 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:Extreme points of the 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: rename' Category:Extreme points of the world to Category:Extreme points of Earth. Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:55, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Extreme points of the world to Category:Extreme points of Earth
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Perhaps a little silly, but the proposed rename is a bit more accurate. Would suggest moving the lead article to match. Otto4711 (talk) 18:54, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename - Not silly, but right on. Thanks for your attention, Otto4711! gidonb (talk) 23:32, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename Points to a specific world. Martarius (talk) 10:22, 27 May 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:Images by User

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. Doczilla STOMP! 08:22, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Images by User (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Unneeded categorisation layer. The category is a subcategory of Category:Wikipedia images by source and its sole occupant is Category:User-created images, which is already a direct subcategory of Category:Wikipedia images by source. –Black Falcon (Talk) 17:47, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. VegaDark (talk) 07:06, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There's already a category which has a title easier to understand. Martarius (talk) 10:20, 27 May 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:Executive orders of George W. Bush

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 all. BencherliteTalk 09:28, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:Executive orders of George W. Bush to Category:United States executive orders

Category:Executive orders of Jimmy Carter to Category:United States executive orders
Category:Executive orders of Bill Clinton to Category:United States executive orders
Category:Executive orders of Gerald Ford to Category:United States executive orders
Category:Executive orders of Lyndon B. Johnson to Category:United States executive orders
Category:Executive orders of John Kennedy to Category:United States executive orders
Category:Executive orders of Richard Nixon to Category:United States executive orders
Category:Executive orders of Ronald Reagan to Category:United States executive orders
Category:Executive orders of Franklin D. Roosevelt to Category:United States executive orders
Category:Executive orders of Harry S. Truman to Category:United States executive orders

Nominator's rationale: Merge all - this is a series of single-article categories subdividing a parent that, with all of these merged, would have about 15 articles in it. No need to break these down. Upmerge to both this parent and the category for the president. Otto4711 (talk) 13:18, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There are more of these that could be collected together, perhaps by someone whose other options in life are limited - Executive Order 13292 seems to one of GWB's, and this gives dozens. To go back to first principles, is 'Executive order of George W. Bush' a defining characteristic of 'Executive Order 13292'? I would have thought - yes. (Sometimes one is led off into fascinating realms by these cfds and at other times into areas of stupefying dullness.) -- roundhouse0 (talk) 19:44, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all - As argued by roundhouse0, the identity of the president who signed it is a defining characteristic of an executive order. I was able to find and categorise 19 additional articles into these 11 categories (I created Category:Executive orders of George H. W. Bush just moments ago -- it's not part of this nomination, but I'll delete it if this discussion ends with a consensus to delete), bringing the total number of articles about specific executive orders to nearly 30. This is no longer a series of single-article categories; four of the categories contain four or more members. –Black Falcon (Talk) 20:34, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all per sound analysis of roundhouse & Black Falcon -- especially considering that most (if not all) of these articles do not indicate in their title which president issued the particular EO. Cgingold (talk) 22:25, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mergeand create a list with order number, date, president and topic. Each of these categories appears to be rather small and having a list in a combined category would appear to function much better then the current structure of many categories with few, in some cases only 1, articles. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:49, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This might possibly be a workable compromise, but I think it would require the creation of some missing categories for presidential administrations so all of the articles could be upmerged to the relevant categories. (Those cats undoubtedly should be created in any event.) Let's see what other editors have to say. Cgingold (talk) 23:57, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There may still be a useful function to these categories: they permit articles about executive orders to be placed within the category trees for individual US Presidents without requiring categorisation of executive orders directly into the main category, which would be rather awkward in my opinion. –Black Falcon (Talk) 06:10, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some of these seem rather sparsely populated at this time. How many of these will be notable for each president? If that number is reasonable, then I'd be willing to change my opinion. I'll admit that executive orders is not a strong point for me. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:35, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, they are: four categories categories contain two articles and three categories contain just one article. I also don't know much about the notability of executive orders, so anything I say would be a "best guess". A good number of the redlinked EOs listed at List of United States federal executive orders seem to be noteworthy (e.g. Executive Order 7034, which created the Works Progress Administration), though an argument could be made that they should be covered in the context of the outcome that they produced or the organisation that they established. –Black Falcon (Talk) 15:55, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all Seems to be a useful start to what would certainly be defining sub-cats if pursued. The noms description as "a series of single-article categories subdividing a parent that, with all of these merged, would have about 15 articles in it" appears outdated now, presumably as additions have been made. There are currently 23 in the sub-cats in total. Plus the article titles are just the numbers, so if you are not sure of that, narrowing down by president is useful for navigation. Johnbod (talk) 16:12, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all I agree with those suggesting merger that we could or probably even should have waited with creating these categories. However, they are here, are meaningful, do contain articles, fit well on top of the cats of the individual presidents and have potential for growth. So why delete them now only to recreate them in the near future? gidonb (talk) 23:24, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all - In view of the number of them, categorising by presidency is appropriate. Mind you I am English, so that it does not really involve me. The proposed target should be retained as a parent category (preferably only). Peterkingiron (talk) 13:56, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all I think that it is meaningful to sort out who made which order; merging them all would not be as helpful to the reader. -Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:23, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all. Appropriate as is. MrPrada (talk) 00:49, 1 June 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:Monrovia

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 rename, in particular because the current category name matches the name of the main article. BencherliteTalk 09:43, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Monrovia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

  • If we were merely talking about the article we would be in complete agreement here. And I'll even spot you the 3 small towns -- you are nothing if not diligent! :). But, notwithstanding it's relatively small population, Monrovia, California is a problem -- primarily because it's located in Los Angeles County, which means that the name is likely to be familiar to the population of 18-20 million people in Southern California. So, aside from the possible confusion, the category could easily be applied mistakenly to articles pertaining to that Monrovia -- especially when you consider that, thanks to the prevailing geographic illiteracy here in the US, the Monrovia in Liberia is utterly unfamiliar to most people in this country. Cgingold (talk) 18:40, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • rename per nom for the good reasons stated; anything that helps clarify things for reader so they don't have to guess, guess, guess is of great benefit to WP. Get the article renamed at the same time Hmains (talk) 02:59, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom and Hmains. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:04, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per roundehouse0, for consistency with the main article. I don't think the assumption that 18-20 million people in SoCal are familiar with Monrovia, California is likely to be accurate. I do not think that people in a large metropolitan area will necessarily be aware of a minor locality that contains less than 0.5% of the total population of the area. –Black Falcon (Talk) 03:54, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Certainly I'm not suggesting that all 18-20 million people are seriously knowledgeable about Monrovia, CA. However, I spent a good part of my life living in Southern CA and I can tell you that dozens of these smaller cities in the LA Metro area pop up on the local tv news frequently enough that most people will have heard of them, and thus would be familiar with the name "Monrovia". Cgingold (talk) 06:29, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and fight US-centrism. Monrovia is a capital city of a souvereign country, that's enough. - Darwinek (talk) 10:03, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "fight US-centrism" -- lovely attitude, Darwinek. What unmitigated crap. I'd be making the identical argument regardless of where the "other" Monrovia happened to be located. Somehow I just don't think you'd be saying "fight Chile-centrism" or "fight Thai-centrism". Cgingold (talk) 11:01, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are explicitly using an LA-metro-centric argument just 2 paras up; and are all these LA-metropolitans wholly unaware of Monrovia, Liberia? There are 140 million in nearby Nigeria, official language English, almost certainly completely unaware of Monrovia, CA. Is 'internet-literacy' a factor in your reasoning? -- roundhouse0 (talk) 14:58, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I said further up, "the Monrovia in Liberia is utterly unfamiliar to most people in this country" (the obvious exception being better-educated African Americans). When you couple that ignorance with the presence of another Monrovia in the LA-Metro area, clearly there are grounds for concern. And the concern is two-fold: it's not just for the readers in Southern CA who may suffer confusion -- it's also for everybody else, who may well find that somebody in Southern CA has added articles pertaining to Monrovia, CA to the category for Monrovia, Liberia. So why not eliminate both of these concerns by taking the simple step I've requested? Cgingold (talk) 15:59, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, you are right, because this "ain't American WP bro'" but still US-centrism enslaves this project. It is absolutely clear from your statements you wouldn't be making this proposal if another Monrovia with e.g. 3 million people would be located in Burundi and another in Equatorial Guinea. - Darwinek (talk) 09:52, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Try remaining civil, calling Darwinek's arguments 'crap' and 'bullshit' is not a good tone of discussion. The viewpoint that US-centrism is an endemic problem across large parts of the english wikipedia is an opinion that shared by more editors than just Darwinek. --Soman (talk) 08:04, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I happen to share that view, Soman. But let's be clear: the first incivility was Darwinek suddenly turning up and injecting the needlessly provocative slogan "fight US-centrism", instead of saying something reasonable like, "I'm concerned that there's US-centrism at work here." And he then followed up by dismissively challenging the sincerity of my statement that "I'd be making the identical argument regardless of where the 'other' Monrovia happened to be located." I regard that as a personal attack. Cgingold (talk) 22:53, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename because category names should be unambiguous, and to prevent excessive housekeeping due to use by LosAngelinos. 70.51.9.216 (talk) 09:08, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • IP votes are not valid. - Darwinek (talk) 09:52, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is not about "voting" -- IP's have every right to take part in CFD discussions, and their comments should not be discounted or disparage simply because they happen to be IPs. Cgingold (talk) 21:33, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Monrovia is a national capital, other 4 are far less notable. --Soman (talk) 13:25, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Monrovia, California sounds like an insignificant town, but place a dosambiguation headnote on the Liberian city category to discourage the Californians from using it. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:01, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unfortunately, not everybody actually bothers to look at a category page before using it -- it's not uncommon for people to simply type in a category name they're hoping exists, and if it comes up blue they just move on, never realizing that they've screwed up. Cgingold (talk) 21:55, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • A usage note to clarify that the category pertains to the one in Liberia is sufficient in this case. None of the four US Monrovias is even close to being large enough to merit its own dedicated category at this time — and even if any of them were, the US convention would require the state name on those categories, meaning that even if this one wasn't already at the title Monrovia, the US ones still couldn't have it anyway. So there's no conflict. Keep. Bearcat (talk) 21:35, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Re "usage note", see my reply above.) An experienced, knowledgable editor might perhaps be aware that US city categories include the name of the state. But as I pointed out above, the problem arises when somebody goes ahead and types in a category name, then moves on without realizing that they've screwed up. So even if you don't give a hoot about the readers who may be confused about the category, why the stubborn refusal to take a simple step to avoid inadvertent misuse of the category? Cgingold (talk) 22:02, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I clearly have to repeat myself again: the existing practice is that geographic category names which don't require disambiguation, because they don't actually conflict with other existing or potential categories, aren't disambiguated. We don't move Category:London to "London, England" on the grounds that somebody might blindly file a topic pertaining to London, Ontario, London (band) or London, Ohio in it — by established consensus, we put it at London because that's where the article is. If you think that the existing consensus should be changed, there are venues such as WP:NC where you can raise a proposal for discussion. But instead, you've arbitrarily decided that the established consensus — as already built up by years of these very discussions — is a "red herring" which is so a priori invalid that you refuse to even listen to anybody who bases their arguments in a CFD discussion on it. And that's really not acceptable Wikipedia behaviour — whether you agree with the consensus or not, consensus is consensus.
If you'd like to propose a formal policy change in how city categories are named, by all means, go for it — but until you've done that, you're honestly not going to win very many of these, because what you're arguing here is explicitly contrary to an established consensus. You don't change established consensus by just waving a magic wand and pretending it's invisible — you change established consensus by actively building a new consensus. And you do that by putting forward a proposal for discussion and input and revision, as needed, not by endlessly throwing test cases at the wall until one of them actually makes a hole. Bearcat (talk) 22:29, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, I certainly hope you got that all out of your system, Bearcat... cuz I'd hate to think of you sitting there holding that in, letting it just eat away at you! ;-) However, it somehow seems to have escaped your notice that I already gave in on my effort to change the concensus on city names in the earlier CFD for Category:Lilongwe -- as a result of Roundhouse0's very commendable effort to address my stated concerns. I then went through the list of African capitols and identified a grand total of two out of 60-odd categories that I felt were problematic and needed to be addressed as exceptions to the rule. And contrary to your inapt comparison with London, please note that I did NOT propose renaming either Category:Cairo or Category:Tripoli (though the latter could be argued either way, given the size and importance of Tripoli, Lebanon). You've agreed on one of my rename proposals, but you reject my rationale on this one -- C'est la vie. (You still haven't directly addressed my last reply -- but that's okay, we're obviously not going to agree, regardless.) Oh, by the way, you might want to re-think that patronizing tone -- it really doesn't go over as well as you seem to imagine. Cgingold (talk) 07:48, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clearly a case of "patronizing" being used to mean "anybody who disagrees with me, no matter what tone of voice they actually use". Oh, well, whatever. And anyway, your own tone has been coming across as pompous and dismissive (trust me, nothing says "I'm being the rational and polite one here" less than dismissing other editors' concerns as bullshit), so if you don't like the tone that other people use in response to you you'd do well to consider that maybe, just maybe, you're getting exactly what you're giving in the first place. At any rate, your Moroni move is wholly consistent with precedent as it stands, while this one is not. There's no contradiction there. You're still free to propose a change to the existing consensus anytime you'd like, but this is neither a situation that calls for an exception to it nor the correct process for making such a proposal. Bearcat (talk) 15:59, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You know what, Bearcat, I've engaged in scores of strongly-argued CFD (and other) discussions with editors who didn't agree with me, but I have never felt the need to raise the issue of "patronizing tone" until now -- so I hope you will take that more seriously, instead of just waving it off with a counter-accusation. And calling my use of the word bullshit "pompous" is silly. Darwinek made a contemptible, false and stupid attack on my personal integrity that was not worthy of a nicely elaborated reply -- hence my pointed rejoinder, which was indeed dismissive at the same time as conveying the fact that his remark was nothing more than "bullshit". Under the circumstances, I was perfectly entitled to that reply. And again, I've never previously felt the need to resort to that kind of retort, since other editors usually refrain from making such contemptible remarks. Cgingold (talk) 23:43, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • And "not everybody actually bothers to look at a category page before using it" is no excuse; we can't cure editorial parochialism and laziness at the expense of just those national capitals that someone thinks are somehow less important. --GRuban (talk) 13:17, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "someone thinks are somehow less important" - Nothing could be further from the truth. You really should not make unfair and unwarranted assumptions like this. Cgingold (talk) 22:40, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. There seems to be an anti US place name tone in many of these discussions. While there may be a case that there is a primary use, that does not have to translate to the category. If there is a question about the primary usage or resulting confusion do we hurt anything by doing a rename like this? Vegaswikian (talk) 23:55, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, we do. We hurt our standards, which say (Wikipedia:Categorization#Category naming) "Categories follow the same general naming conventions as articles;", and our article is called Monrovia. We hurt our claim to neutrality and increase systemic bias, if we name European capital city categories after the city alone, but African capital city categories with the country attached, implying Monrovia (population 572,971) is somehow less inherently distinctive than Berne (population 128,041). Just read the argument of the primary proponent: "thanks to the prevailing geographic illiteracy here in the US, the Monrovia in Liberia is utterly unfamiliar to most people in this country" as if the people in the US are somehow more important than billions of people elsewhere in the world, of whom, I absolutely guarantee, more immediately think of the Monrovia in Liberia, than even know of the existence of any Monrovia in the US. That's what systemic bias is all about, this proposal could be a poster child for it. --GRuban (talk) 13:06, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, dear -- there seems to be some sort of cosmic humor unfolding here. For starters, I am both the author of this proposal and a member of the WikiProject Countering Systemic Bias. "Poster child" indeed. (LOL!)
The problem is that everybody who has argued against renaming this category has simply brushed off my explicit statements that this proposal is in no way contingent on the fact that the "other" Monrovia happens to be in the US, and that I would make the very same arguments if it was in Chile or Thailand. Would you then be railing against "Chile-centrism" or "Thai-centrism"? Everybody just latches onto the fact that there happens to be a US connection to indulge in simplistic and false arguments motivated by opposition to US-centrism. This sort of reflexive stance, though originating in a sincere concern about the very real issue of US-centrism, amounts to an inverted form of systemic bias -- in this case anti-US bias, which is a far cry from the neutrality we're supposedly striving for.
Like everybody else, you've also ignored my repeated statements that it is pure happenstance that this proposal deals with an African city -- and that Africa is NOT being singled out for special treatment. The same principles should of course be applied to cities in every part of the planet, wherever this kind of ambiguity needs to be dealt with. To take the example of Berne, there are two towns (in the US) with articles, but they are very small towns and not comparable to Monrovia, CA, so the arguments I've made here would not apply.
Lastly, I do at least want to thank you for the more reasonable tone of your remarks, GRuban -- a real improvement over some of the other comments, as much as I may disagree with what you had to say. Cgingold (talk) 22:36, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. The point isn't that the other Monrovias are in the US, the point is that 99% of the world thinks of the one in Liberia, and have never heard of the one in California. Two years ago, I took Spanish classes in Antigua, Guatemala, and have never been on the Caribbean island, but Antigua is about the one that happens to be a country in its own right. There is a New York, Lincolnshire, and no doubt that's what its residents think of first, but 99% of the world thinks of the US State, so that's what Category:New York is about. The Alabama (people) is a native american tribe, and there is also a river, and a university, and half a dozen things, but 99% of the world thinks of the US State, so that's what Category:Alabama is named, not Category:Alabama (US State). We are an encyclopedia for the world, not just for Lincolnshire, or Guatemala ... or California. --GRuban (talk) 14:33, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, St. Petersburg, Florida has a population of 248,232, many times larger than Monrovia, California. Moscow, Idaho has a population of 21,291, over half the size of Monrovia, CA. How do you feel about Category:Saint Petersburg and Category:Moscow? Or, here's one that doesn't involve the US Category:La Paz about the capital of Bolivia, when La Paz, Entre Ríos is a city in Argentina with 25,000 inhabitants. Nominating that one for renaming? --GRuban (talk) 14:55, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - there is definitely a main usage for this; confusion is not impossible but is unlikely. Also good to keep name of category consistent with that of the article. Warofdreams talk 17:42, 3 June 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:Moroni

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:Moroni to Category:Moroni, Comoros. Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:56, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Moroni (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

  • Rename to Category:Moroni, Comoros. This is consistent with the main article, Moroni, Comoros and serves to distinguish it from other uses of Moroni. My first thought when I saw this category was that it sounds like it has something to do with Mormonism. (I wouldn't be surprised if Moroni, Comoros is bursting at the seams with Mormon missionaries -- but I'm pretty sure that wouldn't weaken the case for renaming.:) Cgingold (talk) 11:29, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom.--Lenticel (talk) 12:26, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Moroni, Comoros. Indeed. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 13:20, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to disambiguate Mayumashu (talk) 00:11, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. Millions of people would probably assume it's about the angel. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:05, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom, to match the title of the main article and avoid confusion with other likely usages of "Moroni". –Black Falcon (Talk) 03:50, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. Bearcat (talk) 21:32, 26 May 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:Stories set in future now past

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 or articleize. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:10, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Stories set in future now past to Category:Stories set in a future now past
Nominator's rationale: I previously brought up this idea at the last CFD for this category. I think it makes more sense to have the "a" in the title. Lugnuts (talk) 11:14, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sure, sounds good to me. Rename per nom. Cgingold (talk) 11:30, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • To quote myself from the earlier CFD: Article-ize - if it can be done without original research, a great article could be written comparing the world of the fiction to the world as it existed at the actual time. Other examples include Wild Palms (aired in 1993, set in the far-flung future year 2007), Things to Come (a 1936 film that predicted a world war starting in 1940) and Just Imagine (a 1930 film examining life amongst the flying cars of 1980). Otto4711 (talk) 13:42, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Why does this need to be split out in a category. I'm leaning Upmerge and Listify. Any reason why that action would be a bad choice? Vegaswikian (talk) 00:00, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify. I don't think it can be upmerged to Category:Science fiction since not all articles are sci-fi and the category is only used as a last resort (when articles don't fit in any of the subcategories).--Nohansen (talk) 15:52, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename but suggest Category:Stories set in a future (now past), George Orwell's 1984 is another example. That is certainly not SCi-Fi. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:04, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1984 is sci-fi. When it was written there was no such thing as two-way television or some of the other technologies utilized in the story. Otto4711 (talk) 03:46, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify. Non-definitive. The exact year in which a story is placed is almost never specifically descriptive of the story's subject matter. -Sean Curtin (talk) 21:59, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename Makes category name more easy to understand. Martarius (talk) 10:19, 27 May 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:Managerliness

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: speedy delete as nonsense (CSD G1), a test page (CSD G2), or vandalism (CSD G3). At least one of the three criteria applies. –Black Falcon (Talk) 18:46, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Managerliness (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Possibly speediable as vandalism or nonsense, unless the creator can fill us in on what this means. Notified creator with {{subst:cfd-notify}} Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:05, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Say, have you checked the OED? :) Cgingold (talk) 11:33, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Its creator, User:I dont like pie, has made 5 edits in toto of variable quality (and is guilty of apostrophe neglect). -- roundhouse0 (talk) 18:09, 22 May 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_May_22&oldid=1138391104"