Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 January 29

< January 28 January 30 >

January 29

Category:People from Colombia by department

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 14:31, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:People from Colombia by department to Category:People by department in Colombia
Nominator's rationale: as per equivalent pages such as Category:People by state in the United States, Category:People by county in England etc. Mayumashu (talk) 23:19, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Languages of Bougainville Province

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 14:31, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Languages of Bougainville Province to Category:Languages of the Autonomous Region of Bougainville
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Follow-up nomination to this rename. Proposing this rename so it matches the parent category and the main article. The correct name for the region is the Autonomous Region of Bougainville. It has provincial-level jurisdiction within Papua New Guinea, but it is not a province. Bougainville Province redirects to the ARB article. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:59, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Moldovan linguistic and ethnic controversy

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. Kbdank71 14:38, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Moldovan linguistic and ethnic controversy to Category:Moldovan linguistic and ethnic identity
Nominator's rationale: Rename. A more neutral and broad title. For example, "Moldovan Cyrillic alphabet", included into the category, is about identity, rather than about controversy. - 7-bubёn >t 21:11, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep current title. There are 6 articles in the category: Moldovan Cyrillic alphabet, Controversy over linguistic and ethnic identity in Moldova, Moldovan language, Moldovan-Romanian dictionary, Moldovans, Moldovenism. All except Moldovans are political. Moldovan language is the politically correct name for Romanian language used in certain political contexts (not always, and BTW it is NEVER used in education, when the term "Romanian" is ALWAYS used). Moldovan Cyrillic alphabet was a politically motivated artificial creation during and at the orders of Stalin. The context and the current projection of these are the Controversy and Moldovenism. Moldovan-Romanian dictionary is a farse, a dictionary of synonims, written by the very person that was the stick of the Soviet propaganda in the domain. These 5 articles do not define Moldovan identity at all.
To define Moldovan identity we would need such articles: Romanian language, Moldavian variety of Romanian, History of Moldavia, History of Bessarabia, History of Bukovina, Romanian culture, Romanian writers/artist/etc from Moldavia and/or Bessarabia, Moldovan culture, and so on. To define Moldavian idenitity outside the context of the Romanian one is like defining Austrian one outside the context of German one. [i.e. possible, but must be careful not to mess up] And to define Moldovan identity outside Moldavian one (only 1/2 of Moldavians are Moldovans) is impossible [if not politically motivated].
This category is created solely for the purpose of isolating the controversy, so that controversy does not mix with culture and society - because in reality it never does - it only mixes with politics. We need many categories such as Category:Moldovan society, Category:Moldovan culture, Category:Moldovan people, Category:History of Moldova, and more to define Moldovan identity. It simply can not be defined in a single small category. In fact, one would need no less than Category:Moldova to define it.
I agree that the article Moldovans is not fitting here on equal par with the other 5, but it is by far not the primary category of this article. Dc76\talk 23:06, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep current title, given that there exists an unresolved controversy as to whether a "Moldovan ethnic identity" exists, the new name may be seen as slightly more POV by implying that it does exist. Martintg (talk) 05:50, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose renaming. I understand that on the background of modern politics littered with literally thousands of artificial controversies, it might make many aware people wary to see Yet Another Controversy Article. However, in this case, there's more to the controversy than teach the controversy, and putting "Moldovan identity" into the title would amount to taking a side in the controversy -- a violation of the WP:NPOV policy. Therefore, I must oppose. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 10:15, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggest -- Category:Moldovan ethnicity issues. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:53, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would still prefer the current title (can argue in more detail), but if something like Category:Moldovan linguistic and ethnicity issues would form a compromise, I would opt for the compromise, even if the title would be not the best. Dc76\talk 13:34, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose rename - as others have amply stated, there remains plenty of controversy over whether "Moldovan" is in fact an "identity", so to rename would be to endorse one POV over the other, when both have roughly equal validity. - Biruitorul Talk 01:07, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Tatra 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: keep. Kbdank71 14:42, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Tatra vehicles to Category:Tatra
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Gives a broader catchment for articles. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 21:09, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Tatra (company) per the main article, not to Category:Tatra which is a dab page and the primary usage is probably the mountains after which the car company was named, not vice versa. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:41, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Vegas has now set this up as the parent, which is the right way to do it. Johnbod (talk) 14:19, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Logical subcategory for Category:Tatra (company). Vegaswikian (talk) 00:52, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose just create a category for the company as a parent cat instead. 76.66.196.229 (talk) 05:20, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Did you notice that this already exists? Vegaswikian (talk) 06:14, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Nom says: "Gives a broader catchment for articles" - well we already have a category for that, and this will mess up the other parent Category:Vehicles by brand Johnbod (talk) 14:17, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Ice hockey players by 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: delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:52, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Ice hockey players by descent (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete Non-defining and a form of overcategorization. We have a category tree for players by nationality (i.e.: Category:Ukrainian ice hockey players, but categorizing players by their ancestors nationalities is stretching things a bit far. At WP:HOCKEY, we also have questions of reliability, as it seems that many entries have been made based on guesswork of what nationality a player's last name sounds like.

Nominating the main category, and the two subcats in it's tree:

  • Category:Ice hockey players by descent
  • Category:Ice hockey players of Ukrainian descent
  • Category:Ice hockey players of Macedonian descent

Resolute 18:25, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as proposed. I think it goes beyond encyclopedic to an issue of privacy. Alaney2k (talk) 18:30, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's not entirely "guesswork", many are cited. The Ukrainian one I'm still working on and doing research, the Macedonian one is backed up. It's a topic that can be expanded and interests many. --Lvivske (talk) 18:57, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Descent is not very meaningful/useful for categorization when applied to hockey players. Hockey players are generally from countries where there is snow and ice. It doesn't mean anything that someone from their parents or grand-parents or great-grand-parents generation was of X descent. If there is biographical information about a player's descent, that may be meaningful and belong in an article but it does not lead to meaningful categorization. Alaney2k (talk) 20:01, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom. Often a non-accurate category, difficult to provide factual back-up. – Nurmsook! talk... 19:01, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What if I delete everything that doesn't have cited proof and just re-expand from there? --Lvivske (talk) 19:07, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A persons nationality might be defining but I don't think their ancestors nationality is defining enough for categories. You just have to look at the average North American to see how nuts this can get. Guy has 4 grandparents all with a different nationality and marries Girl with 4 different nationalities and suddenly the topic of the article has categories for 8 different nationalities. Yes eight might be an exagerating it but the point is still there I myself have 3 different ones and it wouldn't be uncommon to marry someone here that has 3 others. -Djsasso (talk) 19:16, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, this is trivia. The players are already categorized by nationality/occupation. There is no substantive reason to intersect this occupation with the ethnicity of some (or only one?) of their ancestors. Postdlf (talk) 19:22, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Overcategorization. Using a player's specific nationality is sufficient, don't need to categorize by their ancestors also. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 19:38, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Overcategorization. Eg Bill Barilko should be in 'Canadians of Ukrainian descent' (as he is) but there is no need to subcat ice hockey players by descent. (Macedonia is a redirect.) Occuli (talk) 22:32, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete OCAT by occupation & race/ethnicity. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:42, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete if cited it can easily be worked in to the prose, but as a category no thanks. —Krm500 (Communicate!) 05:01, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Categorization by ancestors' nationality is overcategorization. Flibirigit (talk) 20:40, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:St. Louis Restaurants

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 14:30, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:St. Louis Restaurants to Category:Restaurants in St. Louis, Missouri
Nominator's rationale: Rename. To match the other 35 categories in parent Category:Restaurants by city, to match parents Category:Buildings and structures in St. Louis, Missouri and Category:Companies based in St. Louis, Missouri, and conform to parent Category:Restaurants in Missouri. Dravecky (talk) 17:52, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Consistency is good. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 10:29, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • rename per nom Facts are as stated by the nom. No apparent reason for this cat to not match is sister/brother cats Hmains (talk) 19:42, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom for consistency with other corresponding categories and parents Category:Restaurants in Missouri and Category:Restaurants by city in the United States. Alansohn (talk) 18:30, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I see it got moved to the more-specific Category:Restaurants by city in the United States after I'd made the nomination. I wonder if an "in Canada" partner is also warranted? - Dravecky (talk) 19:16, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say it is borderline for a Canada category right now. If you created it, I suspect that no one would object and it would hide the ambiguous Vancouver one. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:05, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Mythology of the creation and death

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 to Category:Mythology to delete Category:Mythology of the creation and death. If further subcatting of Mythology is desired, that can be done at any time. Kbdank71 14:49, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:Mythology of the creation and death to Category:Mythology
Nominator's rationale: Merge, strange and unnecessary grouping. The purported article describing this category has just been a redlink since the category was created about two years ago. The relevant Wikiproject has been notified.Postdlf (talk) 16:02, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support upmerge - This grouping makes no sense. Aleta Sing 20:07, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - It IS a somewhat odd agglomeration of stuff -- not all of which really belongs in a category about mythology. So any upmerge should be done on a case-by-case basis to the appropriate parent categories. Cgingold (talk) 21:48, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • True... Aleta Sing 22:03, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I suggested Category:Mythology as a merge target as that's the only parent of this category; I really have no opinion as to whether the contents all go there or elsewhere. Postdlf (talk) 23:01, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sorry for the confusion -- I had been looking at the parents of each of the sub-categories. The basic concern is valid, though: not all of the sub-cats should be moved into Category:Mythology -- they need to be considered individually. Cgingold (talk) 03:47, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support upmerge my guess (speculation) is that this is supposed to be a Category:Cosmology mythology by another name as both creation and eschatology seem to be part of the ambit; but upmerge is best... Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:53, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Split. The conglomeration appears to have started as somebody's culturally narrow view on modulary of mythologies; outside that narrow POV it doesn't make much sense to keep Category:Creation mythology and Category:Death mythology together. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 10:27, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Split and sort -- WE probably need three subcategories for Category:Mythology: Category:Cosmology mythology (which neither concerns creation or death), Category:Creation mythology, and Category:Death mythology. Anything that does not fit inot these three should be in the parent category. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:59, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Two of the entries of this category are Category:Mythological cosmologies and Category:Creation myths, so those subtopics are already grouped. Even with those, and including both articles and subcategories, this category only has six entries at present. Postdlf (talk) 14:56, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:History of Romania (1940-1945)

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 14:25, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:History of Romania (1940-1945) to Category:Romania during World War II
Nominator's rationale: There's no point in having two categories about the same topic and I think the "during World War II" is a better description than "1940-1945". bogdan (talk) 15:29, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Definitevely (and obviously) agree merging, but the other way around, that is Category:Romania during World War II into Category:History of Romania (1940-1945), and erase the former, not the latter. Not all events that happened in that period were related to the war. In short, there are 2 types of articles now in RdWWII: 1) those that have to be moved to Category:Military history of Romania during World War II, e.g. military opperations, 2) those that refer to politics of Romania during that period, but not related to military, such as Legionaries' rebelion, Iasi pogrom, etc. I was actually in the process of doing that. But it's slow, because I took things article by article, and in some cases I would need to add other cats as well, for example for people. Dc76\talk 16:30, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I just did those moves that had "Category:Military histiry of" as a target. All it remains to do is to merge these two categories. One of them has 3 subcats and 6 articles, not including those of subcats, the other has 1 and 25. There are no repetitions, so the end result will be 4 subcats and 31 proper articles. It remains only to choose which title is better and to give the task to a bot. BTW, can we give the task to a bot? I can, of course, do all the moves manually, but it is very tedious, you know.
P.S. As for placing articles also in people, treaties, ships, massacres, etc cats, I will check again later in a more systematic way. Don't worry about this now (unless of course you like, in which case you are wholeheartedly invited). Dc76\talk 18:26, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support what defines the period in question is WW2. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:43, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. The titles are obviously just different ways to refer to the same topic, there's no point in keeping these categories apart. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 10:17, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support merge for preference, but reverse merge is also an option. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:42, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Not only is it already designed around the war, but I think it is a bad idea to create categories distinguished by a succession of years contained within brackets: the categories will look too much like each other and the distinguishing criterion would be obscured. Dahn (talk) 00:03, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I want to simply give the reason I had in mind when I created the category with years: I looked at how this is done for other countries. Mainly I looked at USA and at Poland, plus at a couple others. The reason in this particular instance is that there are many 1940-41 events/people/etc and also a number of 1941-45 ones not directly connected to the war. So, I thought a title with years would be better. However, I was definitively wrong in creating a new cat, rather then proposing renaming the old one. (Even with the "military" subcat issue, this was possible to be done, I should have thought more thoroughly that some people might not like a title with years. Sorry, I apologize to those people if by introducing years I stepped on their tastes. It certainly wasn't my intention to offend.) And, if I subcategorized too much, once I am finished, it should be strightforward to merge a couple cats if that's better. My main worry was to link well with categories "X by country" and with categories for different countries (i.e. issues that refer to 2 or more countries). Dc76\talk 13:48, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Disamb-Class U.S. Congress articles

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 14:23, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Disamb-Class U.S. Congress articles to Category:Disambig-Class U.S. Congress articles
Nominator's rationale: Rename. This is an assessment category for {{Project Congress}}. Just to make it a little clearer as to what it means. —Markles 14:24, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:New Zealand Independant crown entities

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 (empty). Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:54, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:New Zealand Independant crown entities
Nominator's rationale: Delete Category:New Zealand Independent crown entities exists and is spelled correctly. Quadparty (talk) 07:35, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. Obvious mistake, and the category is empty. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 10:19, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy merge then delete -- obvious spelling error
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:Jewish neo-Nazis

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:54, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Jewish neo-Nazis (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete One article, little growth potential. 72.95.242.209 (talk) 06:40, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete ocat by race/ethnicity + political viewpoint. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:44, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Very problematic category of the kind that Wikipedia's community handles in the absolutely worst manner; a scandal waiting to happen. Better not keep that can of worms next to the can opener. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 10:23, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete little growth potential, pov dangers. --Pan Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 10:54, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - One article. Obviously a useless category. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 14:23, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Seems like there's no hope for expansion. DiverseMentality 00:18, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Professional sports 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: keep. Kbdank71 14:42, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:Professional sports leagues to Category:Sports leagues
Nominator's rationale: I m under the impression that this division is not (attempted to be) maintained on wikip. Mayumashu (talk) 05:01, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Being professional or being amateur is highly defining of a sports league. In fact I would say its perhaps the most defining aspect of a sports league other than the sport it plays. -Djsasso (talk) 19:25, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose per Djsasso, although in some areas there will be gray zones. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:52, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. For the gray areas, how about Category:Sports leagues of unclear professionality status? ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 10:24, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose -- the converse is "amateur leagues". There is a marginal category where there are semi-professional clubs, but that is a problem for those categorising them to sort out. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:47, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Indoor soccer 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: keep. Kbdank71 14:44, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Indoor soccer players to Category:Indoor football (soccer) players
Nominator's rationale: as per Category:Indoor football (soccer), Category:Football (soccer) players, etc. Mayumashu (talk) 04:42, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this is the 3rd nomination for this - see the category's talk page to find links to the other two; that should have been disclosed up front. But ultimately, this is not defining for players, most of whom have ventured outdoors and played soccer (football) there, too. As I said in a previous debate, this is WP:OCAT, like Category:Football players on Astroturf, Category:Clay court tennis players, or Category:Bicycle racers who ride on macadam, why do we categorize people on the nature of their sports venues, Category:Indoor swimmers vs. Category:Outdoor swimmers or any other sport held both in and outdoors. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:49, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
?? It s part of a whole set of cat pages for a number of established indoor soccer leagues. and this page does not list players by the surface they play on or if they played in a domed stadium or not - indoor soccer is no less a sport than futsal, real tennis, beach volleyball, etc. - should players by these sports be deleted too? Mayumashu (talk) 04:00, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Indoor soccer is a completely different sport than Outdoor soccer. As far as the rename goes I have no opinion one way or the other. Just like ice hockey and field hockey are two different sports. -Djsasso (talk) 04:30, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Just as air hockey, field hockey, and ice hockey are significantly different sports with certain thematic similarities, indoor soccer is a unique sport with its own rules and professional leagues. Are there places where the indoor game is referred to as "indoor football"? In the US, where the indoor game was invented, it's never called that so as not to be confused with arena football. - Dravecky (talk) 17:05, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – if it is indeed a US-only game then perhaps it should be just 'Indoor soccer' throughout (per Indoor soccer, which says it is called futsal outside N America). Occuli (talk) 17:45, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Judging from comments given then, Category:Indoor football (soccer) should be renamed to Category:Indoor soccer, be kept separate from Category:Futsal, which presently is found under it, as they are although similar sports different (in the same way that American football and Canadian football are different and not derived one from the other. It s getting clear now. I move to withdraw this nomination then Mayumashu (talk) 18:30, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep to match title of parent article Indoor soccer. Alansohn (talk) 18:31, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:French philosophers of the 20th century

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 14:21, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:French philosophers of the 20th century to Category:20th-century French philosophers
Nominator's rationale: Rename. To match common form, for people by century categories. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:49, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Misspelt. At the very least, don't put a hyphen between "20th" and "century". ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 10:25, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry but based on multiple discussions the hyphen is grammatically correct and all of the other philosopher categories are now of that form. Is the hyphen what you are calling the spelling error? Vegaswikian (talk) 02:51, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support If we rename to this format, the propsoed spelling is pedantically correct. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:48, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename. All categories are being renamed to reflect correct hyphenation of adjectival phrases. Every time this comes up at CfD, someone complains of pedantry. At least they're not complaining about pederasty. Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:51, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Southern Conference Hall of Fame inductees

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. Kbdank71 14:20, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Southern Conference Hall of Fame inductees (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Minor U.S. college sports award category; non-defining for inductees. All 8 persons in the category are currently in the list at Southern Conference Hall of Fame. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:11, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*KeepDelete: I'd hardly call the fourth oldest athletic conference (1921) in the United States minor. Former teams in the conference have gone on to form the Southeastern Conference and the Atlantic Coast Conference. Considering the number of teams and players that have participated in the SoCon, election to the Hall of Fame is certainly notable, and the category will expand as more members are inducted. --Geologik (talk) 02:05, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_January_29&oldid=1089819241"