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. Timrollpickering (talk) 14:39, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The term "monster" is defined too vaguely to serve as the basis for a category, and it can easily be applied to any abnormal, fright-inducing and/or BadTM human or non-human creature. All of the category's members are otherwise amply categorized, including Category:Monster movies (subcategory of Category:Films by topic, among others). -- Black Falcon(talk) 23:47, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Helpfully categorises a number of categories. "Monster" could be substituted for a number of similar terms, but I don't agree that the definition is too vague. "Any abnormal, fright-inducing and/or BadTM human or non-human creature" is good enough for me, though I'd add "supernatural". --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:59, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How is the categorization helpful? To give just one example: not all vampires and werewolves are portrayed as "monstrous"—e.g., Angel (Buffy the Vampire Slayer), Twilight (film). Also, how is the definition I offered "good enough" when it includes three terms which are completely subjective: "abnormal", "fright-inducing" and "Bad". Thanks, -- Black Falcon(talk) 23:04, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In Buffy and Twilight, most of the vampires are monstrous (as in evil and dangerous), and the story follows or features some unusual cases. This is a common plot style. A better definition could be constructed, but it will always be hard to ties down the meaning of a 700 year old word used repeatedly in mythology and fiction. OED gives: "Originally: a mythical creature which is part animal and part human, or combines elements of two or more animal forms, and is frequently of great size and ferocious appearance. Later, more generally: any imaginary creature that is large, ugly, and frightening." The category is useful because there is an undoubtable genre of monster-featuring stories, with commonality in style and target audience. This middle level category easily connects subjects, despite fictional-technical-differences, and is thus a useful navigation aid. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:43, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that "it will always be hard to tie down the meaning of a 700-year-old word used repeatedly in mythology and fiction" is at the heart of the problem. Even the OED's modern definition—"any imaginary creature that is large, ugly, and frightening"—invokes three adjectives that are entirely subjective. I agree that there is a (hard-to-define, but undeniably real) "genre of monster-featuring stories", but the dichotomous nature of categories does not seem suited to capturing this. Due to the broad definition of "monster", this category also can duplicate large portions of better-defined categories such as Category:Legendary creatures in works of fiction: centaurs, demons, dragons, dwarves, gargoyles, giants, goblins, golems, ogres and trolls, among others, all can fall under the label "monster". I suppose it comes down to one question: What criterion will determine whether a page belongs in this category, and can this criterion be applied relatively objectively, consistently and without resorting to original research? -- Black Falcon(talk) 22:36, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Looking through the category again, I don't feel that there is a problem here. All the subcategories seem to contain a monster or monsters prominent in the plot. I don't know that dwarfs are monsters as a rule, being originally based on real humans, and I think the monstrosity of King Kong goes away when he is tamed (if I remember correctly from long ago). Yes, there is subjectivity and original research in categorising fiction. I don't know whether many are with me here when I say that WP:NOR can be much more relaxed when WP:WAF than when WP:BLP or WP:MEDRS apply. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:21, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think I understand your perspective as I, too, have a sense of what is or is not a "monster" and basically agree with you that the subcategories feature a monster theme. Still, that sense is personal and subjective and, in my view, WP:NOR (a core policy) applies just as much to fiction as to any other topic. I admit that it is more difficult to apply WP:NOR to fiction, in large part because we (naturally) tend to rely more on primary sources when writing about fiction, but I believe we should still try. In the end, I suppose we can agree to disagree. :) -- Black Falcon(talk) 02:51, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose SmokeyJoe makes a convincing case. TheGrappler (talk) 19:08, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Galway
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 adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:rename. Precedent on the Dublin discussion breaks the tie here. The preference on CfD seems to be moving away from article name being a sacred cow, if it was ever there.--Mike Selinker (talk) 13:04, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support per changing consensus, BHG, and the need for unambiguous names especially in categories. While the main article is a contributing factor to category naming it is not the definitive and deciding factor. Over the years there have been many exceptions to the category and article should have the same name. While it would be nice, it does not always make sense as evidenced by many nominations with exceptions over the past year. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:13, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:American Islamic organizations based in Chicago, Illinois
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.
Propose merging Category:American Islamic organizations based in Chicago, Illinois to Category:Islamic organizations based in the United StatesCategory:American Islamic organizations and Category:Religious organizations based in Chicago, Illinois
Nominator's rationale: At this time, there is too little content in Category:Religious organizations based in Chicago, Illinois (c. 10 members) to require subdivision by religion. Likewise, Category:American Islamic organizations (c. 40 members) is not in need for subdivision by state, much less by city. -- Black Falcon(talk) 22:59, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Since Category:American Islamic organizations is currently under discussion for renaming this is maybe an inopportune time to do this change. I also think caution might be needed in considering whether all these organizations are religious and not political. The Council on American Islamic Relations presents itself as a civil-rights group, which would make it political. The same could be said for the Alliance Defense Fund. Caution is needed in these matters.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:43, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Waterford
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, with the Dublin precedent also being considered in the close.--Mike Selinker (talk) 13:09, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom, to remove ambiguity, as has has already been done for the subcategory Category:People from Waterford (city), as well as for Category:Dublin (city) and its subcats. The city is the primary usage of the term "Waterford", but per countless precedents, category names should not be ambiguous. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 02:31, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support per changing consensus, BHG, and the need for unambiguous names especially in categories. While the main article is a contributing factor to category naming it is not the definitive and deciding factor. Over the years there have been many exceptions to the category and article should have the same name. While it would be nice, it does not always make sense as evidenced by many nominations with exceptions over the past year. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:13, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Birthright
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. Timrollpickering (talk) 14:36, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support highly ambiguous. 65.95.15.144 (talk) 05:16, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Highly ambiguous. Not at all my first guess. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:01, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Islamic organizations 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. Good Ol’factory(talk) 02:25, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per the category naming convention for organizations ("based in Foo"), and each country's top-level "Organi(s/z)ations based in {Country}" category. -- Black Falcon(talk) 22:47, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:03, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support - There is enough discussion of what authentic "American" Islam is to make calling something an "American Islamic organization" frought with POV issues. On the other hand saying it is an "Islamic orgrnization based in the United States" requires only a determination where the hedquarters is. Beyond this organizations based in one country can function in other countries, leaving the older category system at least in theory open to categorizing one organization in 57 countries since it operates in all. Organizations can still fall in more than one category if they have moved their centrer of operations from country to country, but this is a more involved process and creates a clear and definable link to the new country that is both noticable in the history of the organization and easy to say when it does or does not exist. Put another way people can only be in one country at one moment, but organizations can be in every country of the globe simultaneously.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:40, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Blasphemy 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:speedy rename (CSD G7: good-faith request by creator). -- Black Falcon(talk) 23:03, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Speedy rename. I have only just created it but all the articles in it pertain to law. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 22:43, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Athi River Town
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:Upmerge. Timrollpickering (talk) 14:37, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Athi River Town to Category:Athi River (town)
Nominator's rationale: Standard parenthetical disambiguation, per the main article. Another option is to upmerge this small, three-member category to Category:Machakos District until we have more content about the town. (Category creator notified using Template:Cfd-notify) -- Black Falcon(talk) 22:34, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerging is my first choice, and renaming my second. -- Black Falcon(talk) 02:39, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Geography-based redirects
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. Good Ol’factory(talk) 02:23, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category is for redirects from or to titles related to geography topics, so either Category:Geography redirects or Category:Geography-related redirects would be appropriate, but I don't think that a redirect correctly can be characterized as being based on a topic. (Category creator notified using Template:Cfd-notify)-- Black Falcon(talk) 19:29, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Simpler without ambiguity. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:06, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Far more natural term. TheGrappler (talk) 19:11, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Georgian comedy and humor
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. Good Ol’factory(talk) 02:26, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Georgian comedy and humor to Category:Comedy and humor in Georgia (country)
Support - too ambiguous otherwise. TheGrappler (talk) 19:12, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support - The term Georgian is inherently ambiguous. With the Breer Rabbit stories among other things coming out of the US State of Georgia, I can imagine there existing a category "Georgia (U.S. State) comedy and humor" and even more easily having someone think to put an article in that category and put it in this because they did not think of how there is also a country of Georigia. Interestingly enough more people live in the US State of Georgia than the country of Goergia. That is not directly relevant to the likelyhood or usability of a category, especially since with the country of Georgia having its own language, cultural phenomenon will tend to be more self contained thant in the US state of Georgia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:33, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Colpix albums
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. Good Ol’factory(talk) 02:22, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support to match parent. TheGrappler (talk) 19:11, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.