Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 January 31
January 31
NEW NOMINATIONS
Category:Fictional characters with eating disorders
- Speedy delete and salt - This was on WP:CFD on 2007 January 19. The debate was closed on 2007 January 28 with a decision to delete. The category was recreated on 2007 January 29. Dr. Submillimeter 22:57, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
- Speedy delete and salt per nom. --Xdamrtalk 23:02, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Category:Swedish regents
- Propose renaming Category:Swedish regents to Category:Regents of Sweden
- Rename, Per WP:NCCAT. Slarre 22:53, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Category:Swedish Governors-General
- Propose renaming Category:Swedish Governors-General to Category:Governors-General of Sweden
- Rename, More precise, consistently with other subcategories in Category:Governors-General. Slarre 22:45, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Category:Swedish Privy Councillors
- Propose renaming Category:Swedish Privy Councillors to Category:Members of the Privy Council of Sweden
- Rename, More precise, consistently with e.g. Category:Members of the Privy Council of the United Kingdom. Slarre 22:38, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Category:Italian air marshal
- Merge, There has only ever been one Marshal of the Italian Air Force (Italo Balbo) and, at present, there is no prospect of any more being created. I propose that this cat be deleted and Italo Balbo added to Category:Marshals of the air force which is for 5-star air force officers who are titled as marshals. (Note, Category:Air marshals would not be appropriate for Italo Balbo as this cat is for 2, 3 and 4 star officers in commonwealth air forces). Greenshed 22:35, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
- Merge per nom—no real need for single-member categories like this. --Xdamrtalk 23:01, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Category:Swedish County Governors
- Propose renaming Category:Swedish County Governors to Category:County governors of Sweden
- Rename, More precise name. Slarre 22:29, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Category:Members of the Cabinet of Sweden
- Propose renaming Category:Members of the Cabinet of Sweden to Category:Government ministers of Sweden
- Rename, Per standard title used in Category:Government ministers by country. Slarre 22:18, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Category:Computerization
Delete, one-man show. There was an article computerization, which I deleted last night through PROD. Chick Bowen 21:30, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
- Delete and move article Since there is apparently no longer a main article for Computerization, and there's only one article in this category, it seems safe to delete the category and move the only existing article into a different appropriate category for the company's industry. Dugwiki 22:50, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Created yesterday and no contains a whopping 4 entries... all of whom were curiously enough born in the United States. This simply isn't a necessary category.--Isotope23 21:03, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
- Delete First, Wiki tries to avoid categorizing by gender. Second, we normally categorize people by nationality, not by continent. So this category fails on both counts. Dugwiki 22:52, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per Dugwiki. --Xdamrtalk 23:03, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
- Merge into Category:New York Mets players, trivia. -- Prove It (talk) 18:59, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
- Merge per nom. TonyTheTiger 19:15, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
- Merge per ProveIt. The Rambling Man 22:13, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Category:Media in Scotland
- Propose renaming Category:Media in Scotland to Category:Scottish media
- Rename to conform with convention; compare at Category:Welsh media, Category:Northern Irish media, and Category:Media by country.-choster 18:32, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
- Rename per nom as it conforms to Category:Media by country. TonyTheTiger 19:17, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
- Merge into Category:Youth organizations as subjective, or at least Rename to Category:Far-left youth organisations. -- Prove It (talk) 16:44, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
- Merge to Category:Fictional mutants. The difference between "mutants" and "mutates" is that the former were mutated from birth, and the latter became mutated through something else (e.g. radioactive spider bite). This distinction is not found in biology, it is only made in the Marvel universe, and there only barely. However, many universes have their own terminology ("metahumans", "metamutates", basically everything in Category:Human-derived fictional species) and it does not follow that we should categorize Mutants by whatever they're called in that setting. >Radiant< 16:27, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
- Discuss -- it seems to me that all of the subcats here really ought to be articles, not categories. If this were fully implemented it could add many new categories to hundreds of football players. Clearly there's some interest in this kind of information, but I don't think categories are the best way to do it. What do people think? -- Prove It (talk) 15:51, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
- Keep I think a typical pre-millenium Super Bowl team should have about 5 or 6 players notable enough for articles. However, each post millenium team may have about 20-30 if not more wikinotable players. I think these categories are valid and useful. TonyTheTiger 19:20, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
- Comment P.S. each team should also have a template as opposed to a list. TonyTheTiger 19:24, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
- Comment for now. This would seem to be over categorization. I'm thinking listify or a template would be a better solution. Vegaswikian 19:45, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
- Delete for now until clarified and discuss at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Football League What is the intent of this category? If it is to categorize the football teams that won the Super Bowl, then delete all the subcategories and clarify, possibly renaming this to "Category:Super Bowl champion teams". If the intent is to categorize individual football players who happened to play on a Super Bowl championship winning team, then I'm undecided on whether the category is a good idea or if this is a good way to handle it. Either way, the category appears to be prematurely implemented and not clearly defined. I say delete it and discuss a draft proposal on how best to do this, if desired, at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Football League since they're probably the editors with the most experience on football related articles and categories. Dugwiki 23:04, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
- Speedy delete as recreated content. -- Prove It (talk) 15:28, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
- Rename to Category:WikiProject Taiwanese Baseball to match Wikipedia:WikiProject Taiwanese Baseball. -- Prove It (talk) 14:44, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
- Rename per nom. Not to be confused with Category:Baseball in Taiwan.-choster 15:31, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Category:Rivers named for women
Delete, indiscriminate category cluttering up the categories, and encouraging further categories such as rivers named after dogs, rivers named for men, boys named for rivers, dogs named for chairs, cats named for kings. Possible POVPUSH. Bards 11:38, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Cloachland 13:55, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - This is categorization by name, a form of overcategorization. The rivers otherwise have little in common and should not be grouped together. Dr. Submillimeter 14:55, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
- Delete and listify - Categorization by name, a bad idea. Where interesting and relevant lists are appropriate. (And I don't know what the POV is supposed to be (rivers named after women are better? worse? than rivers named after geographical features or men?), but honorary naming patterns are of interest--buildings for instance are largely named after men; Venusian craters after women; and so on. There's often some historical or cultural reason for naming patterns that is, actually, of use to scholars.) --lquilter 15:46, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Every other article in every other category only really has one thing in common. Thats the point of a category. So, I'll go with delete because of WP:OV. —mikedk9109SIGN 23:09, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Category:Native fauna of Texas
- Merge - See the discussion on Fauna of the United States by State below. Unlike Category:Native fauna of Hawaii, which contains animals that are only found in Hawaii, Category:Native fauna of Texas contains animals that are found both in Texas and outside of Texas. In other words, this category is redundant with Category:Fauna of Texas. If Category:Fauna of Texas is merged into Category:Fauna of the United States, then Category:Native fauna of Texas should be merged into Category:Fauna of the United States as well. If Category:Fauna of Texas is kept, then Category:Native fauna of Texas should be merged into Category:Fauna of Texas. Dr. Submillimeter 10:45, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
- Rename and merge if appropriate to "Native fauna of southwest United States or Native fauna of southwest region, North America". As for "native" versus just "fauna", this is an important distinction; I'm not sure whether it's appropriate for a category, but I would be loath to eliminate it at this point without specific discussion about the "native" aspect. "Native ... Hawaii" for instance is not, actually, things just found in Hawaii, but things found in Hawaii prior to introduction of European & African species starting in 16th century. --lquilter 15:51, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - My book on the birds of Hawaii uses the word endemic to describe species originating from and found only within Hawaii. That may be more appropriate. (Note that most of the animals in Category:Native fauna of Texas may not be considered endemic by zoologists, as they naturally occur outside of Texas.) Dr. Submillimeter 16:33, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - obviously that's also an important distinction. i wouldn't want to rename the category until we had a report from someone about how it is currently being used -- native (in hawaii prior to modern colonization); endemic (only in hawaii); actual/current fauna (in hawaii regardless of nativity or endemicity (?)). --lquilter 17:09, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - I am very familiar with Hawaiian animals. Except for one, the animals are all endemic. The one non-endemic species is the Black-winged Stilt; however, a subspecies of this stilt is endemic to Hawaii. Dr. Submillimeter 17:41, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - obviously that's also an important distinction. i wouldn't want to rename the category until we had a report from someone about how it is currently being used -- native (in hawaii prior to modern colonization); endemic (only in hawaii); actual/current fauna (in hawaii regardless of nativity or endemicity (?)). --lquilter 17:09, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - My book on the birds of Hawaii uses the word endemic to describe species originating from and found only within Hawaii. That may be more appropriate. (Note that most of the animals in Category:Native fauna of Texas may not be considered endemic by zoologists, as they naturally occur outside of Texas.) Dr. Submillimeter 16:33, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
- Merge into Category:Fauna of Southwestern United States, I agree categorization by states does not work, but the American southwest does make sense. -- Prove It (talk) 16:06, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - Much of the fauna in the American Southwest is also found in Northern Mexico, mainly because some of the ecological zones (specifically the Chihuahua Desert and Sonora Desert) cross the U.S.-Mexico border. While Category:Fauna of Southwestern United States is better, does it still work? Another point: some of the fauna are not Southwestern U.S. species but are instead species found in the South Central United States (East Texas, Louisiana, Oklahoma, and Arkansas). These animals include the Strecker's Chorus Frog and Pallid Spiny Softshell Turtle. These animals should not be in a Southwest U.S. category. Dr. Submillimeter 16:27, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
- that's why there's an east texas & west texas subcat, right? i think if the distinction is not yet made in this fauna category then we should not upmerge to "US" because then we lose the value of the work already done to place those species in texas (southeast or southwest US). --lquilter 17:09, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
- Regardless, classifying things as "from Texas" clearly does not work here. Dr. Submillimeter 17:41, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
- We're in complete accord that "from Texas" doesn't work for fauna/flora. Just trying to figure out a) what's ideal (I think bio/ecoregions is best); and b) do we go for ideal now, or some intermediate step; and if intermediate, which is best as an intermediate? -- upmerge to US, leave with Texas, or rename to a perhaps not quite right attempt at a bioregion? I have no really firm opinions, but feel that upmerging could lose whatever fine gradations are presently embodied in the category. --lquilter 21:27, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
- Regardless, classifying things as "from Texas" clearly does not work here. Dr. Submillimeter 17:41, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
- that's why there's an east texas & west texas subcat, right? i think if the distinction is not yet made in this fauna category then we should not upmerge to "US" because then we lose the value of the work already done to place those species in texas (southeast or southwest US). --lquilter 17:09, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - Much of the fauna in the American Southwest is also found in Northern Mexico, mainly because some of the ecological zones (specifically the Chihuahua Desert and Sonora Desert) cross the U.S.-Mexico border. While Category:Fauna of Southwestern United States is better, does it still work? Another point: some of the fauna are not Southwestern U.S. species but are instead species found in the South Central United States (East Texas, Louisiana, Oklahoma, and Arkansas). These animals include the Strecker's Chorus Frog and Pallid Spiny Softshell Turtle. These animals should not be in a Southwest U.S. category. Dr. Submillimeter 16:27, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Fauna by state subcategories
- Category:Vertebrates of Connecticut
- Category:Amphibians of Connecticut
- Category:Fish of Connecticut
- Category:Mammals of Connecticut
- Category:Reptiles of Connecticut
- Category:Invertebrates of Connecticut
- Category:Frogs-Toads-Salamanders of New Mexico
- Category:Fish of Utah
- Merge into Category:Fauna of the United States - See the Fanua of the United States by state discussion below; this merge should only take place if that one proceeds. Currently, most animals except for birds in Category:Fauna of the United States are not divided by type (e.g. no subcategories exist for mammals, amphibians, etc.). If that merge proceeds, then these subcategories should also be merged into Category:Fauna of the United States. If that nomination fails, then these categories should be left alone. Dr. Submillimeter 10:31, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
- Rename & merge into appropriate bioregions: X of northeast United States, or X of northeast North America; southwest US or southwest NA; western North America. --lquilter 15:52, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
- Merge per Dr. Submillimeter. —mikedk9109SIGN 23:05, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Category:Lists of video game music
All articles in this category are facing deletion at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_8-bit_Atari_game_music. Shawnc 10:29, 31 January 2007 (UTC)}}
- Comment. Facing deletion does not mean they'll be deleted, though. Doczilla 10:58, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
- Keep pending AfD results. --Dweller 12:20, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Fauna of the United States by state
- Category:Fauna of the United States by state
- Category:Fauna of Alabama
- Category:Fauna of Alaska
- Category:Fauna of Arizona
- Category:Fauna of Arkansas
- Category:Fauna of California
- Category:Fauna of the San Francisco Bay Area
- Category:Fauna of Colorado
- Category:Fauna of Connecticut
- Category:Fauna of Delaware
- Category:Fauna of Florida
- Category:Fauna of Georgia (U.S. state)
- Category:Fauna of Idaho
- Category:Fauna of Illinois
- Category:Fauna of Indiana
- Category:Fauna of Iowa
- Category:Fauna of Kansas
- Category:Fauna of Kentucky
- Category:Fauna of Louisiana
- Category:Fauna of Maine
- Category:Fauna of Maryland
- Category:Fauna of Massachusetts
- Category:Fauna of Michigan
- Category:Fauna of Minnesota
- Category:Fauna of Mississippi
- Category:Fauna of Missouri
- Category:Fauna of Montana
- Category:Fauna of Nebraska
- Category:Fauna of Nevada
- Category:Fauna of New Hampshire
- Category:Fauna of New Jersey
- Category:Fauna of New Mexico
- Category:Fauna of New York
- Category:Fauna of North Carolina
- Category:Fauna of North Dakota
- Category:Fauna of Ohio
- Category:Fauna of Oklahoma
- Category:Fauna of Oregon
- Category:Fauna of Pennsylvania
- Category:Fauna of Rhode Island
- Category:Fauna of South Carolina
- Category:Fauna of South Dakota
- Category:Fauna of Tennessee
- Category:Fauna of Texas
- Category:Fauna of Eastern Texas
- Category:Fauna of Western Texas
- Category:Fauna of Utah
- Category:Fauna of Vermont
- Category:Fauna of Virginia
- Category:Fauna of Washington
- Category:Fauna of West Virginia
- Category:Fauna of Wisconsin
- Category:Fauna of Wyoming
- Merge all into Category:Fauna of the United States - Although categorization of animals by country is questionable (since animals' ranges have little to do with political boundaries), categorization of animals by U.S. state is infeasible. Most North American animals are found in multiple U.S. states, and some (such as the prolific coyote and the almighty house sparrow) are found in every state in the Continental U.S. These two animals as well as others could easily be placed into almost all of the above categories. If the appropriate categories were added to animals' articles, the categories would quickly become an unusable mass of wikilinks. Given that the categorization system plainly is not practical, the entire category tree should be merged into Category:Fauna of the United States. However, an exception should be made for Category:Native fauna of Hawaii. This category will only include animals that occur in Hawaii and can therefore be used more realistically. (Additionally, note that additional debate on subdividing animals according to political boundaries instead of natural boundaries may require additional debate. Also note that a similar category tree exists for birds. However, the parent category is currently the subject of a rename debate, so to avoid confusion, any merge proposal on the bird categories should wait for the debate on the parent category to close.) Dr. Submillimeter 09:54, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - Some of these categories contain other subcategories (e.g. Category:Invertebrates of Connecticut) that also need to be addressed. Dr. Submillimeter 10:01, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - The Texas category is subdivided into an East and West Texas categories, which also belong in this nomination. Dr. Submillimeter 10:22, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - The category on fauna of the San Francisco Bay area also belongs in this nomination. Dr. Submillimeter 10:25, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
- Merge all per nom. Cloachland 13:55, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
- Rename and merge into regional variants of Category:Fauna of North America. If you just upmerge now you'll lose whatever regionality is currently included by proxy of states/state regions. In particular, E./W. Texas & SFBA do have unique fauna and if they're in there, then it would be a real disservice to readers to suddenly have to scan through the "US" or "North America" categories to get them. --lquilter 15:55, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - Could you post a more specific suggestion on how to sort these state categories into regional categories? I am uncertain if I like the proposal (as many animals would fall within multiple regions), but it would help discussion. Dr. Submillimeter 16:28, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: As for fauna that fall within multiple regions : By categorization standards we do the most specific cat, so if it's multiple regions (like pigeons) then it should be in only the most specific bioregion cat, e.g., "Fauna of Earth", maybe.
- Comment - Could you post a more specific suggestion on how to sort these state categories into regional categories? I am uncertain if I like the proposal (as many animals would fall within multiple regions), but it would help discussion. Dr. Submillimeter 16:28, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
- Strongly Oppose. This is one of the most damaging suggestions I've ever seen. This will completely destroy the work that went in to the effort that went in to forming these regional variations.--DaveOinSF 16:53, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: Per Dr. Submillimeter's request I'm essaying a category structure that would fit within the existing category structure Category:Ecoregions. But I want to strongly second DaveOinSF (and my earlier comment), which is that we should only do non-destructive recategorization so that, where an existing specific category is useful, the value of that work not be lost. Here's a proposal:
- Washington, Oregon, and Idaho would go into Category:Fauna of the Pacific Northwest which would be a subcat of Category:Pacific Northwest (already exists) which should be a subcat of Category:North American ecoregion (which needs to be created but would be a subcat of existing cats Category:North America and Category:Ecoregions. The other North Am ecoregion cats don't yet exist, but probably we should create them.
- Category:Southeast ecoregion of North America (Alabama, Mississippi, East Texas, Louisiana, Virginia, etc.)
- Category:Northeast ecoregion of North America (Maine, Mass, NY, Vt, NH, etc.)
- Category:West coast ecoregion of North America (or is it West Coast?) (California)
- Category:Southwest ecoregion of North America (W Texas, Arizona, NM, Nevada)
- Category:Rocky Mountain ecoregion of North America (Colorado etc)
- Category:Gulf Coast ecoregion of North America (E Florida, S Louisiana, S Mississippi, SE Texas)
- Great Lakes, Midwest, Appalachians are other likely contenders. I'm not an ecologist and can't be very precise. I think if it's not obvious (like the ones I've listed so far) that we should have Category:North American ecoregion and dual-categorize (the political boundaries and the obvious/most specific ecoregion) until an ecology or biology project or some other knowledgeable person can deal categorize most specifically and without unnecessary categories. It is important to dual-categorize, rather than delete the categories, so as to not have destructive de-categorization and loss of the work already put into these. At any rate, the eco/bioregional fauna cats need to be co-categorized with the political boundaries, anyway -- so Category:North American fauna would need to be linked to the relevant political cats anyway (national & state sovereigns).--lquilter 17:05, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - Can we have "endemic" added to those category names? I do not want to see the coyote or the house sparrow land in all of them. Also, can we demonstrate that these ecoregions are defined by an external reference rather than made up for Wikipedia? Dr. Submillimeter 17:47, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: Per Dr. Submillimeter's request I'm essaying a category structure that would fit within the existing category structure Category:Ecoregions. But I want to strongly second DaveOinSF (and my earlier comment), which is that we should only do non-destructive recategorization so that, where an existing specific category is useful, the value of that work not be lost. Here's a proposal:
- Comment I agree that categorization by state cleary doesn't work. However, I don't think merging all the north american animals into one big category is the right thing either. -- Prove It (talk) 18:33, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
- Comment If you agree that categorization by state doesn't work, and one big category doesn't either, then what other option is there? —mikedk9109SIGN 23:02, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
- Merge into Category:High schools in Florida, convention of Category:High schools in the United States. -- Prove It (talk) 07:34, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
- Merge per convention. --Dweller 12:19, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
- Merge Per the convention. —mikedk9109SIGN 22:59, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
México (state)
- Propose renaming Category:State of México to Category:México (state)
- Propose renaming Category:Cities in México State to Category:Cities in México (state)
- Propose renaming Category:Governors of the State of México to Category:Governors of México (state)
- Propose renaming Category:Municipalities in State of México to Category:Municipalities of México (state)
- Rename all, so that all categories relating to México (state) (Estado de México) use the same term in their titles to refer to the political entity (ie the Mexican state which also happens to be called México). Presently they refer to it in several different ways, which is confusing as well as inconsistent. The proposed renames reflect the nomimal form of the article on the state itself. The rename of the municipalities subcat is also consistent with the way other municipalities by Mexican state cats are formed, ie uses the of not in construction. Note also that the use of the accented char in the titles is entirely consistent with usage employed when naming other Mexican states' articles and categories (eg Yucatán, San Luis Potosí, etc. cjllw | TALK 05:44, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
- Speedy rename - The categories should automatically be renamed to match the parent article, especially when the name of the parent article is generally accepted by consensus or is otherwise non-controversial. I had proposed a speedy rename criteria like this on the talk page for this page, but I received no comments, and so I never pushed it forward. Dr. Submillimeter 09:33, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
- Speedy rename per Dr. Submillimeter. —mikedk9109SIGN 22:58, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, whats the need to create Criminals by ethnicity? See also discussion of July 19th. -- Prove It (talk) 04:45, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Intersection_by_ethnicity.2C_religion.2C_or_sexual_preference. Doczilla 05:35, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
- Delete It's well-known I support many occupation/identity categories, but that doesn't mean I want them to proliferate without reason. The existence of this would seem to necessitate a bunch of "Blank-American criminals" and I don't think that's helpful. Lastly the only name in it seems to be a rapper and that makes me think some kind of agenda is intended.--T. Anthony 06:40, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - although criminality & ethnicity is an important & studied topic, categories of criminals by ethnicity are definitively not going to be helpful in studying it. The study of criminality & ethnicity/gender/nationality/religion/etc is statistical and quantitative, and the use of categories in wikipedia lends nothing to that. Moreover, while other identity & occupation categories are useful because they serve as barometers of notable persons in those professions, and can reflect social barriers to success based on race/gender/etc; that reasoning completely breaks down for the "occupation: criminals" category -- because what is a "notable" or successful criminal? More crimes? More punishment for fewer crimes? Less punishment per crime? Criminals are notable for all sorts of reasons; often because they are notable for non-criminal activities. So this category is not only not helpful, it is actually, actively, confusing. Delete all "Criminals by ethnicity" categories. --lquilter 17:21, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
- Delete I can't put it any better than T. Anthony... this is completely useless.--Isotope23 20:58, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Per WP:OV by ethnicity. —mikedk9109SIGN 22:57, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Category:Mayors of places in Sweden
- Propose renaming Category:Mayors of places in Sweden to Category:Municipal commissioners of Sweden
- Rename, The title of mayor doesn't exist in Sweden, which is divided into municipalities led by a municipal commissioner (Template:Lang-sv). Slarre 03:45, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
- Rename, makes sense to avoid inaccurate 'translations'.--cjllw | TALK 05:57, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - well, if we are talking about "inaccurate translations" then I must point out that translating the Swedish "kommuner" to the word "municipalities" is a debateable point! The English language already has a perfectly good translation of the word "kommun" - it is "commune". Why do we use the awkward "municipalities" for Swedish articles, but the standard "communes" for our French ones? --Mais oui! 08:06, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
- Rename Let's be precise as per nom. TonyTheTiger 19:22, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
- Rename To match the title in Sweden. —mikedk9109SIGN 22:55, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Category:Australian Gaming conventions
- Propose renaming Category:Australian Gaming conventions to Category:Role playing conventions in Australia
- Rename. Gaming in this case is totally ambiguous. Role playing makes it clear what this category is for. Vegaswikian 03:06, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
- Rename. "Gaming" in many legal terms refers to gambling. Doczilla 10:59, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
- Rename per Doczilla. —mikedk9109SIGN 22:53, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Category:Conflicts
- Merge, There is already a larger Category:Conflict. I changed everything that was categorized as Conflicts to Conflict since there is no need for two similar categories. --Jagz 02:05, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
- There should not be a category named Conflict and another Conflicts, it is too confusing. --Jagz 07:17, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
- I will remove the merge proposal template from the Category but will add a description of the Category to prevent confusion. --Jagz 17:55, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
- There should not be a category named Conflict and another Conflicts, it is too confusing. --Jagz 07:17, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose The 'Conflict' category should be reserved for articles on the sociological theory of conflict. The 'Conflicts' should be the overarching category for articles on conflicts that have occurred in history. Look at the categories to which these two categories belong to see the difference. Hmains 04:00, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
- Why not just create a new category called Sociological Conflict or Theory of Conflict, etc.? It can be a subcategory of Category:Conflict. --Jagz 05:13, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
- Unmerge and Rename Category:Conflict to prevent future confusion. ~ BigrTex 04:57, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
- I am against the name Conflicts because it implies that it is for articles with more than one conflict. A category with the name Conflict could represent articles with one or more conflicts. --Jagz 05:13, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose. This is a perfectly standard distinction between a category that covers everything related to a topic and a category that includes specific instances of it; c.f. Category:Fire (general topic) versus Category:Fires (specific instances). Kirill Lokshin 14:09, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose and unmerge per Kirill Lokshin. TonyTheTiger 19:25, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose merge; Comment - Clearly these should not be merged; "conflicts" is for examples of particular conflicts; and "conflict" is for the theory/study of. However, we might consider possibilities of renaming "Category:Conflict to render things less confusing. (Even though I agree it is standard to have Topic (singular) / Topics (plural) to distinguish between theory & examples, if there's a sensible way to distinguish, I think we should. In this case we could move Category:Conflict to Category:Conflict theory (my #1 choice) or Category:Conflict studies (my #2 choice), and retain Category:Conflicts the way it is. (Although conflicts should list as a subset of Conflict, also.) --lquilter 20:40, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Kirill Lokshin put it perfect. —mikedk9109SIGN 22:51, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Category:American English-language writers
Pure time-wasting category clutter. There are something like ten thousand plus articles about American writers, of which this contains one. A vast amount of effort has been put into subcategorizing category:American writers, but it is a huge task and there is still a long way to go. All this would do is recreate that category. It is far more rational to make this category, and others for mainly English speaking countries, subcategories of category:English-language writers and add a qualifying note that those subcategories may contain a few non-English language writers. Sumahoy 00:24, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - This categorization is not useful, as the majority of American writers have written in English. Dr. Submillimeter 09:35, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Cloachland 13:56, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
- Delete If their american, don't they usually write in english? —mikedk9109SIGN 22:48, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
- Not necessarily; are there no American writers who write in Spanish? Native American languages? Bearcat 23:04, 31 January 2007 (UTC)