Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 June 9

June 9

Category:Monophotic people

Category:Monophotic people - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: Delete. The number of photographs taken of a person during their lifetime is not a defining characteristic for a person, even if that number is exactly one. It is an interesting fact that could be included in a bio article, but is viable as a category. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:45, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Overcategorized. PasswordUsername (talk) 23:47, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Besides the fact that the term sounds like a disease, how could one be sure that only one photograph of a person had been taken?--John Foxe (talk) 00:31, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
  • True enough—though to be fair, the category is defined as people of whom "only one known photograph exists". (I agree re:the disease bit. When I saw the category name I actually thought it was an alternate fancy medical term for monotesticular people...) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:06, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Murder, She Wrote

Category:Murder, She Wrote - Template:Lc1

Category:Murder, She Wrote characters - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: Delete - two small categories with no likely chance of expansion. Otto4711 (talk) 22:55, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Category:People associated with Hurricane Katrina

Category:People associated with Hurricane Katrina - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: Delete - another "associated with" collection of people that is ill-suited to categorization. That this category is vague and ill-defined is pretty apparent from a quick check of its contents, which establish no meaningful level of "association" that warrants inclusion. It includes everyone from people directly involved with relief efforts to politicians who happened to be in office in an affected area but had no other apparent connection to journalists whose only connection to the hurricane was to criticize a priest who said that the storm was God's punishment. There is a list article which is in not-great shape at the moment but at least has the potential to explain the association between the person and the storm. Otto4711 (talk) 22:29, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

• Delete per nom; the list is more helpful. Johnbod (talk) 22:31, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
• Related discussion, where there was no consensus but the current name was opted for as being better than what then existed. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:10, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks. I had forgotten about that previous discussion. Otto4711 (talk) 00:45, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

• Delete per nomination. Inclusionary criteria are vague and arbitrary. The list is a good solution, but needs work. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:11, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and Good Ol’factory. PasswordUsername (talk) 00:12, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Israeli basketball league

Propose renaming Category:Ligat HaAl (basketball) to Category:Israeli Basketball Super League

Propose renaming Category:Ligat Ha'al players to Category:Israeli Basketball Super League players

Nominator's rationale: Rename for the following reasons:

1. Match new title of main article at Israeli Basketball Super League.
2. Avoid any possible confusion with the football Ligat HaAl, since moved to Israeli Premier League.

Dale Arnett (talk) 21:58, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Soviet war in Afghanistan veterans

Propose renaming Category:Soviet war in Afghanistan veterans to Soviet military personnel of the Civil War in Afghanistan.

Nominator's rationale: Another category named according to former status. Soviet military personnel of the Civil War in Afghanistan does the job just fine, and as noted at the article for the conflict, the same civil war is considered to be ongoing today, as it has been since the Saur Revolution and the mujihadeen rising up against the pro-USSR government of Afghanistan - Civil War in Afghanistan. PasswordUsername (talk) 21:47, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

• Rename per nom. Johnbod (talk) 22:33, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Category:Former Soviet Union cameras

Propose renaming Category:Former Soviet Union cameras to Category:Soviet cameras

Nominator's rationale: Rename. I don't see the purpose of categorizing Soviet cameras by "former status" like this. Renaming to something like "Soviet cameras" would be acceptable, we should subsequently split into video cameras and photographic cameras. PasswordUsername (talk) 20:52, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

• Please tag the category for discussion. Otto4711 (talk) 22:36, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Tagged. PasswordUsername (talk) 23:49, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

• Rename per nom; but should it be "Soviet Union"? Johnbod (talk) 22:33, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
• Rename if kept, but is this category even necessary? It's the only "cameras by nationality" category we have. If categorizing cameras by country is desirable, I'd suggest establishing Category:Camera companies by country or Category:Camera manufacturers by country and organizing it at the company level rather than the model level. Otto4711 (talk) 22:36, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
  • I agree that it's an unusual category, but given Wikipedia's categorization proclivities, it's quite likely that we'll soon end up with a whole batch of cameras by country of origin–Soviet cameras, at least, has an interesting historical twang to it. (Let's note, also, the existence of categorieslike American books...) Somebody who created it surely had an idea in mind, so it's not particularly pressing that we delete it outright, though in all honesty I don't have any strong feelings about either way. PasswordUsername (talk) 23:46, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
• rename per nom. Similar categoies can be created for American and German made cameras. Hmains (talk) 03:22, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Category:Abstract objects

Propose renaming Category:Abstract objects to Category:Concepts

Nominator's rationale: Rename. After created this category it has become more clear to me that for some the term has certain metaphysical presumptions. The rename is an attempt to satisfy both of the major prevailing views on concepts. See [1] for a more detailed account of the terms. The category has served to organize articles which had otherwise been difficult to properly classify. It also has potential to serve as a means of further organization of certain topics. Or perhaps we can simply bring back the deleted "concepts" category now that there is a meaningful way to deal with its content Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 00:12, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

• Link to the debate on cat:Concepts please. Johnbod (talk) 21:50, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

  The debate that inspired the clarification was at Talk:Set (mathematics). There was objection to calling a set an abstract object. Now we have a way for dealing with these issues according to that source. However, I think the simplest thing to do is resurrect cat:concepts and leave it at that. There was no other debate that I had in mind. Was this what you had in mind Jonbod? Be well, Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 22:31, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

• keep as separate. abstract objects and concepts are two different sets of things with a little overlap, but not enough overlap to merge or rename them. --Buridan (talk) 02:46, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

The lead paragraph of articles such as mental representation, concept, and idea are sufficiently clear now that I think we can rely on them to deal with these distinctions. Strictly speaking, the idea is that concepts can be explained in terms of abstract objects, or mental representations, however to chose one is more POV than is necessary. Rename to "concepts" avoids this. I started the "abstract objects" category for organizational purposes and it has worked out wonderfully in that regard. The only issue is satisfying people who don't believe in abstract objects. I see that as a legitimate criticism. Be well. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 15:51, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comment this term is also used in computer science so this definitely needs to be renamed. 70.29.208.129 (talk) 05:31, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
• Rename to Category:Abstract objects (philosophy). Philosophy is not the only use of these. Category:Concepts is overly vague and Category:Mental representations and abstract objects is wordy and may not really describe what is included. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:00, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

"Concepts" is not overly vague for what is intended. It is intended to be a fundamental level category which will help organize otherwise hard to categorize articles. "Abstract objects" was created by myself, and I now see that there is a legitimate problem with the title. Please see my userspace for some idea of what I have in mind: User:Gregbard/Concepts and theories. I have given quite a bit of thought to the whole thing. The goal is to differentiate between theories and concepts. I think we (especially in the philosophy department) are perfectly capable of organizing a useful and meaningful category structure with Category:Concepts.Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 19:38, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aervanath (talk) 19:55, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Category: People by former political orientation

Delete Category:People by former political orientation and
Merge its subcategories:

Category:Expelled members of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union to Category:Communist Party of the Soviet Union members

Category:Former anarchists to Category:Anarchists

Category:Former fascists to Category:Fascists

Category:Former Marxists to Category:Marxists

Category:Former members of Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong to Category:Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong

Category:Former members of Democratic Party, Hong Kong to Category:Democratic Party (Hong Kong)

Category:Former members of Hong Kong Progressive Alliance to Category:Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong

Category:Former Trotskyists to Category:Trotskyists

Delete subcategory Category:Former leftists as too vague.

Nominator's rationale: Per established consensus to not categorise politicians/political beliefs by current or former status, as recently affirmed at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 November 18#Category:Former_conservatives and Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 May 21#Category:Former Lithuanian communists. PasswordUsername (talk) 19:52, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

This is a complex nomination - perhaps too many different things being proposed at once. My view is that we don't usually categorize people as "former" anything. Further, categorizations by political stance is frequently contentious, unless it is straightforward like the party membership of a politician. If the person is notable as having been an anarchist, for example, then the fact that they later changed their view doens't necessarily mean they shouldn't be categorized as an anarchist. So, given this plate of proposals, I endorse the renaming, mergers, and deletion.   Will Beback  talk  20:21, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support all merges and deletes of Category:People by former political orientation and Category:Former leftists. Absolutely. Anybody who was also something else should be covered specifically by the "something else" category. This proposal is consistent with explicit consensus (and, if I recall correctly, specific guidelines), and it is long overdue. Dahn (talk) 21:40, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
• Keep expelled Communists, which strikes me as historically significant and parent it in the suggested merge target. Merge all others per nom. Otto4711 (talk) 22:38, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
  • I don't think it's particularly notable, given that members were expelled for all of sorts of things, including not doing party work. PasswordUsername (talk) 23:41, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
• Merge/delete, all as nominated for reasons given and per established consensus on these types of categories. These are indeed overdue and relics of the now-largely defunct "former" system of categorizing people. (Don't really have an independent opinion specific to the "expelled" one, but if there's consensus to treat it differently that's probably OK with me.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:10, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Category:FC Porto

Propose renaming Category:FC Porto to Category:F.C. Porto

Propose renaming Category:FC Porto managers to Category:F.C. Porto managers

Propose renaming Category:FC Porto matches to Category:F.C. Porto matches

Propose renaming Category:FC Porto players to Category:F.C. Porto players

Nominator's rationale: Rename. To match the main article. – PeeJay 19:35, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related page moves. – PeeJay 19:40, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Category:Sporting Lisbon managers

Propose renaming Category:Sporting Lisbon managers to Category:Sporting Clube de Portugal managers

Nominator's rationale: Rename. To match parent category and sister subcategories. – PeeJay 19:14, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related page moves. – PeeJay 19:16, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Category:Sporting Braga players

Propose renaming Category:Sporting Braga players to Category:S.C. Braga players

Nominator's rationale: Rename. To match the parent category and sister subcategories. – PeeJay 17:48, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related page moves. – PeeJay 19:10, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Category:Live USB and Category:USB-bootable Linux distributions

Propose merging either way

Nominator's rationale: Merge. Substantial overlap of content ro rhe point of duplication. Ian Cairns (talk) 11:41, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

• Comment there's something very wrong with these. Live USB should be the parent of USB-linux, but instead it's a subcat... and there are OSes that aren't linux that are USB bootable. 70.29.208.129 (talk) 05:34, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
• Rename Category:Live USB to Category:USB-bootable distributions. Keep Category:USB-bootable Linux distributions. Call me old fashioned but that is what these are. Move the Linux ones to Category:USB-bootable Linux distributions and make it a child of Category:USB-bootable distributions. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:22, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aervanath (talk) 17:45, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Category:Berne

Propose renaming Category:Berne to Category:Bern

Propose renaming Category:Old City of Berne to Category:Old City of Bern

Propose renaming Category:Streets in Berne to Category:Streets in Bern

Propose renaming Category:Visitor attractions in Berne to Category:Visitor attractions in Bern

Propose renaming Category:Bridges in Berne to Category:Bridges in Bern

Nominator's rationale: The title of the article about the city was recently changed from Berne to Bern per Talk:Bern#Requested move. The corresponding category and subcategories should be renamed accordingly.  Sandstein  17:32, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

• Rename. To match parent article. — Σxplicit 21:57, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
• Rename categories should match parent article. --skew-t (talk) 02:04, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Category:CfD 2009-06

Propose renaming Category:CfD 2009-06 to Category:Categories for discussion from June 2009

Nominator's rationale:

1. To match all 49 Wikipedia monthly maintenance categories. See Wikipedia:List of monthly maintenance categories given month.
2. To match the parent category Category:Categories for discussion.
3. To match all other categories in that parent category.
4. As per the instruction on Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(categories)#General_naming_conventions to avoid abbreviations
5. As per the instruction on Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(categories)#General_naming_conventions to choose category names that are not ambiguous and the name "CfD" is ambiguous in that it is likely to be misunderstood as "Categories for Deletion" (as has happened before) Debresser (talk) 17:23, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comment This nomination includes all categories like it that exist at the moment or will be created from now on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Debresser (talk • contribs) 2009-06-09 17:36:53

• Comment This is not the place and the time to discuss whether "from" or "since" is the more appropriate word. That discussion will be conducted, if need be, at a later time, but not here and now. I ask the closing admin right now to disregard any comment or opinion based on the "from/since" question. Debresser (talk) 17:26, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
• Comment I will inform all those who took part in previous discussions connected with this rename within a few hours. Debresser (talk) 17:28, 9 June 2009 (UTC) Done. Hope I didn't forget anybody. Note: I did not inform one editor, who has stated specifically he is not interested in receiving any posts from me on his talk page. Debresser (talk) 18:04, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
• Support one consistent style - whichever in the end it will be - as long as it is consistent. Agathoclea (talk) 18:03, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
• Meh. Oppose as written. Yes, this is the place to discuss whether it should be "from", "since", or "as of". I ask the closing admin to disregard the CfD request if that is restricted. I would suggest Category:Categories for discussion 2009-06, instead, but Category:Categories for discussion: June 2009 seems acceptable until the from issue is formally dealt with. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:03, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

• That question is the subject of a separate discussion that would affect all maintenance categories. Since they are not up for nomination here, this comment of yours is really out of place. Apart from that, the work on the templates connected with maintenance categories is not yet finished, and making a "from/since" change will be a lot easier afterwards. So please stop mixing this subject into this discussion. Same thing precisely with your changes in the dateformat. Not to mention that in both these issues the status quo is 49:1 against you and the whole point is to come to a single housestyle. Debresser (talk) 18:10, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

• • Points 1 and 3 are because of previous out-of-process renames, and should be disregarded at this point. Points 2, 4, and 5 seem reasonable, but an alternate form should be selected. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:06, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

• There is no truth to this comment. I have not changed any of the names of the subcategories of Category:Categories for discussion as you can check for yourself. Nor have I made any changes whatsoever in the 49 Wikipedia monthly maintenance categories, exept for changing "since" to "from" in a minority of them (+/- 10 out of +/- 50). So #1 and #3 are both correct without any connection to my person. Debresser (talk) 18:13, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

• Nope. Point 3 is explicitly because of an out-of-process rename, if accurate. It seems not to be accurate, as the existing categories Category:CfD 2009-04 and Category:CfD 2009-05 should also be listed, and the sort keys need to be carefully monitored so that the parent category remains usable. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:25, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

• Why, pray tell me, should that list mention all three existing monthly categories of one and the same type? It does not do so for any of the other 49 categories. Debresser (talk) 18:38, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

• Sorry, that point was a mistake. Point 3 is still incorrect, but it's not fraud. The fact that all other CfD discussions name all current categories to be renamed, even if in a collapsed section, does not make the CfD invalid. The fact that the other categories aren't tagged might make this one invalid. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:38, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

• Should I also tag future monthly categories? Those other 2 categories you mentioned are supposed to be emptied any day now and deleted. Let's stick to the point, please. Debresser (talk) 19:51, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose. This would make sense if these categories were not hidden and if they were for the general public. But they are hidden, and used only by people making sure no tagged categories fall through the cracks, none of whom would be confused by what "CFD" really stands for. --Kbdank71 18:32, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Reject this last argument most forcefully. There are no clans within Wikipedia! No editor or group of editors owns the part of Wikipedia that has to do with categories for discussion. Note that this point has been made before... All pages within Wikipedia that are not protected are made for all editors, up to and beginning with the beginning IP editor.

Apart from that, and more specifically, your argument ignores the instruction of Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(categories)#General_naming_conventions, that does see the need to avoid ambiguity. Likewise your comment does not do justice to the "housestyle" argument, or any of the other arguments, that apply without any connection to the particular editor who is using this category page. Debresser (talk) 18:46, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Never said there were clans! Let's be realistic: only a few editors work with these categories, and changing the name isn't going to change that. You can reject my argument if you want, but that doesn't change my opinion. I don't see the need to rename, and you haven't convinced me with your nomination. Renaming simply to "match" other categories isn't a good reason. And Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(categories)#Special_conventions_for_Wikipedia-related_categories says nothing about ambiguity. --Kbdank71 19:19, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

1. Neither is "all was working fine yesterday" a reason to oppose. Which is essentially what you are saying, with all due respect.
2. Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(categories)#Special_conventions_for_Wikipedia-related_categories doesn't mention the ambiguity argument because it should mention only or mainly "special conventions" and in the need to avoid disambiguity there is no difference between general categories and Wikipedia categories.
3. One of the likely reasons "only a few editors work with these categories" is precisely the mysterious and closed nature of a category named like Category:CfD 2009-06! Debresser (talk) 19:39, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

• All was working fine before the previous out-of-process renames is a perfectly good reason to hold off on this rename. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:41, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
• Essentially what I am saying is, you haven't convinced me with your nomination. That is a reason to oppose. And really, closed and mysterious? Have you gone to Category:CfD 2009-06 to see what it says? Explains itself pretty well. Not mysterious at all. --Kbdank71 21:20, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

• Yes, I have. It is one of the worst pieces of explaining the function of a maintenance category I've ever seen. And believe me I have seen quite some. And improved quite a few as well. But my point was not about the explanation on the category page, but about the name of the category, which is unclear and uninviting. Debresser (talk) 00:49, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
• No, it is not. It has been mentioned already that those renames have no influence on any of the arguments for renaming this category. So if you want to stick to your "oppose", go ahead, but please try not to chew up old grudges. Debresser (talk) 19:56, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
  I misread the previous comment. Sorry.

• What part of "you haven't convinced me" reads "grudge"? What are you talking about? --Kbdank71 23:53, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support per Agathoclea. --Pascal⁶⁶⁶ 19:13, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose long complicated name -- this is a hidden administrative/maintenance category. Forget grammar, it should be short, simple, and sorted. The easier to type the better!
  1. There aren't any related Wikipedia monthly maintenance categories. There are precisely two (2) categories: Category:Categories for discussion and Category:Hidden categories. It fits nicely in the former, and the latter consists of nearly all administrative categories everywhere.
     • There are categories from various projects that you renamed similarly without discussion.
     • You were roundly excoriated at WP:ANI, WT:CFD, and elsewhere.
     • And now again in this discussion!
  2. Matching the prefix "Categories for ..." for temporary subcategory names is perfectly described by the adage:

     "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds...."

     • We must follow Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories)#General naming conventions

       "Choose category names that are ... independent of the way a category is connected to other categories."

       No need for subcategories that recapitulate the parent category name.
  3. This is an excellent use of abbreviations that facilitate maintenance, in the house style of "WP:CFD".
  4. It is not ambiguous with any other titles in either of the two (2) categories.
  5. The nomination uses "from" incorrectly. Although "as of" might be acceptable, it is not needed, as we are not using these categories for exposition.
  6. The nomination uses a date that is not correctly sorted. The year must come first, and the month name does not result in a correct ordering.
  7. Please add me to the list of folks that you don't post on their Talk.
• Thanks!
  --William Allen Simpson (talk) 03:30, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Category:Film awards for Best Cast

Propose renaming Category:Film awards for Best Cast to Category:Films awards for casts

Nominator's rationale: With the rest of Category:Film acting awards now successfully renamed, we come to this one, which I didn't know existed. I know we want to get rid of "Best" and capitalization which violates WP:NCCAT, per the other categories. This would appear to be the obvious renaming option. Although I fear that somewhere out there Otto is lurking with another option... Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:10, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

• Muah-ha-ha-ha-ha Otto4711 (talk) 17:52, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Categories:Formerly papal congregations...

Propose renaming Category:Formerly papal congregations established in the 11th century to Category:Former Roman Catholic church buildings established in the 11th century

Propose renaming Category:Formerly papal congregations established in the 12th century to Category:Former Roman Catholic church buildings established in the 12th century

Propose renaming Category:Former Roman Catholic Church buildings established in the 13th century to Category:Former Roman Catholic church buildings established in the 13th century

Nominator's rationale: Rename. "Roman Catholic" is much clearer term than "papal." In the Middles Ages, the date of church buildings may be more readily determinied than the date of the congregations, if different. This will also give the category a parallel name to like categories, e.g. of the 13th, 14th, and 15th century.-- Carlaude ^talk 16:39, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

• Delete all, restoring architecture categories as necessary. The proposed names would be an improvement, following protests to Carlaude's talk page (as the creator), but looking at several of the 11th century articles, almost all were rebuilds on the sites of earlier churches, usually of debatable dating. See eg Greensted Church (probably 7th century), Lincoln Cathedral, Durham Cathedral, St Albans Cathedral etc. The word "established" therefore seems likely to be wrong, or at the very least debatable, in most cases. That they are "Former Roman Catholic" buildings, if they are in England, Germany etc, hardly needs saying if they are 11th century, though one could not object to Category:Medieval churches now Lutheran/Church of England etc - though the latter would be virtually identical to Category:Medieval churches in England. From the talk page it seems that some purely architectural categories have been replaced with these hybrids, which should not have been done. There is just too much OR involved in trying to extend the "congregations established" tree to medieval parish churches, of which tens of thousands were established across Europe by 1050 with no surviving records as to date, and the great majority of the original buildings now only leaving archaeological traces, if that. We should categorize the surviving buildings by date, style, location etc, and leave it at that. Abbeys and Cathedrals are different, as documented dates for establishment do very often survive. Odda's Chapel is a rare small church with a inscription dating it, though it has not been used as a church for centuries, very probably not since the Reformation (see the external link - the existence of a church was completely forgotten in 1675), so does not belong in this tree anyway, which leads to Category:Protestant church buildings and congregations by century established. Johnbod (talk) 17:11, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comment:While I am not doubting that "tens of thousands" of churches may have been "established across Europe" in the time from the Schism to the Reformation, this matters not in the least. We only care about churches with Wikipedia articles. If Jon wants to delete them (you can see my talk for Johnbod earlier comments), all we really need to know is if there are sufficient acticles to warrant the categories.
• These are not creating "categories by date" where there were none before. It am just taking items from "architecture by year/decade" categories and items from "religious organizations by year/decade" categories and putting them in "church by centuries" categories. If the Wikipedia community doesn't have an issue with "foo by decade" in the Middle Ages, then I fail to see why it could have an issues with "church by centuries"— a much wider time span that can hence be identified with much more certainity.
• You have already said that abbeys & cathedrals "will usually be documented." Many— if not most— of these churches that have Wikipedia articles are cathedrals, monestaries, or former abbeys. But I think even parrish churches will be better documentationed than many other items in architecture categories— categories you want to keep— than say, bridges.
• If the Wikipedia community does have issues with items being placed in a "foo established in the 12th century" category, we do not for that reason remove or consider removing the whole category. We consider if the item itself has needed documumentation for that categorization, and may ask the authors there for added documumentation. Only if and when the century of establishment of the items could not even in known in principal, might we consider removing the whole category (first) on that basis. Normaly— as yo know— we would just empty the category, and then delete category for being empty.
• These are really useful categories. At least more useful than "architecture by decade" and "religious organizations by decade" categories. How often does someone really care about 1250s the architecture over-against 1260s the architecture? They are not that different. On the other hand 13th-century church architecture is very different than 13th century bridges architecture. This applies to religious organizations also. Buddhist temples are more different from churches than 1250s religious organizations are from 1260s religious organizations. Now I admit that while former Roman Catholic church architecture is not much different than Roman Catholic church architecture-- but they are useful in non-architecture parent categories, and you have advocted removing all the "Church buildings by century" categories on my talk page. Here you still seem to seek this but are less clear on that point. --Carlaude ^talk 21:05, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

• Delete all and restore previous cats if nothing better than these can be found. These are not "really useful categories" - they are being created by obliterating more effective ones already in place, and are in many cases, for the reasons given at length by Johnbod, misleading, if not downright wrong.

However, subject to the reservations outlined above about the need for caution when slapping a fixed date on an ancient building, there might be some point in using two cats, an architectural one and a denominational one, e.g., Category:11th-century church buildings (instead of the wordier, and, because of the use of the word "established", also less clear Category:Church buildings established in the 11th century), etc, plus, again e.g., Category:Former Roman Catholic churches in Foo - which should NOT sit under the "Protestant congregations" overcat. Let's forget this stuff about "congregations", which just doesn't export either in place or in time. HeartofaDog (talk) 23:14, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comment:Changing Category:Church buildings established in the 11th century to Category:11th-century church buildings is fine with me.

As for Category:Former Roman Catholic churches in Foo, you may notice that there is alreay Category:Former Roman Catholic churches in the United States but it seems to be mostly former churches, that were Roman Catholic at the time. This would not make it a denominational Category, but historical or mixed. A denominational Category would have to be along the lines of Category:11th-century Eastern Orthodox churches.

As for "obliterating more effective ones already in place" maybe there is some misunderstanding. Items have only been removed from "architecture by century" categories if they were put in a sub cat. Most items were not removed from architecture categories, but were only found in "architecture by decade", "religious organizations by century", or "religious organizations by decade" categories. --Carlaude ^talk 02:12, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

• Delete all, for the reasons explained by Johnbod. I also endorse what HeartofaDog says above; both comments reflect my views well. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:56, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Category:TMN network shows

Propose renaming Category:TMN network shows to Category:The Movie Network original programs

Nominator's rationale: Rename - expand the abbreviation and clarify the scope is original programs only. Otto4711 (talk) 14:09, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Category:Kids WB shows

Propose renaming Category:Kids WB shows to Category:Kids WB original programs

Nominator's rationale: Rename - as below, to clarify that this is for original programs only. Otto4711 (talk) 14:03, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Category:CW4Kids shows

Propose renaming Category:CW4Kids shows to Category:CW4Kids original programs

Nominator's rationale: Rename - to clarify that this is for original programming only since we don't categorize based on syndication. Otto4711 (talk) 14:00, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Category:Cartoon Network shows

Propose renaming Category:Cartoon Network shows to Category:Cartoon Network original programs

Nominator's rationale: Rename - to clarify that this is for first-run programs only since we don't categorize by syndication. Otto4711 (talk) 13:54, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

• Rename per nom and per clarity. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 18:26, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

H games to Eroge

Propose renaming Category:H games to Category:Eroge

Propose renaming Category:3D H games to Category:3D eroge

Propose renaming Category:English-translated H games to Category:English-translated eroge

Nominator's rationale: Based on the fact that H game redirects to Eroge, the main category and its sub categories should be moved to phase out the former "H game" usage. 十八 06:41, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Category:Atheist thinkers and activists

Propose renaming Category:Atheist thinkers and activists to Category:Advocates of atheism

Nominator's rationale: for specificity and clarity of criteria/criterion for inclusion. This page is intended, as explained on it, to list those who have (publically) advocated for atheism. The current name however can mean, of course, that any 'thinker' (ie. philosopher) who has been an activist (for any cause) and atheist qualifies (and besides, there already is Category:Atheist philosophers.) With this nomination, I suggest making this one clearly for those who have publically advocated for atheism, regardless of whether they are a (professional) philosopher or not. Mayumashu (talk) 06:17, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

• Agree very good argument of nominator. Debresser (talk) 07:13, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

• Rename Category:Atheism activists to match all others others in parent Category:Activists by issue. These are not generic activists that happen to be atheists, rather advocates of atheism.
  --William Allen Simpson (talk) 16:21, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
• Rename Category:Atheism activists per nom & WAS above - this is the standard term here for this. Johnbod (talk) 16:33, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Support the WAS suggested renaming Mayumashu (talk) 03:00, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Category:Language acquisition researchers to Category:Developmental psycholinguists

Suggest renaming Category:Language acquisition researchers to Category:Developmental psycholinguists

Nominator's rationale:=The category Language acquisition researchers includes researchers in two related, but not necessarily mutually exclusive, fields: that of child language acquisition (developmental psycholinguistics) and that of bilingualism and second language acquisition. I think it is a good idea to separate out researchers who do work in each field since they are relatively different fields, and relatively few researchers do work in both fields. To that end, I have created a new category named Bilingualism and second language acquisition researchers, to which I have added researchers who do work in that field, and I propose renaming this category to Developmental psycholinguists and removing the researchers who do work in bilingualism and second language acquisition exclusively (but not the few who do work in both fields, of course), since they are included in the Second language acquisition and bilingualism category. I will remove the bilingualism and second language acquisition researchers from this category if my cfr is supported. (LMBM2012 (talk) 05:40, 9 June 2009 (UTC))}}

Afro-Italian Americans

Suggest merging Category:Afro-Italian Americans to Category:African Americans and Category:Italian Americans

Nominator's rationale: overcategorization of ethnicity. We don t have cat pages for Ukrainian-Canadian Americans, or Mexican-American Canadians, etc. nor should we Mayumashu (talk) 05:28, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

• Delete, that's for sure, as per the nominator's rationale. How to process the articles in it, that I am not sure about. Debresser (talk) 07:08, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
• Upmerge to the 2 parents Category:African Americans and Category:Italian Americans per nom (as a matter of principle, and not because the single article mentions neither African nor Italian nor Sicilian except in its categories). Occuli (talk) 10:19, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

• Delete -- the related article has been moved all over the map! AFAICT (in just 2008 alone), Afro-Italians -> African Italian -> African Italians -> Africans in Italy -> Afro-Italians -> Africans in Italy -> Italians of African descent -> Black people in Italy -> Italians of African descent -> Afro-Italian -> Italians of African descent. The article itself is internally inconsistent as to who belongs, in the lede paragraph and in the body. Moreover, it would be virtually impossible to verify (without deduction) whether a person was correctly categorized. We cannot tell (without inference) whether these are immigrants to Italy (residence) or mixed ethnicity (partial derivation).

  Heritage categories should not be used to record people based on deduction, inference, residence, surname, nor any partial derivation from one or more ancestors.

  Against policy. Fails three or more criteria. Failing one would be enough!
  --William Allen Simpson (talk) 14:11, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

• See also relevant precedent at
  1. Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 November 12#Category:African-Italian-Americans
  2. Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 November 16#Category:Multiracial people
  3. Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 May 16#Category:Multiracial Americans
  4. Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 June 18#Category:Multiracial people
  5. Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 March 13#Category:People of mixed Black African-European ethnicity
• Single purpose IP 93.34.54.141 (talk · contribs) added three to this category today. Reverted.
  --William Allen Simpson (talk) 14:41, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

• Delete (merge unnecessary as the category is now empty) per nom, and prior identical CFD and arguments made there (in part by me). Postdlf (talk) 21:38, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. Mixed ethnicity categories are overcategorization and consensus in the past has always deleted them. — Σxplicit 21:54, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Category:Sugar Hill Records (folk) albums to Category:Sugar Hill Records (bluegrass) albums

This was listed for speedy rename, but doesn't fit those criteria. But at the same time, the record label's article is at Sugar Hill Records (bluegrass), so I think it's probably snowing. Rename. Bearcat (talk) 03:37, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

• Snowball rename per nom and per WP:WELLDUH. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 04:12, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
• Rename (speedily if desired). I'm the only one who questioned whether it was speediable, but now that I understand that we're just matching to the main article, I have no objection to a rename, even if done speedily. It's been tagged for some time now, so an immediate rename would not be without notice. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:03, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
• Rename (speedily if desired) – Occuli (talk) 10:54, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Category:LGBT fashion designers

Category:LGBT fashion designers - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: Delete. This is one of two "typed" subcategories of Category:Fashion designers — the only other is currently Category:Jewish fashion designers.

The occupation naming convention is by nationality. Combining with sexuality (for example, Category:LGBT fashion designers from the United States) would require (1) self-identification, and (2)

The subject's beliefs or sexual orientation are relevant to the subject's notable activities or public life, according to reliable published sources.

Hard to imagine that there were fashion designers that could only work because they were GLBT, or there is a particularly queer-identified fashion design. Otherwise, it's not notable.

--William Allen Simpson (talk) 03:36, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

• If being an LGBT person in fashion design — a field of endeavour so thoroughly dominated by LGBT people that being non-LGBT would be the unusual position, and which has reams upon scads upon entire libraries of literature documenting the impact and influence of LGBT people on the development of the profession — fails to meet the criterion that the subject's beliefs or sexual orientation are relevant to the subject's notable activities or public life, according to reliable published sources, then what on earth else could the sentence the subject's beliefs or sexual orientation are relevant to the subject's notable activities or public life, according to reliable published sources possibly even mean? Keep per WP:CATGRS. Bearcat (talk) 03:48, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

• Although I've often found Bearcat's arguments persuasive in the past, where is the main article for this category? Where are the references in each article pointing to these "reams upon scads upon entire libraries"? I've looked several of the current articles, and found nothing. Therefore, this looks like a POV classification based on folks that are not part of the community.
  --William Allen Simpson (talk) 13:34, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

• WP:CATGRS explicitly states that the main article doesn't have to already exist to justify a category; it merely has to be writable. Somebody probably should take it on, certainly — though as I have no personal interest in the topic, that's not going to be me. Bearcat (talk) 17:31, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

• Delete per argument of the nominator, which is the total irrelevance of this intersection. Such was also my opinion in the abovemention nomination Category:Jewish fashion designers. Debresser (talk) 07:06, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
• Keep – I share Bearcat's surprise that this intersection should be thought 'trivial'. Occuli (talk) 10:23, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
• Keep - the intersection of "LGBT" and "fashion design" is clearly a topic of encyclopedic interest per any number of reliable sources devoted to the topic. Otto4711 (talk) 11:30, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
• Keep After tearing through a lot of these categories of late, it does seem as if we've finally hit one where a person's background or beliefs does have a clear relevance to profession. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:52, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Category:American Film Institute alumni

Propose renaming Category:American Film Institute alumni to Category:AFI Conservatory alumni

Nominator's rationale: Although film biography articles commonly refer to filmmakers and the like as graduates of the American Film Institute, I see that upon closer inspection they are in fact alumni of the school portion of it only: the AFI Conservatory. I'd like to rename the category for more precision. I also see that the school's Web page does not use American Film Institute Conservatory, but the abbreviated version. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:05, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support to more accurately describe the contents of the category. Alansohn (talk) 05:10, 9 June 2009 (UTC)