Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 March 16

< March 15	March 17 >

March 16

Category:Albums by genre and nationality

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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:19, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Seems an unnecessary intersection of Category:Albums by genre and Category:Albums by artist nationality. A similar discussion was held regarding Category:Musical groups by genre and nationality last July. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 23:18, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – I must say the previous (quite different) discussion is a rather odd delete after an evenly balanced discussion (WAS can't count to 3 as the intersections were double). There all the subcats were also deleted - here the parent category only is being nominated, leaving the structure beneath it untouched. If there is to be say Category:British heavy metal albums (and why not?), then it is part of Category:Albums by genre and nationality. Occuli (talk) 01:46, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a necessary intersection that serves as an aid to navigation. Alansohn (talk) 03:31, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, COI I created this category yesterday/today because otherwise, they are in Category:Albums by genre, which is partially true, but these categories are not just albums by genre by albums of a certain nationality by genre. You may wish to rename to the slightly more cumbersome Category:Albums by artist nationality and genre for consistency, I suppose. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:28, 17 March 2010 (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.

Disney short films

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Rename all. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:20, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming

Nominator's rationale:. Rename all to expand "shorts" to "short films", as was recently done with MGM short films (see CFD March 8). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:37, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom for clarity and consistency with previous CFD. (I always wonder, why would anyone want to draw animated bloomers? They don't really do much.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:58, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If this CfD is successful, as I expect it will be, I'll use it as the basis to ~~speedy rename~~ nominate a recent creation of mine, Category:National Film Board of Canada animated shorts.
- Actually, the repetition of "film" in the case of the NFB cat may be off-putting to some (it is to me). So I've struck through part of my above comment accordingly. I don't think WP:CFDS is the best course for the NFB sibling cat. If the nominator wishes to add it here, please do, but I suspect that it may require a separate discussion? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:07, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I thought you struck it out because it's a stretch to call NFB productions "films" because of their poor quality. Ha! Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:15, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Ha indeed. Somebody better tell the AMPAS, because they keep giving the NFB Oscars for those crappy Canadian films. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:00, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - I'm quite convinced that AMPAS didn't sit through any of my elementary school classes, where we had the privilege of previewing most of the NFB's short film bad-boys from the 1970s. The horror, the horror... To a 7-year-old, of course. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:40, 24 March 2010 (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:Disney animated shorts starring Goofy

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Rename to Category:Goofy (Disney) short films. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:29, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Disney animated shorts starring Goofy to Category:Goofy shorts

Nominator's rationale: Rename. For consistency with Category:Mickey Mouse shorts and Category:Donald Duck shorts. FuriousFreddy (talk) 21:28, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to something which expands the word "shorts" to "short films", as we recently did with the equivalent MGM categories. "Goofy shorts" sounds like a silly form of garment ... and "Mickey Mouse shorts" is what The General turned out to be wearing when he dropped his trousers. I'll nominate the other categs now. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)
Comment and note: the current name resulted from a 2009 NOV 8 CFD, where Category:Goofy shorts was renamed Category:Disney animated shorts starring Goofy. Given the recent nature of that discussion, I'd be inclined to leave the category as-is, unless someone has a new suggestions that is obviously superior to the current name. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:26, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to either Category:Short films starring Goofy or Category:Goofy short films. Anything more is not needed. ^{Carlaude:Talk} 10:16, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I think that the "starring Goofy" formulation is probably slightly better, because "goofy films" might appear to be a category for films characterised by goofs. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:44, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Agreed, "Goofy" is open to misinterpretation as an adjective when placed at the start of the category name, as the capitalization might not be due to it being a proper noun. Question: inasmuch as Goofy is not a real person and one might wish to add films where the Goofster is a secondary character, would Category:Short films featuring Goofy be more appropriate? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:50, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is this to be only for shorts where Goofy has a lead role, or also for shorts with only a small part for Goofy, etc? Which of these two do you think matches "featuring Goofy" to you? Does it match the "meaning" of "Donald Duck shorts", etc. ^{Carlaude:Talk} 06:30, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You know, I'm not really up on the various kinds of roles that Goofy played -- lead, supporting, bit, etc. -- I guess I was reacting to the use of starring as too narrow, excluding shorts where Goofy played a significant but non-lead role, and odd for an animated character that does not exist in real life. For the record, I do like choster's proposal below, as well. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:05, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Goofy (Disney) short films. This format matches Pluto (Disney), Pluto being far more ambiguous than Goofy when standing alone, the inverse when used as a modifer.````- choster (talk)
Rename to choster's suggestion. I think that's superior to the current "starring" name format. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:13, 22 March 2010 (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:Paragon superheroes

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 10:31, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Category with no basis in reliable sources or discussion within comics culture or analysis and generated by the original research of a single editor. Cameron Scott (talk) 21:07, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Maybe if the category even explained what it is supposed to contain, that would help... 204.153.84.10 (talk) 22:40, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete if you Google it all you get is the City of Heroes game and it is clearly not that. It seems to be a concocted term to refer to superheroes who are paragons but that is so vague and open to interpretation to be meaningless. Of course, if there is a better explanation then I'm open to hanging my suggestion... (Emperor (talk) 23:59, 16 March 2010 (UTC))[reply]
Delete vague, useless category. Doczilla _STOMP! 01:17, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The category is for superheroes that conform to the Superman archetype. I got the term from Superhero#Types_of_superheroes. I originally wanted to call the category "Superman analogues" (with some entries removed). If someone would like to suggest a better name, I'd like to hear it. I think the category is valid, but it is hard to name well.--Marcus Brute (talk) 06:59, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That article needs a flamethrower turning on it - the section where you got Paragon from is marked as original research and has no sources. --Cameron Scott (talk) 10:07, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also if you read that section it is clear this is for role-playing games where, I'd assume, they'd have classes of superheroes from which to generate characters. This has very little bearing on the more complex situation in comics (being a serial medium going back decades characters change, are retconned or become more complex) which makes it difficult to hammer such characters into those holes without it being WP:OR. (Emperor (talk) 15:23, 17 March 2010 (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:I Love You But I've Chosen Darkness 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. postdlf (talk) 03:13, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:I Love You But I've Chosen Darkness albums to Category:I Love You but I've Chosen Darkness albums

Nominator's rationale: Caps, per main article I Love You but I've Chosen Darkness —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:58, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy rename per common sense. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 22:11, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rename to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 03:32, 17 March 2010 (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:Buildings and structures in Overton, Nevada

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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:44, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Very small category with little opportunity to grow; Overton, Nevada is an unincorporated town in southern Las Vegas. TM 20:22, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a part of the well defined settlement categories in Category:Buildings and structures in Clark County, Nevada series. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:39, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)Oppose deletion. The category is small, and on those grounds there is a case for upmerging it to both Category:Buildings and structures in Clark County, Nevada and to Category:Overton, Nevada, but not for deletion (because deletion would remove the articles both from parent categories).
However, Category:Buildings and structures in Clark County, Nevada has 10 geogrpahical sub-cats, so there may be a case for retaining it as part of a series per WP:OC#SMALL. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:45, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem with a merge--TM 20:52, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We keep categories with one member when they are part of a series. This category currently has 5 articles which is commonly sufficient to merit a category without being part of a series. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:57, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as part of a rather robust series of such categories. Alansohn (talk) 03:33, 17 March 2010 (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:Footballers' Wives and Girlfriends

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. postdlf (talk) 03:14, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: As trivial, see also Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2010_March_8#Category:Footballers.27_Wives_and_Girlfriends —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:22, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for the same reason I gave in the last CFD, i.e. some of the people in the category aren't what I would describe as "WAGs" (Jamelia, for example) and it is in effect "Women who have had long-term intimate relationships with footballers", which is a silly thing to categorise people by. anemoneprojectors talk 19:25, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per loose ~~women~~ inclusion criteria. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 19:27, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Most of the women in this category are defined by their relationships with footballers, and for some of them it is their only substantive claim to notability. Particularly in the UK, where Premier League footballers are massively paid (avg £676,000 salaries in 2003-04), the partners of these very wealthy young men are the staple diet of the tabloid press, which has made them so well-known that headlines can refer to some of them by first name. Editors may question whether this sort of notability is really encyclopedic, but so long as the articles exist this category captures one of the defining characteristics of some of the most prominent celebrities. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:14, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I've removed two that I mentioned in the previous CfD as lacking any reference to football or footballers in their articles. But there are others - for example Despina Vandi - who seem to get thrown into the category simply because their partner was once a footballer. Therein lies the problem: the linked article is about WAGs not about people notable in their own right who happen to partner (ex-)footballers. So to me it is fine for the article "WAGs" to mention, discuss, whatever particular examples, as long as there is verifiable reference of them being described as WAGs. And where articles on individuals are created, it will be open to them to end up at AfD if they lack personal notability. But this doesn't work as a useful category. AllyD (talk) 23:05, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Despite the unusual title, this is what the defining characteristic is for these individuals. Alansohn (talk) 03:33, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- No notability by virtue of relationship. Silly cat. Maurreen (talk) 11:31, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per BHg etc. There are undoubtedly a number of individuals who are really only known for this, & for whom it is the prime category, and really the only category other than date/location ones. Some exs with other claims to fame should probably be trimmed. Some editors are probably unaware how big the WAG media phenomenon is, in the UK at least. The nominator's rationale of "trivial" is certainly wrong; AP & the otters have a better point. Nothing has changed since the last time, when the deleters were in the minority. I have added "Only those for whom the term is defining should be added here." to the page - of course the trouble is that we do not define "defining". Johnbod (talk) 12:25, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with restricting the category in this way. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:34, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - here is an example from the Guardian about WAGs in the 2006 World Cup, who got enormous publicity every day of the tournament and sporadic coverage in celebrity/dance/chat wotnots ever since. And the 2010 version looms. (This might be a specifically English phenomenon - ie WAGS connected with the England football team and/or league football in England.) Occuli (talk) 16:06, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did think of that very specific location when I saw this CfD last night (on return from a Scottish 2nd division game where there was not a WAG in sight). It's about media gossip and basically around the England team. And the gossip is often weak - see Aisleyne Horgan-Wallace with gossip then denial in successive references, but into the category she goes. Anyway, this and the previous CfD should really go together - if there's a consensus that WAG-ness is legitimate for category, then it really needs to be under a name that is snug with that geographical media phenomenon. AllyD (talk) 21:22, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh keep. I'm holding my nose in voting "keep" for this one, essentially because "I don't like it"—meaning I lament the fact that people would be notable for this reason—but it looks to me like this is the only reason many of those included in this category are at all notable. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:10, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- The WAG phenomenon is beloved of UK tabloid journalists, so that the category is entirely appropriate. Many of the individuals do not in my view deserve the attention that they get, but that is my POV. With the collosal salaries, paid to Premiership footballers, there women folk get up to a lot of strange antics, typical of those from a relatively poor background who suddenly find themsleves rich. Ugh - but still keep. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:47, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep -- A very important group, even if you cannot stand the people themselves :-) Tris2000 (talk) 12:22, 24 March 2010 (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:Chart shows

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. postdlf (talk) 03:15, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Chart shows to Category:Music chart shows

Nominator's rationale: ~~No idea what name would be best, but it needs to clarify that it deals with record charts/countdowns. "Radio countdown shows?" "Singles charts shows?"~~ To clarify what kind of chart. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 17:42, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Howabout "Music chart shows"? Using "Radio countdown shows?" would narrow the scope of the category, and exclude TV shows such as Top of the Pops. "Singles charts shows" would also narrow the scope by excluding any album chart shows. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:18, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That works. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 19:08, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom, which does indeed work. Occuli (talk) 16:08, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Good name. Cjc13 (talk) 13:02, 18 March 2010 (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:Star Trek: Armada video games

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: DELETE. postdlf (talk) 03:17, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Overcategorized with a fixed set of 2 items. These are already listed in Category:Star Trek strategy games which is completely sufficient. Ham Pastrami (talk) 17:14, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Two article category with little (no? The last was published nine years ago.) hope of expansion. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 23:28, 23 March 2010 (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:Mental structures

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: no consensus. It appears to me that additional and broader discussion on this issue could be beneficial, so I contacted WikiProjects Philosophy (diff) and Psychology (diff) to request their involvement and comments. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 20:08, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Mental structures to Category:Abstraction

Nominator's rationale: A mental structure is an abstraction (cf. Category:Abstraction) which in a way is more natural than just any abstraction, in such a way that humans "naturally" chose mental structures to represent reality. But whether any abstraction is more "natural" than any other one, is either unprovable (my guess, IMHO, etc.), or just unproven since there is no research classifying abstraction as more or less natural.

I therefore propose that all items classified into Category:Mental structures are instead classified as Category:Abstraction sorted into subcategories, until the naturalness is citably decided by outside research. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 12:03, 16 March 2010 (UTC) Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 12:03, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This idea has merit, IMHO. Debresser (talk) 12:30, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds reasonable at first glance, however I'd prefer to check the member articles one by one against a reliable definition of "Mental structure". Too bad we don't have an article on this. These two articles might be helpful as a starting base: [1], [2]. — PanchoS (talk) 13:28, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, the first link was easy read, but the second one I couldn't get a grip on: I only found "abstractions" here and there, so I propose this one, page 5, section 1.2, instead. It seems the concept "mental structure" is some theoretical construct in the areas of linguistics, semantics and psychology. Now, let's say that "mental structure" is a viable concept, not just a recurring pattern of speech, such as "blue car",

does the current population of Category:Mental structures belong to there, or should it have another population?
is a mental structure an abstraction?

Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 15:18, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: considering the links [3], Surprise, uncertainty, and mental structures, Jerome Kagan a review of it, and a review of another book, I am inclined to the conclusion that mental structure is a term within psychology and neurophysiology, and that the category is currently ill-populated. Therefore Category:Mental structures should remain, and the contents of Category:Mental structures and Category:Abstraction should exchange members as needed. I don't know if this is a retraction, but others can have another say if it is not. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 15:54, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support (and comment) -- Whether or not a particular object is an abstract object or a mental representation is a matter of POV. However everyone agrees that we are talking about Category:Concepts. We could merge "mental structures" into "concepts" as we did with Category:Abstract objects. The whole concepts subcategory organization seems to be working out in the Philosophy department. The next category to be created is "concepts in logic" which will help to categorize some of these "mental structures".Greg Bard 21:20, 18 March 2010 (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.

Orientalists

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: rename all. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:47, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:British Orientalists to Category:British orientalists

Propose renaming Category:Chinese Orientalists to Category:Chinese orientalists

Propose renaming Category:English Orientalists to Category:English orientalists

Propose renaming Category:German Orientalists to Category:German orientalists

Propose renaming Category:Jewish Orientalists to Category:Jewish orientalists

Propose renaming Category:Mongolian Orientalists to Category:Mongolian orientalists

Propose renaming Category:Pakistani Orientalists to Category:Pakistani orientalists

Propose renaming Category:Romanian Orientalists to Category:Romanian orientalists

Propose renaming Category:Russian Orientalists to Category:Russian orientalists

Propose renaming Category:Scottish Orientalists to Category:Scottish orientalists

Propose renaming Category:Spanish Orientalists to Category:Spanish orientalists

Nominator's rationale: Consistency of capitalization with the majority of Category:Orientalists by nationality. —Paul A (talk) 08:50, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Oppose~~ Orientalist (like Egyptologist and etc) is a title of sorts, and while I don't like Google as a measuring tool, this search suggests the capital letter is correct. If the others are incorrect, they need to be harmonised with these ones. Orderinchaos 09:01, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, it isn't any sort of title, any more than "biologist"; orientalists are NOT people who do Orientalism but Oriental studies, now mostly called Asian studies. "Egyptologist" gets a cap because Egypt is a proper name. There is an argument, supported by much usage, that "Orientalist" is also capitalized, but this is because it derives from "the Orient", also a proper name. But as, this search shows more clearly, usage is mixed, & I think trending towards lower case. Johnbod (talk) 11:22, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying, have struck my oppose. Orderinchaos 16:06, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rename all to Category:British Asian studies academics, Category:Chinese Asian studies academics, etc.

Quoting from: Asian studies -- "Asian studies, a term that has largely replaced the older Oriental studies..."

Quoting from: Oriental studies#Oriental to Asian -- "In most North American" (and some British) "universities, Oriental Studies has now been replaced by Asian Studies..." ^{Carlaude:Talk} 10:51, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Probably a good idea for those from Asia, but some of the Europeans are medieval or Renaissance figures, and both "Asian studies" and "academics" (in many cases) will be anachronistic for these - many never had academic posts. Scholars might be better. Johnbod (talk) 11:22, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Two adjectives in a row is not a good idea. Another point (similar to what Johnbod said): "Asian studies", broadly taken, are not limited to academics. There's room for amateur research, travel books, pure fiction, etc. NVO (talk) 18:35, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rename all per nom, perhaps moving the Asian ones to "Asian studies scholars". Or there is case for a move the other way. Note that we have a tree going to Category:Scholars by region of area studies, where most of the contemporary academics are; these categories house more of the older people. Johnbod (talk) 11:22, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nominator as the best solution so far. Personally, I have disliked the term "orientalism" ever since reading Edward Said's magnificent deconstruction of the discipline, but that's just my POV; and in general wikipedia's usage should reflect the actual balance of usage in academia. If we continue to use "orientalists", I agree with the nominator that the word should not be capitalised. My main concern here is that we maintain consistency and don't use different terminology for scholars in different parts of the world. Whatever formulation is used should be applied consistently to scholars and academics of whatever nationality. However, I do oppose a rename to "Asian studies academics" because it causes ambiguity problems: "British Asian studies academics" could refer either to British academics in the field of Asian studies, or to academics from any country studying British Asians. "British Asian" is by far the most common term used to describe British people of South Asian origin, both in popular usage and in academic & government circles. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:46, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's just a pity that Said used what has never been other than a very rare term for the academic discipline in English (see the OED and Talk:Orientalism) in a largely successful attempt to conflate archaeologists, philologists & the like with 19th century painters of sexy girls in the slave market. Johnbod (talk) 17:12, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, whereas "Asian studies" in some other parts of the world almost exclusively refers to East and South-East Asia. Orderinchaos 16:47, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If we keep both category trees, there need to be lables to indicate the difference (Asian studies people vs. orientalists) -- such as "orientalists are academics (or other people) studing Asia before the 20th century"-- or whatever the difference really is. ^{Carlaude:Talk} 10:32, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom and note that I removed Category:Orientalists by nationality from Category:Jewish orientalists. Jewish is no nationality but an ethnicity and a religion, so this doesn't belong here. This category's members are of Hungarian, Lithuanian, German, American, Israeli, British and Austrian nationality. PanchoS (talk) 01:06, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom for correct capitalisation. It is a recognised term, covering western scholars (usually of past eras) concerning Chinese, Indian, etc language, history, culture etc. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:52, 20 March 2010 (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:Educational organizations in Austria

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: no action.

Wikipedia:Manual of Style#National varieties of English (ENGVAR) has appropriately been identified as the relevant codified consensus pertinent to this discussion, and it offers four guidelines:

The "conventions of spelling, grammar, and punctuation" employed should be consistent within an article;
An article about a topic with "strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation" should use the English of that nation;
The variety of English used in an article should be the variety chosen by the first or primary contributor(s) unless there is a reason to change based on strong national ties; and
When possible, "words that are common to all varieties of English" should be used.

After carefully reading this discussion, in which ENGVAR is cited to both criticize and justify the change from "z" to "s", I have the impression that the conflict arises from differing interpretations of how (and whether) to extend the principles of ENGVAR from articles to category trees. Category trees consist of multiple category pages, which may be created by different editors who use different varieties of English, so retaining the existing variety used within a single category may preserve internal inconsistency within the category tree. The fact that a single category may be part of multiple trees (e.g., Category:Educational organizations in Austria is part of 'Educational organizations by country' and 'Organisations based in Austria') complicates matters further.

Ultimately, the general rule for categories is and has been, as Maurreen noted: "The spelling should be whatever was used orginally, unless there is compelling reason" to select one variety of English over another. The question becomes, then: What constitutes a "compelling reason"? Per ENGVAR, the existence of strong national or historical ties (which probably applies to Hong Kong and India, as Good Ol'factory and Orderinchaos mentioned) is one compelling reason. The speedy renaming criteria suggest another reason, as Orderinchaos pointed out: "if the convention of the relevant category tree is to use one [variety of English] over ... other[s,] then a rename may be appropriate under C2.C below."

On the whole, I think that this discussion reinforces the notion that category deletion, merging, and renaming generally should be handled through the CfD (or CfD/S) process, even if the change seems to be fairly uncontroversial—if only to avoid misunderstanding and check for possible objections. This is not to say, of course, that other category changes (e.g., category creation, subcategorization) necessarily should be proposed or discussed before they are carried out.

On the issue of what to do with the categories, I think that "no action" is a more appropriate outcome than "no consensus". There was no consensus on whether "z" or "s" is more appropriate for these categories (in fact, much of the discussion was understandably devoted to issues of process), but there were was consensus for the ENGVAR principle that the existing variety should be preserved in the absence of a compelling reason to change (simply, what was the "existing variety" and what constitutes a "compelling reason" was interpreted differently by different editors). Following this consensus, noting that the "z" categories are currently empty, and given the undesirability of ping-pong moves, I considered the following question: Was a compelling reason, based on strong national ties or internal consistency, offered during the discussion to carry out a reverse merge (i.e., to change from "s" to "z")? In my evaluation, none was given; if one exists for one or more of these categories, then a separate renomination would be wholly appropriate.

I realize that evaluating the discussion in this manner may appear to create a loophole, where editors could create pages that are deliberately inconsistent with the "convention of the relevant category tree" or manually rename categories out-of-process and then present the new situation as a fait accompli. However, I believe it is a mistake to try to use content decisions as a means of effecting a behavioral change. Editors who routinely and deliberately engage in such behavior (I'm considering a hypothetical situation, and not suggesting that any of the editors involved in this case are doing this) should be contacted and, should it become necessary, involved in appropriate dispute resolution processes.

-- Black Falcon ^(talk) 22:20, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Consider renaming Category:Educational organizations in Austria to Category:Educational organisations in Austria

Consider renaming Category:Student organizations in Austria to Category:Student organisations in Austria

Consider renaming Category:Youth organizations based in Austria to Category:Youth organisations based in Austria

Consider renaming Category:Educational organizations in Belgium to Category:Educational organisations in Belgium

Consider renaming Category:Student organizations in Belgium to Category:Student organisations in Belgium

Consider renaming Category:Youth organizations based in Belgium to Category:Youth organisations based in Belgium

Consider renaming Category:Educational organizations in Finland to Category:Educational organisations in Finland

Consider renaming Category:Youth organizations based in Finland to Category:Youth organisations based in Finland

Consider renaming Category:Student organizations in Finland to Category:Student organisations in Finland

Consider renaming Category:Student organizations in Hong Kong to Category:Student organisations in Hong Kong

Consider renaming Category:Student organizations in India to Category:Student organisations in India

Consider renaming Category:Educational organizations in Iran to Category:Educational organisations in Iran

Consider renaming Category:Educational organizations in Latvia to Category:Educational organisations in Latvia

Consider renaming Category:Student organizations in Latvia to Category:Student organisations in Latvia

Consider renaming Category:Educational organizations in Nepal to Category:Educational organisations in Nepal

Consider renaming Category:Student organizations in Nepal to Category:Student organisations in Nepal

Consider renaming Category:Youth organizations based in Nepal to Category:Youth organisations based in Nepal

Consider renaming Category:Educational organizations in the Netherlands to Category:Educational organisations in the Netherlands

Consider renaming Category:Educational organizations in Norway to Category:Educational organisations in Norway

Consider renaming Category:Educational organizations in Spain to Category:Educational organisations in Spain

Consider renaming Category:Student organizations in Spain to Category:Student organisations in Spain

Consider renaming Category:Youth organizations based in Spain to Category:Youth organisations based in Spain

Consider renaming Category:Educational organizations in Sri Lanka to Category:Educational organisations in Sri Lanka

Consider renaming Category:Educational organizations in Switzerland to Category:Educational organisations in Switzerland

— PanchoS (talk) 08:09, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: These categories have been emptied and redirected out of process by Orderinchaos and Orderinchaos 2. I nominated these on behalf of him/her, as s/he didn't sign willingness to correctly file a CfD. I'm quite indifferent to these renames, however I hereby want to bring to light Orderinchaos' agenda pushing towards the ~~Oxford~~ Cambridge-style 's' spelling. S/he also announced more of these category renames, so it makes a lot of sense to strive for a solution we can agree on now.
Regarding the individual categories: Since Google points to the 'z' spelling being more widespread in Austria, Hong Kong, India, Iran, Latvia, Nepal, Spain, Sri Lanka and Switzerland, these cases are questionable. In Belgium the 's'-spelling seems to be in fact more widespread. In Finland, the Netherlands and Norway they seem to be equally used, so this should be further scrutinized before settling with the one or the other.
— PanchoS (talk) 09:46, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support (obviously) - brings them into line with Category:Organizations by country hierarchy in each instance (they were all initially created out of process on 5-6 February by PanchoS with a spelling inconsistent with the existing category tree). Others for which the Organizations parent category had a "z" were left untouched. The changes can further be rationalised by recourse to WP:ENGVAR, which essentially holds that Wikipedia is an English and not specifically a US English encyclopaedia; and to WP:CSB which aims to ensure that the encyclopaedia doesn't exhibit an overly X-centric bias. Not sure why this process was needed, however, as the simple act of harmonising parent and child categories (which is the case in every one of these instances) is C2C stuff; the creator should have looked to what was already there to determine the naming for subcategories. Orderinchaos 08:32, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It should be noted (in view of PanchoS's "agenda" claims) that he created "z" spellings for child categories of parents which had existed with "s" spellings for 5 years, and in some cases deliberately changed existing spellings (something I highlighted to him as a problem before). This is an English encyclopaedia - until and unless there is a split between varieties of English (something I doubt will ever happen) this encyclopaedia reasonably speaking has to cater to all of them. If I was editing US or Canadian or Philippine articles (as I sometimes do) I rigorously enforce their spelling and date standards and undo instances of incongruent ISE there, just the same as I do the reverse here in Australia. There's no agenda in that, just common sense and a desire not to create "jarring" experiences for our readers. Orderinchaos 16:23, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural comment. I haven't reached a view yet on the substantive merits of the alternative spellings, but I do want to comment on some procedural points.

Firstly, referring to categories being "created out of process" is a bit odd, because there is no process for creating categories. Maybe there should be a process, but for now all we have is warnings to be careful, so "created out of process" actually means "created in the usual way".

Secondly, where there is a disagreement about category names, it's not a good idea to just manually rename them, unless that was the agreed outcome of a discussion. At the least, use {{cfr-speedy}} and list them at WP:CFD/S so that other editors have the chances to object if they want to. We may now end having categories created, renamed, and then promptly renamed again, which is a very poor situation: ping-pong page moves are bad enough, but each ping-pong category move involves edits to multiple pages. This could easily have been avoided.

Finally, a discussion at User talk:Orderinchaos shows some concern about the general pattern of category-creation by PanchoS. Whatever the merits of those concerns, both editors should have been discussing the situation rather than allowing ping-pong moves to occur. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:39, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why not harmonize the category tree by bringing the by-country categories into line with the overarching "Organizations" category? Christopher Parham (talk) 19:54, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Forgot - after reading Occuli's comment - support retention of redirects. They should actually be used more consistently IMO for these sorts of things. Orderinchaos 16:36, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support but the redirects are useful and should be left in place. (Oxford-style is 'z', not 's'.) These would all be speedies, as Orderinchaos points out. Occuli (talk) 11:04, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of course you're right: '-ize' is Oxford style, "often incorrectly regarded as an Americanism" (source), while '-ise' is Cambridge style, prevailing worldwide in scientific writing (source) and obviously more widespread in most of these countries. I took these to a regular CfD, as they are controversial. Also, regardless if they are speedies or not, they need to be listed which Orderinchaos failed to do. Regards, PanchoS (talk) 11:40, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notified Talk:American and British English spelling differences, Talk:Oxford spelling, Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style, Talk:Macquarie Dictionary, Talk:Merriam-Webster and Talk:A Dictionary of Modern English Usage to draw in some more expertise. PanchoS (talk) 12:17, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since most of these are not English-speaking countries, the rules about the first major contributor should hold, and we should not change the spelling solely for style's sake. However, if there is no actually content in the categories yet (no major contributors), then Google-checking the most prevalent spelling used in each country seems like an acceptable move. I would like to emphasize that there is no need for all of these category titles to be spelled the same way. Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:52, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It should be noted the only changes were to those where our existing structures which have been in place for ages conflicted with the ones created last month. e.g. Organisations based in Nepal was created in 2006, from a "Nepalese organisations" category created in 2005. The Spanish one had an almost identical history. Where they did not conflict with the "Organizations by country" category entry, no change was made. Orderinchaos 16:12, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - From the examples it appears that both "Educational organizations" and "Educational organisations" are misnomers for these categories, which are full of Student societies and/or Student unions. These have only a peripheral involvement in education, being principally involved in issues about conditions of campus life, tuition, etc. In this context, I submit that the use of either term is wp:weasel wording. Consider for a moment that also "associations", "institutions", "academies", "schools", "colleges", "universities", "faculties", "networks", even "journals" could just as readily fall under "organiz/sations". In fact, there is an under-employed list of 29 subcategories at Category:Educational organizations. User:LeadSongDog come howl 18:34, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed strongly with the above. Orderinchaos 18:47, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. What is it about these categories that is prompting so much concern? The spelling issue itself should be relatively simple to resolve, and these inclusion concerns are unrelated to the naming issue. A narrow reading of "educational organisations" may create some of the concerns voiced by LeadSongDog, but it's equally viable to read "educational organisations" as meaning "organisations related to education", which solves all these issues. Category:Students' unions has been a subcat of Category:Educational organizations since early 2007, and has not been controversial before. What's the problem with simply continuing to use Category:Educational organizations and its subcats as a container category which groups all the more specific categories of the different types of organisations involved in education? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:39, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it was uncontroversial as until now it was high level so nobody really noticed it before? To me - a cultural organisation is *not* an educational organisation - it is funded differently, set up for a different purpose, although may have *some* tangential role in education. (Archives are most definitely not educational, tangentially or otherwise.) A student union is *not* an educational organisation for all the reasons Leadsongdog highlights, and indeed, classification of it as such has led to some major, major POV issues (Islamic terror organisations as "student organisations" and "educational organisations" being only one such example). "It has always been" seems a poor defence in this situation - if the root categorisation is problematic and it's only come up now because nobody realised it was categorised that way, then maybe yes, we need to fix it. Orderinchaos 20:02, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The only problem I can see with the root category is that some people have decided to start trying to apply a very narrow definition of education, and a very narrow definition of "educational organisation". I'll leave aside the bizarre attempt to drag Islamic terror organisations into this discussion, and look at 3 other points:

If Students Unions are not educational organisations, what are they? Their role covers a whole range of education issues: access to education, funding for education, conditions in education and the welfare of people who are being educated. Education is not somehow tangential to what they do; it's their raison d'être.
Cultural organisations are sometimes educational, sometimes not; but funding structures vary wildly, and the question of whether or an organisation is funded by the govt's Dept of Education or by some wildly different route is a very poor way of assessing its educational significance. One example of such an organisation is Comhaltas Ceoltóirí Éireann: it's a cultural organisation with a huge program of musical education which is probably more significant in Irish society than the music education in schools.
In another discussion you denounced the inclusion of museums as educational orgs ... but the International Council of Museums defines a museum as "permanent institution in the service of society [snip for the purposes of education, study, and enjoyment"], and the Museums Association's definition says "Museums enable people to explore collections for inspiration, learning and enjoyment". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:37, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re 1 - certainly not here! Primarily they run the sporting and social clubs and sell food, and occasionally march on the streets supporting far-left issues. The universities themselves run the sorts of educational and welfare services you're talking about as being those run by student unions (it's usually called the Equity Office, at one Perth uni it's Ethics, Equity and Social Justice.) And funding? The *government* do that, they provide scholarships to needy students and the Youth Allowance/AUSTUDY benefit. When VSU was introduced here, the biggest concern people were expressing was about "quality of life on campus" and in particular sporting clubs. (This is probably a good case for a case-by-case basis approach rather than assuming what works in the US and the UK is valid worldwide.) The Islamic terror ones I mentioned as I actually had to remove a number from those categories the other day, so evidently I'm not the only person not understanding the scope of this very strange category. And re museums - that's news to me - it would be like calling a zoo an educational organisation (and they do run educational programs for schoolkids, and as an education student I even went there for a group session with their education officer, so it's not a trivial or silly comparison). Orderinchaos 21:43, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose — "So say we all!" (seriously, WP:ENGVAR anyone? It may be a dumb ass policy, but it's still currently policy, so there's really no other position then to Oppose this).
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 01:07, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose WP:ENGVAR is a long-established policy. Either is acceptable, in places where English is not the primary language. We shouldn't be looking at which spelling is used in English in Norway, or in Japan, or whatever. We shouldn't be saying that the spelling in a subcategory depends in any way on the spelling in one of its parent categories. Perhaps a bigger problem here is that they are simply poorly named categories in the first place. Gene Nygaard (talk) 07:22, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In my view (and this is merely my personal view), the ENGVAR questions re categories would be best avoided by using names which do not cause ENGVAR issues - in many cases there are better words to use which would be spelt the same anywhere. The "student organisations" hierarchy, for example, is entirely artificial as it's made up entirely of entities which go by other names (unions, societies, what have you.) Orderinchaos 11:44, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By the same logic, most categories could be called "artificial", but that get us nowhere. The "student organisations" category groups the different types of organisations of student. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:52, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I recall us having a conversation on an entirely unrelated category structure where you basically complained that it was two structures, one sitting on top of the other in a totally redundant fashion. If you look at the student organisations one, you'll find it is exactly one such - I think all of them purely consist of one or at most two subcategories which already have (had?) their own system prior to this innovation a month ago. Orderinchaos 11:54, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OIC, please do a little research. Take a look at Category:Student organizations: it contains half-a-dozen different types of student organisations. What exactly is the problem with grouping those together?
You are right that many of the subcategories are under-populated, but that's simply because the category tree has not been filled out yet. Anyway, if you object to the lot, then feel free to go ahead and nominate the whole of {cl|Student organizations}} and its subcats for upmerger, but coherent decision-making is not helped by using this renaming discussion as a coatrack for all sorts of tangential issues. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:05, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't that be "downmerger", as I feel it forms a redundant (and often inaccurate) category and its child categories are actually the correct parent ones for the most part? To raise just one example - a friend of mine formerly active in student unions makes a valid point that a student union (or student guild as we call them here in the West) is not a "student organisation" as 1. it hires a range of staff many of whom have never been students (not only the catering staff but also professional staff and managers etc); 2. many of these hiring decisions are not made by the elected student board; 3. many of its services are not offered exclusively to students and a great deal of services are actually provided in the main on a commercial basis to non-student visitors to the campus and/or academics. Sometimes oversimplification of a problem leads to failing to understand it (or understanding it from one very limited perspective e.g. UK/US), and I think some parts of our category structure at Wikipedia show symptoms of that. Additionally, nominating it is pointless, as the people who actually write the encyclopaedia don't make the decisions around here, so I imagine the social concept of "settled logic" within a small-group setting rather than actual consensus would produce the result of any such proposal - i.e. I know it would fail, because I could probably name off who would vote and in what way. And I'm not even suggesting there's anything sinister there - sadly, great majority of people around Wiki don't give a stuff about meta-process and it means fundamentally bad decisions are being made with no mechanism or means to reverse them. Orderinchaos 18:52, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per opposers and reverse merge. The older of these should be the one that exists, per WP:ENGVAR. An exception might be made for India, which does use English as an (official?) language and would use the UK spelling, but for non-English speaking countries, it's essentially whichever is created first. That's my understanding of the policy. (I'd prefer it if the policy could promte inter-tree consistency within non-English-speaking countries, but I don't think it says that and it could get complicated if you had two conflicting but intersecting trees.) Redirects on the newer ones that use the alternate spelling would be appropriate. And an oh-so-friendly-and-gentle-please-don't-misunderstand-and-take-unneeded-offence fish-smack to Orderinchaos, who should probably know better than to do things like this out-of-process. (But what's not really clear to me is if Pancho wants these changes to be made. If he does, then I'm more open to possibly letting the changes pass, since in that case there wouldn't be a disagreement between the creator and user who did the out-of-process rename. But overall I get the impression that he's not too keen on the change for most of these.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:38, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of course he wouldn't. He'd rather we use American English for the entire damn lot. As Xdamr said the other day, there is an expectation on here that people create categories in a consistent manner to the category tree; we have a speedy rename criterion (C2C) which tries to ensure that happens (and that's certainly been his reading of it in closing debates, even at times where I feel it doesn't apply) and, in this case, it's clear-cut as the category tree has existed for years in a particular fashion without significant (or any, that I can find) controversy. Orderinchaos 11:45, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and while you're here, would you care to explain what [4] and [5] are about? They imply a disturbing lack of transparency in your actions, coming as they did 27 minutes before this nomination was made by a third party, and just after a conversation between myself and the user you were emailing/nudging. We're not the Masons, you're perfectly entitled to speak publicly and transparently about your plans. :) Orderinchaos 19:07, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't following this conversation at all, but I've seen your comment/accusation now. I don't actually remember what actually prompted me to send the email you refer to, but it was in an email because it was a private matter that I thought the user would find helpful knowing about. In other words, it was and is none of your business. It has no connection to this discussion, despite what you suggest. I believe what prompted me to send the email was the start of an DRV that was of interest to the user. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:56, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- The spelling should be whatever was used orginally, unless there is compelling reason otherwise, based on WP:ENGVAR. Maurreen (talk) 11:36, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding based on a reading of both C2C and ENGVAR is that, as the parent categories had existed for five years with a particular spelling with no controversy whatsoever, and as these ones had been recently created, and the categories are "like for like" (i.e. a reasonable person would expect them to be the same), then they should be harmonised appropriately. That way we do not have "organizations in India" in "Organisations in India", which is jarring to the reader. Orderinchaos 11:44, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment process or not process or Pancho or not or Orderincahos or not - the problem is that variant usages exist - how the hell is anyone going to allow Wikipedia any credibility if it ends up looking like yet another American z with everything - many other cultures and usages of english exist on this planet - regardless of Pancho and others think - we need to reflect upon the usage in the various parts of the planet and show the way, not cower under some z or nothing style program Satu Suro 14:46, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Where were all you people when I brought up the inconsistencies and overlaps of this area a year ago? And then again?- choster (talk) 15:19, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it's time to resurrect that proposal. Hell, I'd support it. Orderinchaos 23:01, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. I thought we had reached a consensus that US Spellings were appropriate to articles relating to north America (or America) and Phlippines, and the English preferred spellings should be used elsewhere. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:57, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's totally contrary to our long-standing, stable Wikipedia:Manual of Style#National carieties of English rules. It is supposed to be an open field, with any variety of English acceptable, whenever an article doesn't have close ties to a particular English-speaking country. American English is not limited to the United States; it is perfectly acceptable in an article about Russia, about Norway, about the world as a whole. Gene Nygaard (talk) 03:33, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The exact same argument can be made for International English. American English is, by the way, largely limited to the United States, although it has strongly influenced countries with established links to it - a very liberal interpretation would cover the continents of North and South America, the region known as East Asia (with the exception of Hong Kong, a former British colony), the Philippines (a former US colony) and Germany (Marshall Plan and US post-war occupation). Until this encyclopaedia is designated the US English Wikipedia, I think there is a fair case to make that US English not be the default assumption in this place. (This entire case, after all, resulted from a dramatic attempt by a relatively new user to change the status quo by using US English in all cases, even where it was inconsistent with the existing category framework - each and every one of these has a long established parent with the international spelling.) Orderinchaos 12:28, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Any notion of an "international spelling" is contrary to our national varieties of English rules. Unless it has close ties to an English-speaking country, any variety of English should be accepted. There should be no "default assumption". The history of these pages doesn't show any change to American English from something else. All it shows is your attempt to wipe out American English. And you don't have any excuse of being a "relatively new user". Gene Nygaard (talk) 21:40, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed there should be no "default assumption" - that's why I haven't insisted on one - but you appeared to be insisting that American English should be the default assumption, hence I challenged that. The result of these changes is in fact, if you look at the category structure, a mix of s's and z's. I don't agree with all of the z's, and at least one of the s's, but they are long-established and there's no reason to change them.

And re your point - the history of the pages doesn't, but an understanding of category structure does. There is a general notion that category structures in the same class should be consistent wherever possible - indeed, that's the basis of the C2C speedy rename criteria. A bunch of "z" subcategories were created in "s" categories on 6 February which had existed for the most part since 2005–2006 entirely unmolested. All other subcategories in those categories were also spelled "s". There is no push at all to change the other categories and existing subcategories to "z", so it's not a case of a new consensus vs an old one, it's simply a case of a new user incorrectly trying to force American spelling by stealth. So I brought the new categories into line with the old ones, being careful to leave redirects at each one. Orderinchaos 04:06, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural question While this discussion is taking place, the improper moves remain in place. But, just taking the first example I looked at, why is it that the category which is tagged for this discussion is only the now-empty Category:Educational organizations in Norway? OTOH, the now-populated categories such as Category:Educational organisations in Norway are not tagged with notice of this discussion. I object to this providing notice only on the empty categories, and not to the ones someone can actually navigate to through the links in articles and in other categories. Gene Nygaard (talk) 03:45, 27 March 2010 (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:Video games by location

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:

Relisted Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 April 3#Category:Video games by location. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 22:29, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Video games by location to Category:Video games by depicted location

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Disambiguate with regard to actual locations, such as nation/city of origin. SharkD Talk 06:06, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest rename to Category:Video games by setting. That seems to be the usual term for it (see Category:Setting for existing examples). —Paul A (talk) 01:53, 24 March 2010 (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:C++ standard library

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:

Relisted Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 April 3#Category:C++ standard library. There is clear consensus that either the category or the article should be renamed. Please arrive at a decision about the article title (discussion is ongoing at Talk:C++ Standard Library#Proper capitalisation) so that the category can follow suit. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 22:37, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:C++ standard library to Category:C++ Standard Library

Nominator's rationale: To match capitalization of the primary article C++ Standard Library. Alternatively, rename the article to match the category. ―AoV² 05:30, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral; it doesn't seem to make much difference either way, and the nominator offers no evidence as to which is the common usage. However, if the category retains the uncapitalised version of the name, then there should be a {{Category redirect}} from the capitalised version ... and if the category title is capitalised, then there should be a {{Category redirect}} from the capitalised version. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:03, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I understand all that, and have commented on the article′s talk-page. ―AoV² 10:57, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The current C++ standard is itself inconsistent in this regard. Section 17 reads: "This clause describes the contents of the C++ Standard Library (...) The C++ Standard Library provides an extensible framework (...)". However: The latest draft for the upcoming standard (N3035), known informally as C++0x, consistently uses "standard library", except for a single instance. decltype (talk) 11:57, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sounds great—let′s move the article instead. I′d do so myself except someone felt the need to “sort” that redirect, thereby obstructing reasonable page-moves. ―AoV² 12:10, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rename to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 03:34, 17 March 2010 (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:Postmodern superhero comics

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:46, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Postmodern superhero comics to Category:Postmodern comics

Nominator's rationale: Several of these have a tenuous connection to superheroes—Seaguy, Planetary (comics), Hellblazer, Flex Mentallo. It seems wiser to have this be as broad a category as possible and recreate this genre subcategory if necessary. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:25, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Against I think that "postmodern comics" is too broad. What you call "a tenuous connection" I believe is what makes the comics "postmodern superhero" instead of just "superhero". If they fit in the cliches of superhero comics exactly, they wouldn't be postmodern.--Marcus Brute (talk) 05:37, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the actual category should be deleted or better policed - as most of the entries seem to be based upon original research. --Cameron Scott (talk) 08:46, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In addition to the problem of original research, there is a more fundamental problem with the category, which is that it tries to categorise by an amorphous and subjective concept.
Postmodernism is an important concept in the history of ideas, but like other conceptual groupings of aesthetics it lacks the clearly-defined boundaries which make a viable category. The use of subjective labels to categorise articles creates unstable categories and risks generating conflicts between good-faith editors, because even reliable sources will differ in their application of the term to individual topics. I'm sure that a fine head article could be written on the topic of postmodern comics, and that would be the place to discuss the ways in which critics have assessed some comics as postmodern. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:13, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Based on the comment left by the category's creator, it feels like this is a single editor's POV push - their personal interpretation of the terms and the article subjects. - J Greb (talk) 11:50, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete vague, useless category. Doczilla _STOMP! 01:18, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete wide-open to WP:OR with no clear inclusion criteria. Perhaps if a well-sourced article existed that included reliable sources naming specific titles then we might want to look at this but even then it'd be better off as a list with sources in such an article. (Emperor (talk) 15:39, 17 March 2010 (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:Norman Blake 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. (I checked and currently all of the contents are albums of the American musician.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:49, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Norman Blake albums to Category:Norman Blake (American musician) albums

Nominator's rationale: Per Norman Blake (American musician) and Norman Blake. Some of the Scotsman's albums may be in here; I haven't checked. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:02, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - well, in fact I'm a bit neutral, but since the American Norman Blake has a large amount of albums, and they're already in the category, he could stay the same and Norman Blake (Scottish musician) could have a Category:Norman Blake (Scottish musician) albums category if any get entered. Airproofing (talk) 13:26, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom to match head article, and for disambiguation. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:04, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom to match head article etc. Occuli (talk) 14:30, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rename to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 03:35, 17 March 2010 (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:Taiwan under Dutch rule

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: merge. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:42, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Taiwan under Dutch rule to Category:Dutch Formosa

Nominator's rationale: Merge. The category titles appear to have the same meaning, and membership in the two categories is essentially the same. The article Taiwan under Dutch rule redirects to Dutch Formosa. Goustien (talk) 03:14, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Dutch Fromosa If that's where the main article is. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:03, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nominator. Debresser (talk) 12:28, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nominator. This looks like a straightforward duplicate. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:54, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Merge to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 04:43, 18 March 2010 (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.

Åland

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: do not rename following BrownHairedGirl's successful requested move. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 22:42, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Football in Åland to Category:Football in the Åland Islands

Propose renaming Category:Sport in Åland to Category:Sport in the Åland Islands

Propose renaming Category:Åland society to Category:Åland Islands society

Propose renaming Category:Political parties in Åland to Category:Political parties in the Åland Islands

Propose renaming Category:Politics of Åland to Category:Politics of the Åland Islands

Propose renaming Category:People from Åland to Category:People from the Åland Islands

Propose renaming Category:Municipalities of Åland to Category:Municipalities of the Åland Islands

Propose renaming Category:Writers from Åland to Category:Writers from the Åland Islands

Propose renaming Category:Media in Åland to Category:Media in the Åland Islands

Propose renaming Category:Åland lists to Category:Åland Islands lists

Propose renaming Category:History of Åland to Category:History of the Åland Islands

Propose renaming Category:Government of Åland to Category:Government of the Åland Islands

Propose renaming Category:Maps of Åland to Category:Maps of the Åland Islands

Propose renaming Category:Geography of Åland to Category:Geography of the Åland Islands

Propose renaming Category:Companies of Åland to Category:Companies of the Åland Islands

Propose renaming Category:Economy of Åland to Category:Economy of the Åland Islands

Propose renaming Category:Communications in Åland to Category:Communications in the Åland Islands

Propose renaming Category:Elections in Åland to Category:Elections in the Åland Islands

Propose renaming Category:Transport in Åland to Category:Transport in the Åland Islands

Propose renaming Category:Organizations based in Åland to Category:Organizations based in the Åland Islands

Propose renaming Category:Åland to Category:Åland Islands

Nominator's rationale: Per main article, Åland Islands. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:55, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rename all per nominator. Debresser (talk) 12:28, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose. In terms of physical geography, these are indeed the Åland Islands, but the long-standing convention on Wikipedia is to use sub-national administrative or political divisions as the basis for categorisation of national sub-divisions. In this case, the political/administrative division is called Åland, an autonomous territory of Finland (see the head article Government of Åland). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:01, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
See also a summary of the history on the Åland Parliament website at http://www.lagtinget.ax/text.con?iPage=59&m=228 . --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:11, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment wasn't this just nominated? 70.29.210.242 (talk) 04:13, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't see it. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:00, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops I was confused by the related Requested move for the Åland articles. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 04:50, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the Requested move survey has been closed as "rename". I think we should follow the article namespace here for now, consistently using "Åland Islands". The perfectly reasonable opposition to "Åland Islands" (as expressed by BrownHairedGirl) should IMHO focus on overturning the naming decision in the article namespace. Otherwise we might never reach a cross-namespace consistency. How do you think about it? PanchoS (talk) 19:15, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I would support reverting the ill-considered renaming of the articles. But regardless of the fate of articles, the political entity is called Åland, and the category names should reflect that. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:50, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - See new move discussion at Talk:Outline of the Åland_Islands#Requested_move_back. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:00, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per BHG - the region or political entity, such that it exists, is called Åland. If the RM had have reflected wide consensus and scholarship rather than 2 support opinions and 1 oppose opinion, I'd be more minded to support, but this was a case where RM simply got it wrong. Orderinchaos 01:28, 21 March 2010 (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:BMS-affiliated unions

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:

Relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 March 23. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:47, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:BMS-affiliated unions to Category:Bharatiya Mazdoor Sangh

Propose renaming Category:HMS-affiliated unions to Category:Hind Mazdoor Sabha

Propose renaming Category:HMKP-affiliated unions to Category:Hind Mazdoor Kisan Panchayat

Nominator's rationale: expand abbreviations per main and consistent to the other subcategories of Category:Trade unions in India (see this CfD). I understand that these names don't say "union" for an English-speaking user, so I'm certainly open to alternative proposals. The acronym, however, is cryptic. PanchoS (talk) 01:16, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose for now. Unfortunately, the acronyms are less cryptic than the proposed new names, and I can't see any better alternative: Category:Hind Mazdoor Kisan Panchayat-affiliated unions is a bit of mouthful, and for an English speaker it is no more informative than Category:HMKP-affiliated unions. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:06, 16 March 2010 (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:Hip hop albums by label

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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:42, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Hip hop albums by label to Category:Hip hop albums by record label

Nominator's rationale: Per parent cat. and Category:Jazz albums by record label. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:00, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom. Orderinchaos 13:10, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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