Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 April 7



Category:Rick Astley

 * 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 → Keep Zzyzx11 (Talk) 19:24, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * rick astley


 * Nominator's rationale: Eponymous category and unnecessary as nothing in this cannot be found easily from the main Rick Astley article or the song/album cats. h i s  s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 19:48, 7 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep per the large Category:Categories named after musicians. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 20:08, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep as per roundhouse0. Europe22 (talk) 20:17, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per god knows how many hundreds of precedents. There is nothing here that can't be linked through Rick Astley and with there being little or no growth potential here this also implicates WP:OC. Otto4711 (talk) 20:56, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - Just because there is a new internet fad of rick-rolling doesn't mean that an eponymous category is warranted, although it does explain why it was created.... --Lquilter (talk) 14:13, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom & ample precedents. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:24, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per Roundhouse - the cat & subcats total 42 articles Otto. Johnbod (talk) 19:04, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The number of articles in the subcats is irrelevant, since they're part of the Albums by artist and Songs by artist category tree. Well over a hundred of these categories have been deleted out of Category:Categories named after musicians over the last year or so. The existence of that category doesn't mean that every single musical act gets an eponymous category and it's clearly established that an eponymous category is not needed just because there are song and album subcats. Otto4711 (talk) 19:06, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * How it is determined who gets an eponymous category? (I must say there are some strange 'people' in Category:Categories named after musicians, a subcat of Category:Categories named after people.) -- roundhouse0 (talk) 19:31, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * My rule of thumb is that if the material related to the artist is so voluminous and complex that simple text links and/or templating are insufficient for navigation then there should be a category. See for example Category:The Beatles. It's highly unlikely that everything included in that category is going to be mentioned in The Beatles article and trying to template it all would be pretty nightmarish. In this instance, there's nothing but album and song subcats, Astley's article and the article on the internet joke. Anyone who's interested in any of that material is highly likely to start looking for it by typing "Rick Astley" in the search box, not through the category system. Everything is accessible through the main article. Otto4711 (talk) 19:41, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I went through Category:Categories named after musicians last year and consensus was to clean a lot of them out, well over a hundred as I recall. It looks like it's time for another round of housecleaning, which I've started today. Otto4711 (talk) 19:43, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


 * 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:Christian Restorationists and Christian Zionists

 * 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:Christian Zionists. Kbdank71 13:37, 14 April 2008 (UTC)


 * christian restorationists and christian zionists


 * Nominator's rationale: This category is apparently about the Restoration of Israel - but it is confusing because the Restorationism movement is also implied. Brian0324 (talk) 17:43, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep and rename to Category:Christian Zionists. I don't think deletion is the answer; it's a valid classification for Christians. The main article is at Christian Zionism, and it points out that the term used to be "Christian Restorationism", but due to the popularisation of the term Restorationism to mean Mormonism, Seventh-day Adventists, Jehovah's Witnesses, etc., the term has become "Christian Zionism". The creator was just probably trying to cover the bases, i.e., to be sure to cover people who were Christian Zionists before that term came into use, but I don't see anything wrong with applying the term retrospectively due to the confusing term "Christian Restorationist". Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:04, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep and rename to Category:Christian Zionists. per aboveBrian0324 (talk) 14:16, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep and rename to Category:Christian Zionists. I put it up and I'm good with renaming it. The problem, of course, is anachronism.  American Clio (talk) 17:44, 2 April 2008 (UTC)American Clio
 * Strong Delete person by opinion category, not even a religion category because it is a sub-tenet of a belief that we're focusing on for categorization, why not take the next steps: Christian Transubstantiationists, Christian Millennialists, Christians who accept the perpetual virginity of Mary, Christians who do not accept infant baptism, and all sorts of other sub-tenets. And also ambiguous: some Christians are "Christian Zionists" as WP labels the term, but does that define them? some Christians are "Zionists" as WP labels that term, and if asked would consider themselves Christian Zionists, does that define them. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:31, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kbdank71 17:59, 7 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep and rename to Category:Christian Zionists. I think that we need to at least reach consensus on a better name.  Vegaswikian (talk) 06:31, 12 April 2008 (UTC)


 * 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:People convicted of sex crimes

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


 * The result of the discussion was: upmerge to Category:Sex crimes and Category:Criminals.  There are only two subcats in this, Category:Rapists and Category:Sex offenders by nationality.  Many of the keeps seemed to be more concerned with the subcat of Category:Sex offenders by nationality, and the fact that this should remain as a super-cat.  While Category:Sex offenders by nationality may have issues that need fixing, that falls outside of the scope of this CFD.  In other words, both here and in the CFD that renamed this category people suggested fixing it, but it has not been CFDed.  Waiting for someone to nominate it for fixing should not cause this to be postponed.  As for the "fixing up" of this category into a super-cat, it's been two weeks since this was nominated, and the only fixing up has been the removal of I believe two articles.  Nothing has been added to give value to the "super cat" argument.  Keeping this around as is does nothing to help the problem, it just postpones the solving of it.  No prejudice to recreation if/when this larger problem gets solved, and articles/subcats are found/written to support it. Kbdank71 14:08, 14 April 2008 (UTC)


 * people convicted of sex crimes


 * Nominator's rationale: There are only 4 articles in this category. Only one of the articles is about a person. Also, there are no inclusion criteria besides having committed a sex offense which is too vague. There are other categories more specific like Sex offender by country, sex offenders by offense, eg.g Rapists etc. Mattisse  (Talk) 22:27, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - all the subcategories being put in the above category, including various list of people by crime, country, etc are already subsumed under Category:Sex and the law which has a category Category:Sex crimes. Plus Category:Sexuality and age which contains Category:Child sexual abuse which has categories  of people, real and fictional  and Category:Pedophilia  likewise.  Mattisse  (Talk) 17:23, 5 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment This was created as a result of this cfd of 5 March 08 supposedly as a rename of Category:Sex offenders. However Category:Sex offenders had a host of subcategories (eg by nationality) and this has none, so something seems to have gone wrong. Occuli (talk) 00:56, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - Yes, I agree. Category:Sex offenders is better in mind that :Category:People convicted of sex crimes, more professional sounding. But in any event, it was filled while this category has one person, one play, and one slang word in it.  Mattisse  (Talk) 01:21, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Category:Sex offenders contained the nationality subcats Category:Sex offenders by nationality but these were removed (incorrectly) by User:Mattisse on 15 March 2008, perhaps before the rename was made. The same user removed Category:Rapists at the same time. Occuli (talk) 01:41, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I have restored the 2 subcats Category:Sex offenders by nationality and Category:Rapists. I can't immediately locate any other obvious subcats. Occuli (talk) 10:50, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep and fix up. This should serve as a meta-parent category for those that are more specific by offense and nationality. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:02, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - I cleaned out the slang word and the play. I also removed an artile of BLP where the descriptions and conviction of sex offense was not clearly cited. I remove another BLP who was convicted of involutary manslaughter which is not a sex offense. I put a category description.  Mattisse  (Talk) 12:29, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Striking out my keep above, as the comment below indicates that the category system for this area needs to be thought through and clarified. Also, persons who were not convicted of a sex offense should not be in the category, regardless if there is a sexual element to the crime. And, especially  per BLP, the sex offense needs to be cited per WP:V.  Mattisse  (Talk) 17:04, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete - Comment - How are you going to add gay people? Because we're not currently split out by era, and prior to 2003 gay sex was a crime in a number of states; and it is still a criminal offense in some countries. I repeat my contentions from some previous discussion I can't find right now: "sex crime" is too variable a category to be meaningful. Seriously, where is Oscar Wilde? Also, don't forget adultery, straight folks!  Still a crime in parts of the world, and historically a crime in much of the US.  I'm curious: Have people who are advocating "keep" actually looked at the head articles, sex crime and sex offender? These are very, very broad terms. I'll also add that in addition to being over inclusive to what one might want to include, it is also under-inclusive, since some kinds of acts may be intended as sex crimes in one situation (flashing), and not in another (breastfeeding), and still be prosecuted under the same statute (indecent exposure), and it may vary as to whether such things will be counted as "sex crimes" or not. --Lquilter (talk) 14:38, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * This is exactly right. And indecent exposure is not necessarily considered a sex offense in most jurisdictions that I am familiar with. Plus many defendants plea bargain the sexual element of the crime out. Plus what is the point anyway. In the county where  I live there are thousands of sex offenders. Should all go into a sexual offense category? If so why, or why not?    Mattisse  (Talk) 21:00, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep and then put it up for cfd with Category:Sex offenders by nationality, Category:Rapists and others of the same ilk. There's no point in deleting it and leaving the subcats (which contain the actual articles) untouched. (Oscar Wilde is in Category:People prosecuted under anti-homosexuality laws.) Occuli (talk) 18:17, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete -There is also (somewhere) a Category:Sex scandals, Category:Pedophilia, and others that I cannot remember. Also, under Category:Sex crimes much of the above is repeated e.g.Category: Sex offenders by nationality, Category:People convicted of sex crimes , Category:People acquitted of sex crimes , Category:Sex scandals, Category:Incest, Category:Sexual abuse and more! This duplication was what I was seeking to reduce by requesting Category:Sex offenders to be deleted.  Then someone set up Category:People convicted of sex crimes and duplication of  the subcategories started again.  I  was trying to clean up the subcategories and reduce duplication, (plus there are a lot of BPL's). Also, a lot of people in are  categories that  are things.   Then someone posted on my page asking me to stop stop so I did. It was only today I noticed the whole duplication thing was starting back again under a new name. Category:Rape has its own subcategory and it is also subsumed under Category:Sexual abuse However, per -Lquilter, the whole concept of classifying people under such categories needs to be examined for the reason he give as well  as the fact that there are a lot of BLP's thrown in these subcategories.    Mattisse  (Talk) 19:29, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep laws and mores have changed, but the fact that someone, like Oscar Wilde, was convicted of a sex crime is one of the more memorable things about the guy. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:36, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - Keep in mind that categories such as Category:People prosecuted under anti-homosexuality laws are not included in the Category:People convicted of sex crimes. In fact, I don't recall anything about homosexuality in the subcategories. There is nothing about Oscar Wilde in these subcategories. However, there was large  section on  Category:Roman Catholic Church sex abuse scandal and Category:Day care sexual abuse hysteria  and a subcategory on Category:Comfort women.   Mattisse  (Talk) 18:47, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Also keep in mind that there is a general category: Category:Sex and the law which is broken down into Category:Sex crimes and Category:Sex laws. Under Category:Sex crimes you will fine more lists of people acquited, people convicted, by crimes etc. with unverified BLP's in there.  Mattisse  (Talk) 00:07, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Also please consider Category:Sexuality and age which breaks down into three categories about pedophilia and one about Secondary sex characteristic.. Also please see Category:Pedophilia. I am seriously confused.   Mattisse  (Talk) 00:42, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Note -–Category:Human sexuality seems to contain more legitimate categories relating to sex. Category:Paraphilias   contains  Category:Pedophilia also. There are many roads to Rome.  Mattisse  (Talk) 01:21, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment It is not the case that all rapists are convicted of sex crimes, nor is it the case that all persons convicted of sex crimes are rapists, therefore neither is a subcategory of the other. -Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:40, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * E.g. Amnon was a rapist, but not convicted of a sex crime, and someone who was convicted of rape but later exonerated would not belong in the category of rapists. -Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:48, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Please relist for further discussion. Cgingold (talk) 06:22, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

(courtesy break)

 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kbdank71 13:08, 7 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep and rename to Category:People convicted of sex-related crimes. The point of this category is to serve as a super-category grouping together people who were convicted of sex-related crimes. As such, it's intended to assist readers in navigation, and while the sub-categories cover a range of sex-related crimes, they are no more disparate than 100's of other super-categories. Needless to say, some of the sub-cats -- in particular the entire category tree under Category:Sex offenders by nationality -- also need to be renamed. Cgingold (talk) 13:31, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, not an encyclopedic category. Wikipedia is not a criminal offender registry.  KleenupKrew (talk) 02:50, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - You might want to nominate Category:Criminals and all of its hundreds of sub-categories, if you really think you can make a persuasive argument to that effect. Otherwise, could you please explain exactly why it doesn't make sense to have an umbrella category to group together the various categories for people who have been convicted of one or another type of sex-related crime. Bear in mind that these are navigational categories -- i.e. their purpose is to assist readers in finding articles on particular subjects. Cgingold (talk) 10:37, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. There are too many problems as pointed out above with this category and it's sibling Category:People acquitted of sex crimes which will need to be nominated based on the outcome of this discussion.  There seems to be a general consensus that this entire category tree is a mess based on the above comments and comments it at least one other related nomination.  Given that, nuking and starting from scratch may well be the easiest way to clean this up.  Vegaswikian (talk) 07:51, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment Dealing (renaming, deleting) in isolation with the container category whilst doing nothing with its untagged subcategories is a leap backwards. Many of the problems described above stem from the unilateral renaming of Category:Sex offenders to Category:People convicted of sex crimes leaving its subcategory tree Category:Sex offenders by nationality at large in a different forest. I would say it would be a step forward to ask developers to provide a means of tagging in one move a container category and all its subcategories for a general rename (the simple one in this case would have been to prefix 'Convicted' to everything within Category:Sex offenders). And then someone has to go through all the articles removing unconvicted persons. On the other hand the categories are necessary in some guise as often the person's only claim to public attention is, sadly, as a sex offender (eg Russell Bishop (sex offender)). Occuli (talk) 09:31, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * 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:Nepal artists

 * 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 for consistency, per consensus and extensive precedent. -Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:48, 13 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Propose renaming Category:Nepal artists to Category:Nepalese artists
 * Nominator's rationale: Rename. Use standard nationality term per parent Category:Nepalese people by occupation.  Good Ol’factory (talk) 12:06, 7 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Rename per nom. Johnbod (talk) 13:33, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Rename -- I originally created the category & didn't realize I wasn't using the proper format. Clubmarx (talk) 15:18, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Rename per nom.-- Lenticel ( talk ) 22:19, 7 April 2008 (UTC)


 * 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:Books by Arthur Koestler

 * 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. Kbdank71 14:18, 14 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Suggest merging Category:Books by Arthur Koestler to Category:Works by Arthur Koestler
 * Nominator's rationale: Merge, 'Works' has only the sub-cat 'Books'. Thus unnecessary. Merge both under 'Works'. Smerus (talk) 10:50, 7 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep per wider scheme. Following the slightly crazy standard scheme, the 5-strong novels sub-cat should come off Works, which it now does (it was, wrongly, off books). Books in these cats means non-fiction. So now Works has two sub-cats. Johnbod (talk) 21:41, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Umm, isn't it then better to rename the sub cats 'Fiction by AK' and 'Non-fiction by AK'? Where is there a 'standard scheme' that decrees that a 'book' is 'non-fiction'? This is not a definition which would occur to the average WP user!--Smerus (talk) 17:22, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * See the note at Category:Works by author and many lengthy discussions here, at the Books and Novels projects, etc (sorry, you'll have to research the links yourself). You will see from Category:Fiction books we don't have a fiction by author tree. You could propose changes and new schemes at those projects, but don't expect an enthusiastic, or lively, response. Johnbod (talk) 17:39, 8 April 2008 (UTC)


 * 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:Suspected murderers

 * 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 Zzyzx11 (Talk) 19:28, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

suspected murderers
 * Delete - I'm less concerned about the articles that are placed in this category, which can be done on the basis of reliable sources, than I am about the articles that may linger here long after their cases have been adjudicated -- especially when the result is acquittal. If kept, it should at least be renamed (either or  are possibilities).   Cgingold (talk) 10:20, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Johnbod (talk) 13:34, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Burn with fire - WP:BLP nightmare. Otto4711 (talk) 18:05, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. A bad idea. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:09, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per Otto. KleenupKrew (talk) 02:52, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom & now ample precedents. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:26, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


 * 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:Dead wrestling superstars

 * 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 Zzyzx11 (Talk) 19:34, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * dead wrestling superstars


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete. To my knowledge, we don't distinguish between dead and living persons when categorizing by occupation.  Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:54, 7 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete as the nominator is entirely correct. We also don't use POV terms like "superstars", although that could be fixed by a rename if the multiple precedents against categorising dead people by occupation were to be set aside... BencherliteTalk 10:02, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Also, the category creator is a known vanal (another example). - Dudesleeper / Talk  12:16, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and per Dudesleeper. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 12:42, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete agree, this is a slippery slope, and this is an unnecessary category. -- Rodhullandemu  (Talk) 13:18, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy merge to Category:Professional wrestlers as a recreation of a category deleted almost two years ago. Consensus has not changed on this matter and to the best of my knowledge no categroy based on the living or dead status of real people by occupation has survived CFD. Added to the fact that this is the work of a known vandal and spare us all the five days of discussion and merge it now. Otto4711 (talk) 18:09, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. KleenupKrew (talk) 02:53, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:43, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Tasteless, irritating, improfessional. Moufixis (talk) 12:01, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


 * 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:Live-action/animated 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: no consensus. Kbdank71 14:38, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * live-action/animated films


 * Nominator's rationale: For your consideration - the similar Category:Live-action films with animated sequences was deleted per this CFD. I don't have super-strong feelings either way; what say ye? Otto4711 (talk) 18:06, 30 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom & precedent. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:20, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Would it be appropriate to categorize such a film as Category:Animated films, or would it get no category at all? The description page does not say whether it is restricted to "films which are entirely animated". Perhaps this should be made clearer, regardless of the result of this CFD. — CharlotteWebb 18:36, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Zzyzx11 (Talk) 04:26, 7 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Listify those produced using hand-drawn animation, and those using stop-motion photography. I agree that those using CGI would be too numerous and not useful to list, but the old methods seem notable characteristics to me. - Fayenatic (talk) 20:08, 8 April 2008 (UTC)


 * 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:Italian football logos

 * 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. Incidentally, I have initiated a discussion about the 39 templates in Category:Italian football club logos at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football, since all of the template seem to be unused. Black Falcon (Talk) 20:58, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Suggest merging Category:Italian football logos to Category:Italian football club logos
 * Nominator's rationale: Merge, One cat holds images; the other holds templates which don't seem to use the images... A bit confusing; but, I don't think we need both categories.  Suggest merge, with no preference as to the final name. Neier (talk) 11:41, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Merge per nom. However, for the name I think it should be Category:Italian football logos as that way the Italy nation football team logos can be add in that category. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kyriakos (talk • contribs)
 * I'm not sure Category:Italian football logos shouldn't be renamed to Category:Italian football logo images and Category:Italian football club logos be nominated for renaming to perhaps Category:Italian football club logo templates. --Kbdank71 12:56, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Zzyzx11 (Talk) 04:22, 7 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. Nominate the proposed target along the lines of Kbdank71's suggestion to Category:Italian football club logo templates. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:40, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


 * 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:British people in China

 * 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.  Remember, when you take this to DRV, that consensus is not vote counting.  Carlossuarez brings up a very valid point about this being a "current" category.  Per the definition at Expatriate, this would include Brits in China temporarily, and does not further define what "temporary" means.  So yes, this could include Gordon Brown when he goes to the Olympics.  And yes, I know almost all of the subcats of Category:British expatriates are in the form of "British expatriates in foo", and yes, I'm all for consistency, but there is no point in consistency if everything is consistently wrong (or ambiguous, or subjective, etc).  Am I saying all of the expat categories need to be renamed?  No, of course not.  But a firmer definition of expatriate would be helpful for the renaming of this category. Kbdank71 14:34, 14 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Propose renaming Category:British people in China to Category:British expatriates in China
 * Nominator's rationale: as per naming convention (eg. Category:American expatriates in China, Category:British expatriates in the United States, etc. etc.) Mayumashu (talk) 02:21, 7 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Rename per nom. Cgingold (talk) 05:02, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Rename per nom.-- Lenticel ( talk ) 22:34, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete this is a "current" category for all intents and purposes, impossible to maintain and not defining. Do we add Gordon Brown for the week he goes to the Olympics? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:45, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, these expat cats are nowhere near being "current" categories -- there are innumerable cases where they're used for people who spent an earlier period of their life as an expat, regardless of where they are now or where they may have been living when they died. I suspect you're referring to the specific naming of "diplomats & staff" in the inclusion criteria for this particular category, which I've never encountered anywhere else. I can see where you might feel concerned that it would be used for "transient expats", to coin a phrase -- but in general, I've seen no indication that they are, in fact, being used that way. Cgingold (talk) 19:38, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * And how much time and for what reason shall be the objective criteria for inclusion here: defectors? renouncing British citizenship? Expatriate has such a wide meaning that diplomats & staff, students abroad, workers abroad, military stationed abroad, and others of a more or less temporary nature are considered expats in ordinary parlance and by at least the US government at least in respect of its tax laws. I would not consider that all British people who served in the British military or administration in China, India, 13 colonies, of what have you to be expats, nor are Rhodes scholars expats, Diplomats, the various troups in Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. But that's just my POV - we need an objective set of criteria to say what is expat and our article expatriate is woefully ambiguous: "a person temporarily or permanently residing in a country and culture other than that of the person's upbringing or legal residence". Temporarily residing makes no allowance for how temporary; in a "country and culture other than..." does that mean that Scots are expats in England - as Scotland is a country (part of the UK, but a country, nonetheless)? does that also mean that people from Niagra Falls, Canada aren't expats in Niagra Falls, NY as the culture is (hurl tomatoes here) essentially the same? Until some firm definition of expat can be set forth for inclusion criteria, this cat is "current" at best, and meaningless at worst because we cannot objectively determine who's in and who's out and when we see those who are in, we cannot say anything definite about them other than someone in their private POV has determined that they meet that someone's personal view of expat. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:26, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


 * 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.