Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 August 23



Category:Irish association footballers and subcats

 * 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. Kbdank71 14:31, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Propose renaming/merging


 * Category:Irish footballers to Category:Irish association footballers (newly created by me, then I decided to make this nomination)
 * Category:Republic of Ireland footballers to Category:Republic of Ireland association footballers
 * Category:Northern Irish footballers to Category:Northern Irish association footballers
 * Category:Irish football songs to Category:Republic of Ireland association football songs (no N.I. songs on present list)
 * Category:Republic of Ireland female footballers to Category:Republic of Ireland female association footballers
 * Nominator's rationale: For greater clarity as 'football' in Ireland, without particular context, is likely to mean Gaelic football, and there is already Category:Association football in Ireland and Category:Association football in Northern Ireland. I left out Category:Republic of Ireland international footballers and others (Northern) Irish international footballers from the nomination as Gaelic football doesn t have 'international' matches Mayumashu (talk) 23:59, 23 August 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:Pop punk singles

 * 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 Category:Pop punk singles.  Not really sure what to do with Category:Cobra Starship singles, as Punk Pop is being renamed due to songs by genre conventions, but Cobra Starship isn't a genre, it's a band.  Delisting it for now, renominate by itself if desired. Kbdank71 14:30, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Propose renaming Category:Pop punk singles to Category:Pop punk songs
 * Nominator's rationale: Rename. Follows conventions of other "songs by genre" categories. Wolfer68 (talk) 23:17, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Added Category:Cobra Starship singles (its subcat) to this nom. - jc37 05:15, 29 August 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:Deaths from bronchitis

 * 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: withdrawn. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:43, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * deaths from bronchitis


 * Nominator's rationale: Bronchitis is not generally considered fatal, although it may be a contributing factor. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:33, 23 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment: Why not just speedy it? It is empty and likely to remain that way. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93;  ‹(-¿-)› 14:38, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It is empty because I have removed it from the articles in which it was previously included. I wanted to give the creator of this category (and related) a chance to defend their creation, so I opted for CfD, rather than speedy. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:45, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * You are explicitly requested not to empty categories prior to cfd (unless you created the category). Please put the articles back to assist the discussion. Same applies to the 2 below. Occuli (talk) 15:11, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * You seem to be asking me to re-add blatantly incorrect categories to articles. I think I'll invoke "ignore all rules" here, since the appropriateness of a category to an article and the existence of a category are clearly two separate questions. If this creates a problem for you, consider these noms withdrawn and I'll pursue them as prods. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:05, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I am not. The one you removed (June Allyson) states that a cause of death was bronchitis. It is out of process to empty a category and then cfd it. There are quite a few whose articles state 'died of (acute) bronchitis' some of whom I have added. Categories have to be empty for 4 days before they can be speedied. Prods apply to articles, not cats. I have no views on whether this is a valid category. Occuli (talk) 17:40, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * June Allyson died of respiratory failure, as the article states. I don't mean to be disruptive here, so, again, feel free to consider these withdrawn if you like - I'm not adding them back to articles. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:13, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The article states "Her death was a result of pulmonary respiratory failure and acute bronchitis" so I don't see where the problem lies. Occuli (talk) 18:30, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * You're right, that's what the article says, and I se no point in arguing with someone who uses Wikipedia articles as a reference. I'll withdraw all of these noms. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:36, 23 August 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:Deaths from dementia

 * 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: withdrawn. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:44, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * deaths from dementia


 * Nominator's rationale: Dementia is not generally considered to be a fatal disease, although it may be an indirect contributor. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:30, 23 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment: Why not just speedy it? It is empty and likely to remain that way. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93;  ‹(-¿-)› 14:37, 23 August 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:Deaths from dermato poly myositis

 * 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: withdrawn. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:45, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * deaths from dermato poly myositis


 * Nominator's rationale: "Dermato poly myositis" is not the name of a disease. Neither polymyositis nor dermatomyositis are fatal diseases. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:27, 23 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment: Why not just speedy it? It is empty and likely to remain that way. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93;  ‹(-¿-)› 14:36, 23 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment – Laurence Olivier seems to have died from some combination of these words. Occuli (talk) 15:13, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It may be reasonable to say Olivier died of "complications" from polymyositis and dermatomyositis, but the likely cause of death was respiratory failure. In the article, the cause of death is unreferenced. I've found no bio that lists the cause of death specifically (either as "dermato poly myositis" or anything else). Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:14, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The article Dermatomyositis states that until recent times its mortality rate was 'very high'. This sounds pretty fatal to me. Most people who die endure respiratory failure just beforehand. It can't be difficult to source Olivier's cause of death. Occuli (talk) 18:13, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

20yearoldboyfromNY (talk) 01:42, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment – Laurence Olivier has died from Polymyosistis, in July 1989, at age 82, which is a muscle disorder and eventually fatal. On IMDB, his death cause is listed as "Complications from a muscle disorder", which was dermato poly myosistis.


 * 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:Indonesian collaborationists

 * 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: Deleted created by sockpuppet of banned user Gnangarra 12:33, 27 August 2008 (UTC)


 * indonesian collaborationists


 * Nominator's rationale: Only one entry StaticGull Talk  13:32, 23 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Multiple entries. Appropriate along the lines of Category:French Nazi collaborators, Category:Collaborators with Nazi Germany and the other collaborationist categories. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AnkaraCity (talk • contribs)
 * ADMIN Note User AnkaraCity has been confirmed as a sockpuppet of Banned user DavidYork71 see Requests for checkuser/Case/DavidYork71 for details. Gnangarra 12:21, 27 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment: Except that this category name doesn't tell us anything. Collaborators with Indonesians to do something? Collaborators with the Indonesian government to do something? Collaborators with some Indonesian faction?  Too ambiguous. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93;  ‹(-¿-)› 14:35, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Meaningless category. Collaborate with whom? Also "collaborationist" is an ugly word. What's wrong with "collaborator"? Stephen Kirragetalk - contribs 16:25, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * *Thank you. Useful comment. In conformance with the 'Collaborators with Nazi Germany' category, I'll change it to Category:Collaborators with World War II era Japan and this can be closed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AnkaraCity (talk • contribs) 22:24, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Please slow down a little and wait for the CFD process to run its course. And please remember to sign your comments with 4 tildes (~), which automatically displays your user name, etc. Thanks. Cgingold (talk) 01:17, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: If only you had taken a minute to look at Category:Collaborators with Nazi Germany's parent cat, Category:Collaborators during World War II occupations, you surely would have noticed that we already have Category:Collaborators with Imperial Japan. As I've said many times previously, this is exactly why it would be very useful to require that all new categories be provided with at least one appropriate parent category. This brand new category will now need to be deleted/merged into Category:Collaborators with Imperial Japan. Cgingold (talk) 01:15, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Hmains (talk) 04:58, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * 'Alternative proposal: There are undoubtedly more articles about Indonesian collaborators listed among the dozens of articles in Category:Collaborators with Imperial Japan. So perhaps it would make sense to retain Category:Indonesian collaborationists as a sub-cat of that one, and rename it to . Additional sub-cats can also be created for the other nationalities, much as was done with Category:Collaborators with Nazi Germany. Cgingold (talk) 01:25, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * comment' how can this be meaningfully discussed after someone has emptied the category?


 * Comment – This category has been created by sock of User:DavidYork71 – simply more in the long history of vandalism and attention seeking by this banned editor. So-called “Indonesian collaborators” is a long held trolling favourite of his. Category and this discussion should be deleted/closed immediately according to his long term page. --Merbabu (talk) 05:10, 26 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment User was confirmed as a sockpuppet. StaticGull Talk  12:11, 27 August 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:Taiwan and the United States

 * 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:Republic of China – United States relations (seriously, folks, some days I think you make many of these renames WAY more complex than they need to be.  For example, if Joe Reader, or even Joe Neweditor is going to use the dash that's on their keyboard, why the frig are we not using it as well?  Who's grand idea was it to make things more difficult for people?  Stop overthinking things) . Kbdank71 14:25, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Propose renaming Category:Taiwan and the United States to Category:Republic of China–United States relations
 * Nominator's rationale: The suggest naming structure follows other Category:Bilateral relations articles, taking into account WP:DASH, and categorising via alphabetical order Russavia Dialogue Stalk me 12:09, 23 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Rename but to Category:Republic of China – United States relations per WP:DASH section 1, item re spacing (and Good'Olf, who pointed this out elsewhere). Occuli (talk) 12:27, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Q.: Is that an n-dash or an m-dash? I can't tell in this font. If it's spaced it should be an n-dash (shorter), if not spaced an m-dash (longer). —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93; ‹(-¿-)› 14:33, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It is an en dash, whether with or without spacing, per WP:DASH. Occuli (talk) 19:31, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * If you can't tell the difference it's probably not worth fussing about. — CharlotteWebb 14:08, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Rename per Occuli (with caveat in my question below his !vote). —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93; ‹(-¿-)› 14:33, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Rename per Occuli. (I didn't bring up the "spaces around the en-dash when using it to connect terms of more than one word" issue in the recent big rename, because I thought it would just make the discussion more complicated than it already was. But I think the ones that this rule applies to (like all the "United States", "United Kingdom", and "Soviet Union" ones) could probably be re-nominated for compliance with WP:DASH, and this is as good a place as any to start. Perhaps it could be considered a speediable change as a "spelling/spacing" error.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 10:04, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * When doing this please create category redirects from e.g. Category:Republic of China-United States relations (which uses a bogstandard hyphen). This is what the average user will type when manually adding a new article to this category, having seen it somewhere without looking closely at the html source to see what the hell kind of dash is used. Let some bot fix it rather than leaving a red link or confusing the newbs. — CharlotteWebb 14:08, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Rename as per Occuli's suggestion of Category:Republic of China – United States relations, and support rename of other categories as per Good Ol’factory. Looks like we might be well on our way to getting some standardisation in this area. --Russavia Dialogue Stalk me 16:14, 28 August 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:Abraham Lincoln Brigade

 * 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 fixed the problem of the article being in the category by removing it, and adding catmore to the category and maincat to the article in the members section. Kbdank71 14:40, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

abraham lincoln brigade
 * Rename to Category:Abraham Lincoln Brigade members, since that is precisely what all of the articles (except for the main article about the ALB) are about: individual members.   Cgingold (talk) 11:08, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep as is; the fact that it does contain the main article for the ALB means it is the ALB category, not the ALB members category, and that no one has bothered to make an ALB members subcat (and may not need to, depending on number of member articles). —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93; ‹(-¿-)› 14:30, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Rename to Category:Abraham Lincoln Brigade members which has the virtue of being shorter than the proposed rename. It is fairly standard practice, when dealing with a "members" category, to include in that category the article for that of which the members are members. Otto4711 (talk) 15:21, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Right you are, Otto -- I'm amending my proposal. Cgingold (talk) 22:35, 23 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Rename per Otto; agree with O re article (which is sorted at the top, distinguishing it from 'ordinary' category members). Occuli (talk) 13:44, 24 August 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:Northernmost settlements

 * 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 to Category:Settlements in the Arctic as noted. Kbdank71 15:00, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

northernmost settlements
 * Probable Delete - I came across this while I was looking into the category for Arctic settlements, and figured it ought to be discussed, too. The problem, of course, is with the lack of inclusion criteria: where's the cutoff line? Unless somebody can come up with a workable definition to salvage this category, I'm afraid we have little choice but to bid it farewell. Thankfully, there is already a pretty well-done charticle (you heard it here first), Northernmost settlements.  Cgingold (talk) 13:15, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge into the category below (assuming they are all in the Arctic - it is given as a subcat of geog of Arctic) - this is a case of 'arbitrary inclusion'. Occuli (talk) 13:29, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, they're all in the Arctic. So I think we can assume that they're all included in that category, although it wouldn't hurt to check. Cgingold (talk) 13:36, 23 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Merge per the above. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93; ‹(-¿-)› 14:30, 23 August 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:Settlements in the Arctic

 * 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 would seem that if this is going to change, then all of the other "Arctic" cats should be renamed as well.  "Arctic circle" may be arbitrary, but there is no question where it is.  "the Arctic" as noted could change depending on different factors.  Arbitrary is better than subjective.  But for now, the "arctic circle" template may work well.  Let's give the wikiproject time to prove this will work.  If not, we can always mass nominate all of them. Kbdank71 14:58, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * settlements in the arctic


 * Nominator's rationale: Category created by editor who subsequently went on to add a myriad of settlements to it that are already nicely categorized into national geographical hierarchies. Apart from there being several definitions to what constitutes the arctic, which in itself is a ground for deleting this category, the criterion which the category's creator seems to have gone by in adding entries to it is locations north of the Arctic Circle (66° 33’N). So, if other editors see any merit to having this category, it should at least have a name change to Category:Settlements north of the Arctic Circle. meco (talk) 06:37, 23 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Rename or delete per nom; I don't really care which. It seems to be an attempt at a northern equivalent of Category:Outposts of Antarctica. Maybe it has merit, maybe it doesn't; I'm neutral on that. But if kept, I support the rename for the reasons stated by the nominator. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93;  ‹(-¿-)› 10:37, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak keep and rename to the "Arctic Circle" option. Choosing a line of latitude as the divider seems pretty arbitrary (as opposed to settlements in Antarctica, i.e., on a specific continental body), but it's probably an arbitrary line that has been drawn in the past by people who have studied this area. I went to primary school in Canada and I distinctly remember that when I was about 8 or 9 we had a unit in Social Studies about settlements in the Canadian Arctic, and the Arctic Circle was the dividing line. Canadian culture—ah, the memories ... If kept and renamed, a definition should be added to clarify the criteria, of course. Good Ol’factory (talk) 10:57, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment – there is Category:Arctic with a host of subcats so the problem (if any) is widespread. Occuli (talk) 13:24, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep and rename to ;Category:Settlements north of the Arctic Circle as suggested by Meco. The Arctic Circle demarcates a very real physical phenomenon, and as such is not, in fact, an arbitrary line. (Remember the "Land of the midnight sun", etc.?) The fact that they're all categorized according to their countries doesn't address the fact of their extreme northern latitudes. So I think it's quite useful to have a catalog of all the settlements in this unique region.  Cgingold (talk) 13:27, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I can't pass up the opportunity to point out that it would, however, be even more useful if all of those rarely-heard-of settlements were further identified with the names of their provinces or countries. For the most part, only those in Nunavut, Nordland, and Alaska include that useful bit of info. Cgingold (talk) 13:34, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It's good that you did. I looked for it but couldn't remember the name of it. I think it should be named on the instructions for nominating for deletion. And on the CFD notice itself.__meco (talk) 14:23, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I'm not clear precisely what you're referring to, Meco. Cgingold (talk) 22:42, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I think Meco refers to your exemplary usage of . Occuli (talk) 23:40, 23 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep As creator. The WikiProject Arctic is newly created and there needs to be a system to catagorise the various elements that go to make up the Arctic. As noted the Arctic crosses national boundries and exactly what is "the Arctic" is open to debate. The Arctic Circle is one and the 10 degrees C July isotherm is another. Because of this some thing are not ending up in the correct categories. For ease of finding and populating the category I did indeed use the Arctic Circle but depending on the definition others may be added. Categories are there to help both the reader and the editor find articles related to the subject. Having settlements categorised only by a national criteria does not enable anyone to find which, if any, are located in the Arctic. Anyway, I'm tired and can't think beyond the fact that I didn't get the Swedish and Russian settlements listed. I'll give the Arctic a good talking too and tell it to stop crossing national boundries.  CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 13:49, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Aha, I was wondering why I didn't see any Russian names there. Cgingold (talk) 22:42, 23 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment - There are varying definitions of the Arctic (geography, climate, culture), but an inability to clearly define a category is not always a reason to delete. There are many unclear categories that are kept and would never be deleted. The solution in such cases is to improve the definition of the categories to make them more manageable. As CambridgeBayWeather says above, there is currently activity in the topic of articles related to the Arctic (the newly created WikiProject Arctic that I suggested). It would be good if those skilled in categorisation could help out with constructive comments on how to organise Category:Arctic. A centralised discussion would be preferable to having numerous categories put up for deletion in separate debates. Carcharoth (talk) 20:37, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Further comment - As a follow-up to Occuli's comment, it should be noted that Category:Arctic was created on 13 January 2005, and no-one seems to have had problems with it before. When I started work on this category a few days ago, I began categorising the existing articles and creating many new subcategories. The articles now in the categories were either previously in the parent category, or I found them and put them in the new categories (ie. I populated them). The ones I created were: Category:Images of the Arctic (temporary category to place images before putting them somewhere like Commons); Category:Astronomy in the Arctic (a bit of a silly category, I'll admit, it might have been better to simply remove Category:Northern pole stars from the Arctic category); Category:Culture of the Arctic (bit of a catch-all and covers quite a lot of stuff), Category:Environment of the Arctic (not well-defined at the moment, combining elements of climate and ecology and environment), and so on (no time to explain all of them). The other 16 categories I created (19 in total, I can add definitions or rationales if needed), are: Category:Arctic challenges; Category:Bays of the Arctic Ocean; Category:Bays of the Arctic Ocean; Category:Currents of the Arctic Ocean; Category:Underwater ridges of the Arctic Ocean; Category:Protected areas of the Arctic; Category:Arctic expeditions; Category:Arctic exploration vessels; Category:Arctic in fiction (I know, I know...); Category:Arctic geography terminology (needs a better name, but something was needed to separate out the geography place articles from the geography topic articles); Category:Craters of the Arctic; Category:Regions of the Arctic; Category:Government of the Arctic; Category:History of the Arctic; Category:Industry in the Arctic; Category:Prehistory of the Arctic; Category:Arctic research, Category:Aboriginal peoples in the Arctic and Category:Transportation in the Arctic. It should be noted that several major categories already existed, namely: Category:Geography of the Arctic and Category:Arctic Ocean and Category:Wildlife of the Arctic. Hope that run-down of the history here helps. If those dealing with categorisation could add constructive comments on the best way to approach the categorisation, that would be appreciated. The category tree can be seen at WikiProject Arctic and Portal:Arctic. It might also be helpful to compare with Category:Antarctica. Carcharoth (talk) 20:37, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Rename per nom or maybe better and shorter, Rename to Category:Settlements in the Arctic Circle. The article on the Arctic states that The boundary is generally considered to be north of the Arctic Circle (66° 33’N).  Given that there are additional definitions based on an isotherm line or tree line both of which are not fixed and will vary based on global temperature changes, the fixed line should be used.  So we need to make a stand on what the categories would contain.  Using an isotherm line or tree line definition means that the contents of the category will vary based on the global warning or cooling.  Using the common meaning of the Arctic being north of 66° 33’N, is objective and clear.  The question that I see is where do you draw the line?  Do we need to rename all categories?  Is it sufficient to rename only Category:Arctic and add a template explaining the demarcation line for the Arctic to other categories?  Or can we simply add my proposed template to all Arctic categories and end the problem that way? Vegaswikian (talk) 21:23, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The above is a sample box that we could use to eliminate all renames. If this alternative is selected, we could change the category listed at the beginning to use pagename so that it would be customized for each category. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:43, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * This sounds like a very good suggestion - thanks. I'd definitely support the use of such a template where needed, with the caveat that some categories will have to use other definitions. Wildlife and things like trans-Arctic culture (eg. Inuit and Sami cultures cross national boundaries, but that has surely been handled before with other categories for indigenous or trans-national cultures). I left the wildlife categories alone precisely because I knew that wildlife categorisation is difficult with respect to arbitrary geographical boundaries (though as others have pointed out, this geographical boundary is less arbitrary than national boundaries, and I'd like to add that even if the climate changes, the midnight sun bit won't change). I have left messages at various plant and animal WikiProjects, hoping to get them to help out with sorting out Category:Wildlife of the Arctic (eg. migratory birds, endemic species such as the polar bear and various seal species, and those animal and plant species that are properly subarctic or arctic-alpine). See 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7. In all cases, the categories should be considered in terms of the things that make the Arctic region unique (climate, ice-covered ocean, frozen lands, midnight sun, wildlife, peoples). Some of these things are similar to the Antarctic - these are the characteristics of polar regions. Some are unique to the Arctic. Some categories, such as Category:Arctic challenges, and Category:Arctic expeditions, shouldn't be limited to a strict geographical definition. It is the aim of travelling to and exploring the Arctic that counts there, even though part of the journey should, really, take them above the Arctic Circle, not all the early explorers made it that far. Category:Protected areas of the Arctic is a tricky one. All the ones I added were above the Arctic Circle (some might have crossed it), but the Arctic climate does extend south of the Arctic Circle, so some flexibility is needed. The point about such categories though is that it will be possible to generate polar maps (looking down on the North Pole from above) to show the geographical relationship of the features. This will be a massive improvement on cylindrical projections that distort distances in the polar regions. See Template talk:GeoGroupTemplate for more. The Category:Arctic in fiction cateogry might seem dodgy, but have a look at the articles and it does actually make some sense. Possible future categories involve documentaries about the Arctic amd computer games (hmm...) involving the Arctic. See also the links at the top of Category:Antarctica in fiction for something similar. Other examples of categories where the Arctic as a whole is interesting to consider are: Category:Industry in the Arctic (the challenges of working in the Arctic, plus the environmental concerns), and Category:Arctic research (there is a wide amount of research done today in the Arctic, and institutions and organisations devoted to such research, though again the "polar" bit comes in here, with many organisations and people owkring in both the Arctic and Antarctic). Category:Prehistory of the Arctic is interesting, because, although national boundaries don't mean much when considering prehistory, geographical and cultural divides regarding the Arctic were pretty much the same now as in the past. One more example: Category:Craters of the Arctic is more than a bit dodgy, and only a strict geographical (Arctic Circle) definition would work here. Having said that, there doesn't seem to be much need to categorise craters beyond national boundaries (for those interested in that) and geological periods (the more logical categorisation). Sorry for the long reply again. I will try and copy this to a central discussion at the category talk page (I'm wary of carrying out discussions on category talk pages, because the talk pages often get deleted if a category is even trivially renamed - unless that has changed recently), or a suitable wikiproject talk page. Carcharoth (talk) 06:27, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Both this category and the one in the nomination above have been tagged with The Arctic. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:17, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment - Pursuant to my comment above, and recognizing the unlikelihood of all those articles being renamed in the foreseeable future, I would strongly suggest that all articles be placed in sub-cats by country -- eg., etc. Cgingold (talk) 00:04, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * keep it is clear what this category should contain and it contains it. Part of an overall category structure for the Artic.  Suggest subcats for this cat be created and named 'Fooian Settlements in the Artic' where Fooian comes each country involved.  Hmains (talk) 05:09, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Subcatting by country is helpful in some cases, and unhelpful in others. Sometimes people will arrive via a "national" category, and will only want Arctic stuff for a particular country. At other times, they will arrive via a climate or culture route, and will want something for the whole Arctic, or regions of the Arctic. Carcharoth (talk) 06:27, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Note also the existence of "circumpolar" stuff: a good list and disambiguation page is at circumpolar. Carcharoth (talk) 06:49, 24 August 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.

Categories:Indonesians of Fooian descent

 * 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. Kbdank71 14:11, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Propose renaming


 * Category:Arab Indonesians to Category:Indonesians of Arab descent
 * Category:Yemeni Indonesians to Category:Indonesians of Yemeni descent
 * Category:European Indonesians to Category:Indonesians of European descent
 * Category:Chinese Indonesians to Category:Indonesians of Chinese descent
 * Category:Indian Indonesians to Category:Indonesians of Indian descent
 * Nominator's rationale: as per naming convention Mayumashu (talk) 03:45, 23 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Rename per nom. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93; ‹(-¿-)› 10:34, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Rename per nom + per recent precedents. — Occuli (talk) 20:24, 23 August 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.

Categories:Indians of Fooian descent

 * 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. Kbdank71 14:10, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Propose renaming


 * Category:Indian Chinese to Category:Indians of Chinese descent
 * Category:Arab Indians to Category:Indians of Arab descent
 * Category:French Indians to Category:Indians of French descent
 * Category:Italian Indians to Category:Indians of Italian descent
 * Nominator's rationale: as per conventional naming pattern Mayumashu (talk) 02:25, 23 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Rename per nom. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93; ‹(-¿-)› 10:34, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Rename per nom + per recent precedents. — Occuli (talk) 20:24, 23 August 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.