Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 May 6



Category:Ambassadors to 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: keep. Kbdank71 19:54, 12 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Suggest merging Category:Ambassadors to China to Category:Ambassadors to the People's Republic of China
 * Nominator's rationale: Merge, they are being used for the same purpose, to categorize ambassadors to the People's Republic of China, but the first one is ambiguous as it could also apply to the Republic of China. jwillbur 22:24, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep and make the PRC one a subcategory of the China one. Potential categories for ambassadors to the ROC or China under other names could also be included as subcategories. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:30, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per GO - I have added George Macartney, 1st Earl Macartney, died 1806, to the cat (plus now 3 more oldies). Johnbod (talk) 02:24, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * keep' and sort out the article's placement in the categories. This is a problem we have with all the China articles/categories: where to put material that pertain to China prior to the PRC and ROC.  No one is even proposing a resolution.  Hmains (talk) 02:56, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I suppose the PRC and ROC (if any articles appear) had better be kept apart in dedicated sub-cats. Pre-1947 people can just go in the main cat. That works, doesn't it? Johnbod (talk) 03:04, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * That approach works reasonably well in Irish categories, where there are similar issues arising from partition in 1921. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:14, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree, but because there is no documented consensus to do this, any editor can come along (as happened recently) and change everything to the way he wants, saying he is free to do as he likes as there is consensus. Hmains (talk) 04:07, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * well, that's what we have projects for, no? And CfD. Johnbod (talk) 04:16, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I thought so too, but my requests for a discussion were completely ignored. So anything goes. Hmains (talk) 20:49, 10 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep because there's more than one China now, and within recent history. 70.51.9.170 (talk) 04:06, 7 May 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:Anti-car organizations

 * 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. Kbdank71 19:53, 12 May 2008 (UTC)


 * anti-car organizations


 * Nominator's rationale: Empty category. I'm not sure this is the best title, if there are any organizations that could fit this category. Sable232 (talk) 20:56, 6 May 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:US city buildings categories

 * 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.  Whether this means "in the foo city limits" or "in and around foo", adding the state doesn't change it from one to the other.  It simply means, "the city foo that is in state bar, not in any other state".    . Kbdank71 20:07, 12 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Propose renaming Category:Buildings and structures in Tampa‎ to Category:Buildings and structures in Tampa‎, Florida
 * Propose renaming Category:Buildings and structures in Seattle‎ to Category:Buildings and structures in Seattle‎, Washington
 * Propose renaming Category:Buildings and structures in Philadelphia to Category:Buildings and structures in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
 * Propose renaming Category:Buildings and structures in Nashville‎ to Category:Buildings and structures in Nashville‎, Tennessee
 * Propose renaming Category:Buildings and structures in Miami‎ to Category:Buildings and structures in Miami‎, Florida
 * Propose renaming Category:Buildings and structures in Las Vegas‎ to Category:Buildings and structures in Las Vegas‎, Nevada
 * Propose renaming Category:Buildings and structures in Dallas‎ to Category:Buildings and structures in Dallas‎, Texas
 * Propose renaming Category:Buildings and structures in Cincinnati‎ to Category:Buildings and structures in Cincinnati‎, Ohio
 * Propose renaming Category:Buildings and structures in Albuquerque‎ to Category:Buildings and structures in Albuquerque‎, New Mexico
 * Propose renaming Category:Buildings and structures in Louisville‎ to Category:Buildings and structures in Louisville‎, Kentucky
 * Propose renaming Category:Buildings and structures in Tulsa to Category:Buildings and structures in Tulsa, Oklahoma
 * Propose renaming Category:Buildings and structures in St. Louis‎ to Category:Buildings and structures in St. Louis‎, Missouri
 * Propose renaming Category:Buildings and structures in San Francisco‎ to Category:Buildings and structures in San Francisco‎, California
 * Propose renaming Category:Buildings and structures in San Diego‎ to Category:Buildings and structures in San Diego‎, California
 * Propose renaming Category:Buildings and structures in Pittsburgh‎ to Category:Buildings and structures in Pittsburgh‎, Pennsylvania
 * Propose renaming Category:Buildings and structures in Omaha‎ to Category:Buildings and structures in Omaha‎, Nebraska
 * Propose renaming Category:Buildings and structures in New Orleans‎ to Category:Buildings and structures in New Orleans‎, Louisiana
 * Propose renaming Category:Buildings and structures in Minneapolis‎ to Category:Buildings and structures in Minneapolis‎, Minnesota
 * Propose renaming Category:Buildings and structures in Indianapolis‎ to Category:Buildings and structures in Indianapolis‎, Indiana
 * Propose renaming Category:Buildings and structures in El Paso to Category:Buildings and structures in El Paso, Texas
 * Propose renaming Category:Buildings and structures in Detroit‎ to Category:Buildings and structures in Detroit‎, Michigan
 * Propose renaming Category:Buildings and structures in Cleveland‎ to Category:Buildings and structures in Cleveland‎, Ohio
 * Propose renaming Category:Buildings and structures in Denver‎ to Category:Buildings and structures in Denver‎, Colorado
 * Propose renaming Category:Buildings and structures in Chicago‎ to Category:Buildings and structures in Chicago‎, Illinois
 * Propose renaming Category:Buildings and structures in Charlotte‎ to Category:Buildings and structures in Charlotte‎, North Carolina
 * Propose renaming Category:Buildings and structures in Baltimore to Category:Buildings and structures in Baltimore, Maryland
 * Propose renaming Category:Buildings and structures in Baton Rouge‎ to Category:Buildings and structures in Baton Rouge‎, Louisiana
 * Propose renaming Category:Buildings and structures in Atlanta‎ to Category:Buildings and structures in Atlanta‎, Georgia
 * Propose renaming Category:Buildings and structures in Austin‎ to Category:Buildings and structures in Austin‎, Texas
 * Propose renaming Category:Buildings and structures in Amarillo to Category:Buildings and structures in Amarillo, Texas


 * Nominator's rationale: Standardization of category names. - TexasAndroid (talk) 18:49, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Note that, for St. Louis, the destination category was recently created, and a couple of items were moved over. Currently both exist, and I hope that this debate can clean that up. As for Indianapolis‎, the destination is a category redirect, pointing back to the current main category. - TexasAndroid (talk)


 * Rename all - per city with state. Steam5 (talk) 18:58, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment this still leaves unaddressed the issue raised by several editors that these are now city only categories and structures outside of the city should be removed. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:15, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * rename all. Per many precedents in recent weeks.--Mike Selinker (talk) 00:52, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * rename all for clarity of purpose. Can't all these be done as speedy? Hmains (talk) 02:52, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Not really. They do not meet any of the current speedy rename criteria, we have a few people who have general objections to these renames (Vegaswikian), and there have been specific problems with specific cities in the past.  (A general Chicago mass-rename went down to No Consensus a month or two ago due to a combination of objections from Vegaswikian's position, and specific objections to adding the state after that specific city.)   In general, as long as there is any likelihood of objections, it's not gonna fly at speedy rename. - TexasAndroid (talk) 04:40, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * My objection is, in general, not to the rename, but to the rename without any guideline that these are not limited to the city proper. Then there is the secondary issue of what happens when you split out other localities for a category like this.  Do they stay as children of a parent like this or in some other category.  Would look odd to see one city as a child of another city for a category like this.  Vegaswikian (talk) 05:14, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * There *is* a solution, and you and I touched on it breifly a month or two back when we first debated these renames. But as I see it it's a solution that would require a vast amount of work and a lot of local knowledge of each individual city.  It would involve creating a second tier of categories for various metro areas, placed between the city and state categories.  Anything specifically in a city, goes in the city series of cats.  Anything outside the city, but still in the metro area, goes in the metro series of cats.  At that point the existing categories do get specifically scoped to the city only, and any entries currently in them that are not actually within the city get moved to the new metro categories.
 * This would need to be done on a case by case basis for every category within a metro area where it is decided to implement. Done by people who actually are familiar with the area.  I do regular clean up of city categories.  I consider myself generally qualified to decide what is a building, a sports article, a culture article, etc on cities that I am not familiar with.  But I would be pretty much unqualified to make city vs metro distinctions.
 * And it would also, in general, be a huge amount of work. Is this all possible?  Yeah.  Is it likely to happen project wide....?  I have real doubts that it is practical on such a scale.  And doing it project-wide would be the only way to settle your concerns once and for all.  For now, I would say that such a structure being put into place in individual cities/metros would not be a bad way to take baby steps forward.  I already see bits and pieces of such in a few metro areas, but nothing consistant.
 * So short of something like the above, I'm really not sure how to successfully address your issues. For now, I suspect the categories will remain a bit ambiguous for scope, whether or not they have the state in the category name. - TexasAndroid (talk) 13:19, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The simple solution is to rename those categories to be whatever is appropriate for the area category and then if needed ones for lower level locations can be split out later. Why create the children before you create the parent?  So renaming Category:Buildings and structures in Las Vegas‎ to Category:Buildings and structures in the Las Vegas‎ metropolitan area,  would cause no harm, be accurately named and allow for the creation of Category:Buildings and structures in Las Vegas‎, Nevada if anyone desired.  However this approach was shot down by those who think that the vast majority of the entries are for the named city when in many cases they are not.  Even if there are only a few not in the city, the broader name will always be accurate and not leave any category open to random deletions.  Remember that editors in the past have objected to the inclusion of out of city articles in the city categories, sometimes with edit warring.  So I am baffled by the consensus to choose a solution that does not address past issues when it is trivial to do so.  Vegaswikian (talk) 20:50, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * And yet this consensus exists. We're just saying we're not choosing to deal with your issue because to everyone else, the issue seems very clear: "city, state" is better than "city" for purposes of clarity and consistency. The issue you're bringing up is tangential and, in my opinion, unnecessary to resolve at this time. That doesn't mean it shouldn't ever be addressed. But right now the issue on the table is not the one you're trying to raise.--Mike Selinker (talk) 02:50, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * edit conflict Why wouldn't whatever implicit permission to include or not include surrounding areas in a city's category be carried forward to the renamed category? You seem to always raise the same point, but it seems to me that you are just arguing against yourself; because as far as I can see, nobody else has every attempted to dictate that requirements for a "city, state" categorization is somehow more rigorous than just being in a "city" category. Neier (talk) 13:22, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed. This issue that Vegaswikian raises has nothing to do with CfD, and nothing to do with whether the state name is appended. If removing articles from a category is required, it can just be done.--Mike Selinker (talk) 13:49, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Not true. Something like Category:Buildings and structures in Tampa‎ is not specific so that it can freely include the area around the city.  Once you add the state name it clearly becomes city only in the minds of many editors,  This is especially true if an editor decides to delete everything not in the city.  Where do those article go?  So these renames are far from innocent. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:01, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The problem is that for the rest of us, "Foo in City, State" is no more, and no less, specific than "Foo in City". They are equal in scope. One is not city scope automatically and the other area scope, they are the same scope.  You obviously disagree, but you have yet to persuade people as to *why* there is any difference in inherent scope between the two.  So as long as the rest of us see no difference in inherent scope, we will continue to see no problem with the renames.  Renaming from one form to the other form makes no difference in the issue of whether they should be city or area scoped, because to us the presence or absence of the state simply makes no difference to the scope.
 * I make no arguments about there not being problems in the scoping of the city categories, but for those of us who see no difference in the scope of the two naming schemes, that is a totally separate, unconnected issue. If a category had scope problems before the rename, then it has exactly as much problems after the rename.  No more, no less.  If a category has no scope problems before the rename, then it has none after.  The rename has no impact on the scope of the categories, so it has no impact on any scoping problems of the categories.  The two issues are thus, in our minds, totally unconnected, and the presence/absence of scoping problems on a specific category has no impact on whether the rename should happen. - TexasAndroid (talk) 22:20, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with Vegaswikian. "City" is a vague concept that can refer to the city and the region.  "city, state" refers only to the city.  I prefer this personally, but with the explicit consequence that those things that are shaved off due to this more rigourous scope be placed in proper county and metro area cats.  DaronDierkes (talk) 05:59, 10 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Rename per "city, state" conventions. Neier (talk) 13:22, 7 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Rename per "city, state" conventions. (And, like TexasAndroid, I don't grasp Vegaswikian's objection, although I've seen it several times.) -- roundhouse0 (talk) 11:28, 8 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Rename per "city, state" conventions. I agree with Vegaswikian. I was pointed to this page kind of late.  I made a lot of changes to the St. Louis category series, just because nobody told me that I couldn't.  (I thought wikipedia was open to editing... silly me)  Now I've learned that editors that do not live in my city can make massive changes to the articles affecting my city without ever looking at them or touching them, just by having a bot come in and create disorder.  I'm a little irked by this.  Anyway, what you said about creating a metro area category is right on.  That's exactly what I did for St. Louis and I made a category for every county that made up the Greater St. Louis area.  The metro area and city cats can exist side-by-side,
 * Category:Greater St. Louis
 * Category:St. Louis County, Missouri
 * Category:St. Louis, Missouri
 * Category:St. Clair County, Illinois
 * Every article is linked to a subcategory that is double linked to the the county it is found in and as well as the same subcategory under Greater St. Louis. I only really had a chance to get to the Education and Transportation stuff before I was informed of this great bureaucratic deliberation process.
 * It really must be this way for St. Louis because the term "St. Louis" is vague, while "St. Louis, Missouri" is specific. "St. Louis" can mean the city or the metro area, which is confusing.  If something in St. Louis County, which is a completely seperate entity from St. Louis County (a special case in America actually) is referred to as "St. Louis" and the reader takes it to mean the city of st. Louis, then in many ways it is a lie.  Using "St. Louis" to talk about both the city of St. Louis and the St. Louis metro area in articles and categories has created a systematic contradiction on almost every page.  This is why I removed the term "St. Louis" altogether from our category series.  It is far from sorted out, but do take a look at this  here.
 * Just because I use Greater St. Louis does not mean that it has to be that way, the St. Louis Metropolitan Area is in many ways a better name for a category and will be more informative for those tyros unfamiliar with local terms. Still, this is not what is being nominated.  DaronDierkes (talk) 02:25, 9 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Rename all. These are helpful in all cases. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:58, 11 May 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:US City school categories

 * 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 20:09, 12 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Propose renaming Category:Education in Louisville‎ to Category:Education in Louisville‎, Kentucky
 * Propose renaming Category:Education in Tulsa to Category:Education in Tulsa, Oklahoma
 * Propose renaming Category:Education in St. Louis‎ to Category:Education in St. Louis‎, Missouri
 * Propose renaming Category:Education in San Francisco‎ to Category:Education in San Francisco‎, California
 * Propose renaming Category:Education in San Diego‎ to Category:Education in San Diego‎, California
 * Propose renaming Category:Education in Pittsburgh‎ to Category:Education in Pittsburgh‎, Pennsylvania
 * Propose renaming Category:Education in Omaha‎ to Category:Education in Omaha‎, Nebraska
 * Propose renaming Category:Education in New Orleans‎ to Category:Education in New Orleans‎, Louisiana
 * Propose renaming Category:Education in Minneapolis‎ to Category:Education in Minneapolis‎, Minnesota
 * Propose renaming Category:Education in Indianapolis‎ to Category:Education in Indianapolis‎, Indiana
 * Propose renaming Category:Education in El Paso to Category:Education in El Paso, Texas
 * Propose renaming Category:Education in Detroit‎ to Category:Education in Detroit‎, Michigan
 * Propose renaming Category:Education in Cleveland‎ to Category:Education in Cleveland‎, Ohio
 * Propose renaming Category:Education in Denver‎ to Category:Education in Denver‎, Colorado
 * Propose renaming Category:Education in Chicago‎ to Category:Education in Chicago‎, Illinois
 * Propose renaming Category:Education in Charlotte‎ to Category:Education in Charlotte‎, North Carolina
 * Propose renaming Category:Education in Baltimore to Category:Education in Baltimore, Maryland
 * Propose renaming Category:Education in Baton Rouge‎ to Category:Education in Baton Rouge‎, Louisiana
 * Propose renaming Category:Education in Atlanta‎ to Category:Education in Atlanta‎, Georgia
 * Propose renaming Category:Education in Austin‎ to Category:Education in Austin‎, Texas
 * Propose renaming Category:Education in Seattle to Category:Education in Seattle, Washington
 * Propose renaming Category:Education in Colorado Springs to Category:Education in Colorado Springs, Colorado
 * Propose renaming Category:Education in Oklahoma City to Category:Education in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma


 * Nominator's rationale: Standardization of category names. - TexasAndroid (talk) 18:19, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Note that, for St. Louis, the destination category was recently created, and a couple of items were moved over. Currently both exist, and I hope that this debate can clean that up. - TexasAndroid (talk) 18:21, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The St. Louis category has now been completed as a manual rename. I have begun a discussion with the renamer as to how such renames should come through here, and as to the possibility of him doing a mass nomination of remaining non-standard named St. Louis categories.  For now, I would suggest to leave the St. Louis rename as part of this debate to give the rename official approval (or disapproval). - TexasAndroid (talk) 13:29, 7 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Rename all - per city with state. Steam5 (talk) 18:59, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment this still leaves unaddressed the issue raised by several editors that these are now city only categories and education outside of the city should be removed. Also note that with a rename like this, a category like Category:Education in Las Vegas, Nevada would cover an area the size of New Jersey and include schools 100 miles outside of the city! Vegaswikian (talk) 21:19, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Rename all. Per many precedents in recent weeks.--Mike Selinker (talk) 00:46, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * rename all for clarity of purpose. Can't all these be done as speedy? Hmains (talk) 02:53, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Rename per "city, state" conventions. Neier (talk) 13:23, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Rename per "city, state" conventions. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 11:29, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Rename all. I changed the St. Louis cats becuase I found them inapplicable to the material they covered in the state that they were in. I'm sure it is similar for many metro areas. --DaronDierkes (talk) 01:30, 9 May 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:Barbarians

 * 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.  Wizardman  00:31, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * barbarians


 * Nominator's rationale: This category seems too arbitrarily filled and pushing a POV. How can we really decide who is a barbarian or what civilizations were/are barbaric? CapitalR (talk) 15:40, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep: In my work, my definition of Barbarians are warlike tribes that were looked upon as savage or "barbaric" by other civilizations. The Vikings, Huns, Goths, and Alans are definitly examples of this. If anyone thinks my list is filled with people or tribes that were not "barbaric", than please delete those people/tribes from the list or put it up for discussion. Thank you.--Pecopteris (talk) 15:55, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Yeah, no.  "Looked upon"?  Inherently POV.  With the definition you gave, what's to keep, say, 17th century Africans off this list?  Ford MF (talk) 16:02, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete: This category is (1) unnecessary, (2) difficult to define, and (3) unhelpful. I can't imagine any articles that would fall under this category that would not find better (i.e. useful and correct) placement somewhere else. Aryaman (Enlist!) 16:42, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and Aryaman. a similar category which i can't find - "Barbarian neighbours of the Roman Empire" or something was deleted not too long ago. Johnbod (talk) 16:59, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Here perhaps? -- roundhouse0 (talk) 20:02, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * That's it, thanks. Johnbod (talk) 00:43, 7 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep or at least leave it be for now. There is no good reason to delete it! As I have said, barbarians were warlike peoples who were looked down on as savage or "barbaric". The Romans looked down on warlike tribes such as the Alans, Visigoths, Ostrogoths, and Huns. England looked down upon the Vikings, and yes, even 17th century Africans and pirates should be included. We should wait, debate, remove some arcticles off the list, and procede is a more calm manner, instead of rushing to delete this category.--Pecopteris (talk) 17:08, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * User:Johnbod's comment makes no sense at all. So what if "Barbarian neighbours of the Roman Empire" was deleted. This argument has to do with Barbarians in general, not Rome's neighbours.--Pecopteris (talk) 17:08, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * That category was more specific, less POV, easier to define, and altogether had a stronger case for existence than this one. Johnbod (talk)
 * Pecopteris, the term is both too narrow to go beyond the "non-Latin and non-Greek speaking exterae gentes who dwelt around, and even eventually settled within, the Roman Empire during late antiquity" (R. W. Mathisen) and too broad to be of any good use in Wikipedia. Scholars that still use the term do so with caution, and only as a means to make sweeping characterizations of the peoples with whom Rome was in contact. Wikipedia has long since passed the point of needing to make such characterizations, and we have a good number of detailed categories which treat the peoples under discussion (and, I assume, this applies equally well to your newly created eponymous project). (P.S.: Generally speaking, individuals only vote once in discussions such as this. And it is generally poor form to refer to anything on Wikipedia as mine...) —Aryaman (Enlist!) 21:11, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * !vote once yes, but commenting on later points, as I am doing, is fine so long as it does not turn into heckling. Johnbod (talk) 00:43, 7 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. Agreed with Aryaman. Everyone outside of the Roman Empire was considered a "Barbarian". bloodofox: (talk) 17:12, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Rename "Nomadic Europeans of Classical antiquity". --M @ r ē ino 17:21, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - definitely. I agree with Aryaman and other above mentioned reasons to delete. The term is vague and unnecessary. --Holt (talk) 17:35, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Rename "Nomadic Europeans of Classical antiquity". This makes sense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pecopteris (talk • contribs) 18:33, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I think this is a good idea, as it removes a lot of the controversy. Although if this doesn't quite fit, we could change it to Tribal Europeans of Classical antiquity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gladius Terrae Novae (talk • contribs) 16:20, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Rename to Category:Barbarians of classical antiquity. The term was originally a Greek one for non-Greek speakers.  I would suggest that this should be limited to peoples outside the Roman Empire.  I am neural as to including "European" in the title.  I oppose the inclusion of "nomadic" as some barbarians may well have eben settled farmers, at least until the migrations period, when various peoples were driven west by pressure from the east.  Peterkingiron (talk) 23:07, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * We have Category:Eurasian nomads, but as you say, most barbarians, like the ancient Britons were not at all nomadic. Johnbod (talk) 00:49, 7 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Rename to Category:Barbarians of classical antiquity as above. Category should be kept to group all these peoples together so readers have a single point to navigate from.  Hmains (talk) 02:20, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Since we are getting a couple of these, it should be pointed out that the category, which mixes peoples and individual people in a non-standard way, goes as late as Genghis Khan (died 1227), Vikings and Sweyn Forkbeard (died 1014) - just from the ones I recognise. Johnbod (talk) 03:01, 8 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. This is basically a Roman term of abuse for their neighbours, and has about as much a place in wikipedia as a Category:Wogs. Best to get rid of it before someone starts an edit war over whether the category should include the only nation in history which has...gone directly from barbarism to degeneracy without the usual interval of civilization. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:11, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Greek term of abuse in fact. Johnbod (talk) 03:52, 7 May 2008 (UTC)


 * delete - I don't think history has seen many ethnic groups that hadn't at some point been "looked upon as barbaric" by proponents of some other ethnic group. Such a category is void of any useful purpose, and it is inherently impossible for it to satisfy the NPOV requirement. --Latebird (talk) 04:29, 7 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment: Out of 12 votes, there are 8 for delete (including the nominator), 1 for keep (from the creator of the category), and 3 for rename. The suggestions for renaming are (1) Nomadic Europeans of classical antiquity and (2) Barbarians of classical antiquity. Suggestion 1 should be rejected on the grounds that the proposed category is intended to include peoples who definately were not nomadic. Suggestion 2 should be rejected on the grounds that the scope is far too broad, making it roughly equivalent to Non-Roman Europeans of classical antiquity — perfectly useless as far as categories go. The author of the category has failed to provide sufficient clarification regarding criteria for inclusion. I would normally seek a compromise and suggest renaming to something like Enemies of the Roman Empire, but even that would be very difficult in practice, as certain peoples were allies of Rome at one time and enemies at another. My request to the author of this category is to aquiesce, accept the category's deletion and instead focus his attention on a category related to his field of interest, say Category:Wars involving the Roman Empire. Aryaman (Enlist!) 03:40, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as too imprecise. It's a derogatory term that includes Westerners in the eyes of East Asians and North and East Europeans in the eyes of the Romans and everyone who did not speek ancient Greek.--Berig (talk) 04:46, 13 May 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:Vegetarians by 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. Kbdank71 16:56, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Suggest merging Category:Vegetarians by nationality to Category:Vegetarians
 * Nominator's rationale: The category and all of its sub-categories should be merged into the parent. By convoluting nationality and vegetarianism we create a mess of categories that cause disasters like the one here.  Rangek (talk) 14:29, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Apart from anything else, a single category would be excessdively large. We have hundreds of by-nationality cats; with Einstein having held 3 passports at different times, naturally his categories are many. Johnbod (talk) 14:38, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Just because "we have hundreds of by-nationality cats" doesn't make it right. Who cares if the category is large?  It will be all nice and alphabetical on the category page. Rangek (talk) 15:12, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Only anarchists resist subcatting by nationality. BTW, nothing seems to be tagged. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 15:20, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Whoops. Fixed that.
 * Nice ad hominem attack. I am not an anarchist, well, not really anyway.  Well, it doesn't matter though.  The question is whether it is a good idea to convolute to large categories (vegetarians and citizens of various nations) to create a tangled web of categories that have many instances when many of the resulting subcategories apply to the same individual. Rangek (talk) 15:29, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Apologies - it was intended re cfd rather than ad hom. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 15:53, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep - per my comments at the first CFD and at the second CFD. Otto4711 (talk) 16:13, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * None of the arguments you make there address the issue at hand, namely the merging of the subcats. I totally agree that vegetarianism is worthy of categorization.  I am merely suggesting that convoluting it with nationality is not the best thing to do. Rangek (talk) 17:36, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Categories become less useful the larger they are and when entries start numbering near or in the thousands the category needs to be broken down. Yes, in certain exceptional cases like Albert Einstein that may mean the person gets categorized in more than one nationality subcat. The vast majority of people will only be in one. Otto4711 (talk) 18:44, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. Subdividing by nationality has the advantage of linking these people into the Category:People by nationality schemes via their vegetarianism. Some see this as "convoluted"; others see it as a helpful means of navigation. I'm in the latter group. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:19, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * keep there is nothing in WP standards or guidelines that says lots of categories are bad. And in this and similar cases, having categories by nationality means that the category can belong to the individual country's people category and readers can find this material down that pathway.  This is obviously not possible with world-wide undifferentiated categories. Hmains (talk) 02:26, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * keep the article in question tags albert as an american, german, and swiss physicist, jew, pacifist, and vegetarian. Why target the vegetarian category as the bad one?


 * 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:Formerly stateless persons

 * 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:Stateless persons. Kbdank71 16:57, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


 * formerly stateless persons


 * Nominator's rationale: Over categorization of a by definition ephemeral characteristic. Rangek (talk) 14:15, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Merge to Category:Stateless persons following normal categorization rules. We don't have former congressmen, prisoners of war etc cats. Johnbod (talk) 14:21, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Merge to Category:Stateless persons per Johnbod. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 15:23, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge per Johnbod. --Soman (talk) 22:14, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * merge per Johnbod. Finding good solutions is an art; deleting items is a null. Hmains (talk) 02:34, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge - overcategorization. Maralia (talk) 02:58, 9 May 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:Polytheists

 * 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. Kbdank71 16:59, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


 * polytheists


 * Suggest deletion
 * Nominator's rationale: Category is insanely broad. Currently only contains a few random, arbitrary ancient Romans, but should include pretty much all ancient Greek and Roman biographical entries, ancient Egyptians, Sumerians, Babylonians, Yoruba, Aztec, Norse, &c., as well as all present and past Hindus. Ford MF (talk) 13:53, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom, partly because quite a few of the groups he lists were not all polytheists, but most were, & sorting them out is waaay too complicated for a category scheme. Johnbod (talk) 14:23, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: This category would not include Hindus or any other people for whom there is a more accurate religious description, just like how "People from Hanover" don't have to be in the "People from Europe" category. It would only include Polytheists who don't fit into another category.  I throw the question back to you all of whether this category would make sense regardless. --M @ r ē ino 13:37, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Why wouldn't it include Hindu people (in sub-cats)? Most Hindus are more polytheist than Julius Caesar, who gave every sign of being an atheist. Johnbod (talk) 03:05, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * In sub-cats, yes. But as a general rule, articles shouldn't go in a category if another category more accurately describes the article.  So while Hindus are polytheist, if you had to choose one word to describe the religious affiliation of your average orthodox Indian, you'd pick "Hindu", not polytheist, just as you'd be quicker to call the average Italian a Catholic rather than the less descriptive "monotheist."  --M @ r ē ino 20:33, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I was envisaging (for the sake of argument) putting this category as a parent of the head "Hindu people" cat; that is how categories work. To take your other example above: Category:People from Hanover is in (eventually) Category:German people which of course is in Category:European people (which of course contains no actual people itself).

Johnbod (talk) 23:47, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Then let's put the "Hindu" example aside. I'd like to hear how you'd deal with the fact that this category would have to contain, in the absence of other evidence, virtually all ancient Greeks and Romans?  (There's no alternative Hindu-esque category for Classical spirituality.)  Ford MF (talk) 23:25, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Again, this would be not in itself be a problem, by adding existing cats, if all these people were actually polytheists. But they weren't. Johnbod (talk) 23:47, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, that's kinda what I meant, too. Classical civilization was largely polytheistic, but we have very little information on the spiritual habits of specific people, making inclusion in the category largely an arbitrary matter (which is borne out by the currently arbitrary state of the cat itself).  Ford MF (talk) 23:56, 8 May 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:Sexually transmitted infections

 * 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 both to Category:Sexually transmitted diseases and infections. This addresses the fluid nature of the changing common usage of the subject. It avoids any confusion on what should or should not be in each category.  This also addresses the concerns of the oppose comments that the two are not the same so the proposed merge would have been misleading by th category name. This rename also standardizes the naming, or grouping, in the template which appears to have consensus. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:06, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Suggest merging Category:Sexually transmitted infections to Category:Sexually transmitted diseases
 * Nominator's rationale: These categories cover exactly the same topic. Because the main article is titled "diseases", (note the link to sexually transmitted infections is a redirect), the category should be also. LyrlTalk C 11:39, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Merge per nom as largely duplicative material. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:20, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Infection and disease are not the same thing.  Sexually transmitted infection (STI) includes infections that do not cause diseases in most infected individuals (i.e. do not have any signs or symptoms or impaired function).  For instance, Human papillomaviruss (HPV) are STIs, but they do not usually cause a disease (80% or more of people in US get HPV infections, but in only a small percentage of individuals do they cause signs, symptoms or diseases - warts, various cancers.)  Just because STI and STD are covered in the same article does not make them the same thing (as the article states).  Some references extend the definition of STD to include infections, others distinguish between them.
 * Instead of merging, if we want to combine the categories, suggest make sexually transmitted diseases a subcategory of Sexually transmitted infections. That would reduce the duplication (items in STI that are also STD could be moved to STD) and would seem to more accurately reflect the relation between the two terms as given in the article on STD/STI. Zodon (talk) 00:33, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * If keeping the distinction between the two is seen as important, then the category–subcategory suggestion by Zodon seems sensible to me. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:25, 7 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment Making STI a higher-level category does not make sense to me with the current article name; why would a general article on a topic be named for a specific subtype of the conditions it covers? While I agree STI is the more inclusive term, and would have no issues with renaming the category to STI, the article rename should come first.  If the consensus on the article is that STD is the more appropriate generic term, the category name should follow that convention also. LyrlTalk C 14:59, 7 May 2008 (UTC)


 * The terminology is changing. STD is the older term.  STI the newer.  Some places one finds STD defined as STIs.  The article name reflects the older term.  The article name may change at some point when somebody feels motivated to edit the hundreds of pages that refer to it (i.e. even if there is consensus for change, there is considerable technical inertia).  If there is agreement here that the category STI encompasses category STD, then why get caught up in discussing/mechanical problems of naming the article.  The article also discusses an even more general category of sexually transmissible diseases as well.  If there was a category for such diseases, should the article have to be named for the broadest category it covers? Should the category be prohibited because it doesn't have an article with that name?
 * The article is restricted to having one main name, so it has to favor some POV on naming. Since multiple categorizations are possible, it is not necessary to impose that POV on the categorization, so why restrict the categories because of a technical limitation of the naming system. (Not saying article shouldn't be renamed, but not clear that the category names have to follow from name of main article.)
 * While I still favor subcategorization, if merging is decided on, the category name could follow the example of this template template:Sexually transmitted diseases and infections, and use both terms.
 * Procedural/technical note on this change proposal - there seems to have been an error someplace in the notification process. The box indicating this merger proposal on the STI category has a typo in the name of the STD template (missing the s).  Also (maybe thus), there is no notification of this proposal on the STDs category (nor on the talk pages of most of the items in that category). I put a notification on the STD talk page, but don't know how to fix the problem in general. Zodon (talk) 18:05, 8 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Just to clarify, I would go along with any of these options:

Zodon (talk) 18:04, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Making Sexually transmitted diseases a subcategory of Sexually transmitted infections.
 * Merging the categories to Sexually transmitted infections (with Sexually transmitted diseases as a redirect).
 * Merging the categories and calling it Sexually transmitted diseases and infections or Sexually transmitted infections and diseases. With both the other names as redirects.


 * I support Zodon's suggestion of using both "infections" and "diseases" in the category name. Maybe use the order "diseases and infections" to be consistent with the template Zodon pointed out? LyrlTalk C 12:31, 17 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose diseases should be a sub of infections. gidonb (talk) 02:25, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge the terms have become interchangeable with "infections" being preferable (as per above). Cavenba (talk • contribs) 11:02, 21 May 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.

Cat:Anglo-Indians, etc.

 * 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:Anglo-Africans to Category:African people of British descent and Category:South African people of British descent to Category:Anglo-South African people, leave Category:Anglo-Indians alone but needs cleanup. Angus McLellan  (Talk) 09:25, 26 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Propose renaming


 * Category:Anglo-Indians to Category:Anglo-Indian people
 * Category:Anglo-Africans to Category:Anglo-African people
 * Category:Anglo-South Africans to Category:Anglo-South African people
 * Nominator's rationale: a few more ethnicity cat pages not included in the April 20 nomination to rename subcat pages of Category:People by race or ethnicity Mayumashu (talk)


 * No, not that. As several previous discussions have confirmed, all these X-Y names are confusing, with a few exceptions, most Foo-american type names.  We should:
 * Rename Category:Anglo-Africans to Category:African people of British descent.
 * Rename Category:Anglo-South Africans to Category:South African people of British descent

The Anglo-Indian are more complicated. Really the name should arguably be restricted to descendents of the mixed-race community in India under the British who are the subject of the article. Nearly everyone else, like Zuleikha Robinson, Nasser Hussain and Sarita Choudhury, should be in Category:British people of Indian descent, of which it should be a sub-cat. Category:Indian Britons should be merged to that too. Also the category contains people living in India, like Frank Anthony, Roger Binny, Leslie Claudius although most live in Britain. Ideally the cat should be split to reflect this. The Rename per nom is an improvement anyway. There are some, like Rory Cochrane (American, part Indian), or Katrina Kaif (Indian, with Indian parents with British citizenship), who don't seem to belong here at all. Johnbod (talk) 18:30, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with everything you say about Anglo-Indian, and that "Indian Britons" should be merged into "British people of Indian descent". Anglo-African however constitutes an ethnic group that it, like Category:Afrikaner people, Category:Acadian people, etc. deserves its own category page (as it has its own article page) and that a list of Anglo-Africans is not merely a list Africans of British descent.  some Anglo-Africans have Huguenot, Polish, German, or other (European) ancestry - that inclusion is based as much on the linguistic element of their culture, their being first-language English-speakers Mayumashu (talk) 22:42, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Won't my name accomplish that? Anglo-African is not nearly as well established a term as Anglo-Indian (apart from usually meaning something different), and I don't think it's clear enough for a category. Africans of European descent would be ok too. Johnbod (talk) 00:32, 30 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete subjective POV race/ethnicity categories, suffering the same problems that most of these do. What X% of British descent must one be? Why that choice? What RSes will tell us that the person is such X%? What makes that person inherently different than someone X+1% or X-1% descent? And are we only tracing the maternal line because we have no RS to assume any child was fathered by the purported father absent DNA evidence or Wikipedians' own WP:OR. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:00, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * "suffering the same problem that most of these do". but not all? I thought till now that you wanted to get rid wikip of all cat pages listing one's ethnicity or national origin. as for doubt one may have over a particular person's paternal lineage, challenges come down to the providing of sources.  Mayumashu (talk) 06:39, 2 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WoohookittyWoohoo! 10:12, 6 May 2008 (UTC) --WoohookittyWoohoo! 10:12, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I oppose the banket addition of the suffix people where this is not abolutely necessary. "Anglo-Indians" should remain as it is.  This is a sort of ethnic group characterised by descent from both English (here including Irish, Scottish etc - exceptionally) and Indian ancestors, usually as a result of British soldiers marrying Indian women.  For the rest support Johnbod.  Peterkingiron (talk) 23:15, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * besides in the case of French, Dutch, English, and Irish, where there is no apparent plural noun form of the word, when is adding people ever necessary? As it is 95% of nationalities and ethnic groups list people on category pages by adding people - why hold on the last 5%? (or contrarily, nominate the 95% for rename with 'people' dropped) Mayumashu (talk) 04:28, 9 May 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:Bionicle characters

 * 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. Kbdank71 17:02, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


 * bionicle characters


 * Nominator's rationale: Only one article in the category, and its not a Bionicle character. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 05:45, 6 May 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 from Estevan, Saskatchewan

 * 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. Vegaswikian (talk) 09:27, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:People from Estevan, Saskatchewan to Category:People from Estevan
 * Nominator's rationale: I created a new category Category:People from Estevan, Saskatchewan to matched the main article. I check the discussion page, A user has made the requested move, Estevan for it's new main article title, And I check the Estevan disambiguation page, It is also linked Estevan in a new main article title. This category is proposing for renaming to match the main article Estevan. This category must be renamed to match the main article. Steam5 (talk) 04:28, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. We're going to remove the province for the eighth-largest city in Saskatchewan, which has a population of 10,000 in a province of barely 1 million people? No, I think keeping the province is entirely reasonable here as the chances that anyone knows where "Estevan" is without the province listed is probably quite low. I think the name of the city without any further information should be reserved for those places that are unique and unquestionably easy to locate without the extra locator. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:09, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * And where do people come across the category without knowing it's in Saskatchewan? Its parent is Category:People by city in Saskatchewan. Double Blue  (Talk) 04:02, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure why Good Olfactory believes that the size of the municipality is relevant here. The Canadian naming conventions are not based on population (and a suggestion to do so a couple of years ago never went anywhere).  The proposed move is consistent with WP:CANSTYLE. Skeezix1000 (talk) 11:52, 7 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I think WP:OWN comes in here. A place with 10,000 inhabitants would not even be a town in many countries. (Somewhere between large village and small town in the UK, with 1 or 2 exceptions. Milton Keynes, 185,000, has applied for city status many times without success.) -- roundhouse0 (talk) 13:11, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how pointing out the relevant naming convention is a case of WP:OWN. I'm not sure why that accusation was necessary.  In any event, not sure what town status, and different standards in different countries, has to do with the issue at end.  As for the example you used, its Category:People from Milton Keynes, not Category:People from Milton Keynes, Buckinghamshire or Category:People from Milton Keynes, England.Skeezix1000 (talk) 20:55, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * A place with a registered population of just one can still be undisambiguated if its name is unique. Whether it's a city or a town is irrelevant, and there's no population cutoff involved in whether a place goes at "City" or "City, Province". Bearcat (talk) 19:36, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Good arguments for changing the name of the article. Not so much for a category, barring slavish dedication to the principle of "consistency". Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:26, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Why not? If it's a good argument for the article, why isn't it a good argument for the category? Why the distinction? And it isn't a case if "slavish dedication to consistency" when its actually the relevant naming convention that says that the article and category should both refer to the place by the same name. Skeezix1000 (talk) 20:55, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Why not? Because categories are not articles and articles are not categories, and both operate and are used differently. For instance, articles can easily have hard redirects, categories cannot. I thought the distinctions were self evident. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:21, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment - A user has made the requested move to main article title Estevan. There is no other Canadian cities also named Estevan, it's the only city in Saskatchewan. This category must be renamed. Steam5 (talk) 18:36, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I understood that; I don't think it should (much less "must") be renamed for the above reasons. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:17, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Either a place needs to be disambiguated from other places with the same name, or it doesn't. That's the only valid criterion for deciding whether the title of this article should be Estevan or Estevan, Saskatchewan; the size or fame of the place is irrelevant if the name is unique. Bearcat (talk) 04:42, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Good arguments for changing the name of the article. Not so much for a category, barring slavish dedication to the principle of "consistency". Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:26, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * You can repeat this statement as many times as you want, as you have done verbatim above, but it still begs the question: if it's a good argument for the article, why isn't it a good argument for the category? In any event, I'm not sure why Bearcat's argument represents a "slavish dedication to the principe of consistency", as you put it -- you'll have to explain that a lot further, as Bearcat has simply taken a position consistent with the naming convention.  having regard to applicable conventions and guidelines is not inappropriate.  Skeezix1000 (talk) 21:00, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * See response above. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:34, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


 * The generally accepted principle on Wikipedia is that city-specific categories should be named in the title format that matches the city's article. If the city's undabbed (i.e. "Estevan"), then the category should be "People from Estevan", and if it's dabbed then the category should be "People from Estevan, Saskatchewan". Bearcat (talk) 16:18, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Can't consensus change? If there's consensus that a DAB would be helpful on the category name, there's no reason it can't be different than the article name. This has happened in CFDs in the past, and quite recently. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:50, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure but why do we need a dab on the category name if none is needed for the article? There is no ambiguity in the category People from Estevan. Double Blue  (Talk) 02:43, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * See my comments above. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:49, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * You didn't actually answer his question above. Just a vague suggestion that categories should be treated differently than articles.  Skeezix1000 (talk) 20:55, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Not immediately above. Way above. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:18, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

*Keep per GoodOlf, or perhaps upmerge this rather small category to Category:People from Saskatchewan. (Blair Atcheynum is in a breath-taking number of categories, and not a single expat/descent/fooian-barian one, tho' there is scope for a plethora of these.) -- roundhouse0 (talk) 01:34, 7 May 2008 (UTC) [Abstain - on reflection I really don't want every small place to have to have a disamb term added.] -- roundhouse0 (talk) 13:24, 17 May 2008 (UTC)]
 * See my reply above. Double Blue  (Talk) 05:54, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I can certainly imagine cases where it might be necessary to apply a different sort of disambiguation standard to the category name than we apply to the associated article title. I just don't see what would make this one of those cases. Bearcat (talk) 19:36, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I would just point out that Estevan was moved a month ago, in accordance with WP:RM. Skeezix1000 (talk) 11:59, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Why on earth would we upmerge a city category back to its provincial parent? The provincial categories are ideally supposed to only contain subcategories, and no individual people at all. Bearcat (talk) 04:49, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed with Bearcat. That makes no sense.  Skeezix1000 (talk) 11:52, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - You should've pay attention to the main article, Estevan and pay attention to the Estevan talk page that the user has made the requested move. And the category and main article should match. Steam5 (talk) 02:16, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * keep All city categories and artciles in all countries should include their state, province, country etc so that readers can, on sight, have some idea what the category is about. This is notwithstanding any 'request' to do something different.  Hmains (talk) 02:41, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * That ship sailed years ago. If you seriously think you're going to get anybody to agree to move London to London, England, or Paris to Paris, France, give me ten minutes to go make some popcorn to snack on while I watch the fireworks. Bearcat (talk) 04:44, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - It's about Category:People from Estevan, Saskatchewan and it should rename to match the main article, Estevan, check the talk page on Estevan. Steam5 (talk) 04:46, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * All I can say is that Hmains's comment is inconsistent with Wikipedia naming conventions for most countries in the world, and in particular is contrary to WP:CANSTYLE. Hmains's unilateral move of the Estevan article was also quite inappropriate. Skeezix1000 (talk) 11:52, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Rename as per nom, Naming conventions (settlements), WP:CANSTYLE, and Talk:Estevan (disambiguation). Double Blue  (Talk) 03:59, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - User:Hmains has move from Estevan to Estevan, Saskatchewan, and I start a new discussion at the talk page. I wanted to keep the main article title Estevan, Saskatchewan. an no users made requested moves. The discussion is located at Talk:Estevan, Saskatchewan. It's gotta be kept. Steam5 (talk) 04:32, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Rename. The move is consistent with WP:CANSTYLE, which clearly states:' "Dedicated city categories should always be named with the same title format as the city's main article. That is, if the article is at Toronto, then use "Toronto" rather than "Toronto, Ontario" in category names, but if it's at Regina, Saskatchewan, then name the related categories in the format "Regina, Saskatchewan" rather than "Regina".'  This is how categories across Wikipedia work (e.g. Category:People from Olsztyn or Category:People from London).  The "keep" votes seem to be based either on made-up criteria, or represent an inappropriate attempt at imposing the U.S. settlement naming convention (and the endless debate that surrounds that convention) on articles pertaining to other countries.  Skeezix1000 (talk) 11:52, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Rename The main article is already at Estevan (through a valid requested move), so this should be really uncontroversial. Remember, us Canadians are weird because we actually agree to remove unneeded qualifications from page titles without really caring if it upsets "consistency" or whatever rational is used lately. -Royalguard11 (T·R!) 16:22, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * "Us Canadians"? "Unneeded qualifications"? Wha? I'm Canadian, and I certainly think it's ridiculous to suggest that using "Estevan" alone removes an "unneeded qualification". There is certainly no "universal consensus" for that view, regardless of what the style guidelines (and yes, they are guidelines, not "rules") say. By all means feel free to give your own opinions and cite guidelines, but let's not start making claims on behalf of groups of people. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:22, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:CANSTYLE. Read it, understand it, then tell us what we're violating. -Royalguard11 (T·R!) 21:51, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I didn't ever say you were violating anything in WP:CANSTYLE. I said they are guidelines, not "rules", and that they don't necessarily reflect the approach of all "us Canadian" editors. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:33, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Naming conventions, by their very nature, are just that - conventions. As with guidelines, there can be exceptions where there is good reason to do so.  It's fine to suggest that naming conventions and guidelines are not rules or policies - that's absolutely true.  But you need to take it a step further and explain why in this case we should deviate from the convention and established practice.   In this case, the naming convention is quite clear that the category should match the article, but you haven't supplied any substantive reasons why we should have an exception for this category. First, you suggested that Estevan's population was too small, but Wikipedia naming practices for most countries do not rely on population thresholds.  What is different about Estevan that we should apply a population threshold here, but not at, say Category:People from Alnwick?  Why should the practice be revisited in this case?  If you think it should be revisited across Wikipedia, then this isn't really the place for that discussion.  You then suggested that non-disambiguated place names should be reserved for unique place names and places that are "unquestionably easy to locate", but Estevan is a unique place name and you haven't explained how a highly subjective test such as "unquestionably easy to locate" could work.  You subsequently stated that the naming conventions represented "good arguments" for changing the name of the article, but not for changing the name of the category, but failed to provide any explanation why there should be a distinction between articles and categories.  You then alluded that the disambiguated title was "helpful", but again it's not clear how a highly subjective criteria such as that would be properly applied.   Skeezix1000 (talk) 20:55, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, I don't "need to take it a step further" beyond exactly the point of how far I want to take it. If you don't understand what I say or are unsatisfied with it or are unconvinced by it (which you don't, are, and are, judging by your comments) that's fine with me and I'm not sure if it's necessary for you to announce that and expect an answer. But hey — whatever floats thy boat; you seem to have a lot invested in this, but frankly, I've said what I've wanted to say. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:29, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * You must have missed the memo; that is the approach we're taking. At any rate, the page has already been moved after a discussion determined there was consensus to move. The category should be moved to reflect that. -Royalguard11 (T·R!) 20:40, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I think "we" (meaning the WP community, not just a select number of Canadian editors) will take whatever approach is reached by consensus in ongoing discussions, such as this one. Sorry if you missed the memo on that one about how WP works. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:23, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Read here. You'll see that this is becoming the new standard in Canada. -Royalguard11 (T·R!) 16:00, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the ref; yes, I've read it and similar info is found in CANSTYLE. I still think individual situations are subject to overall consensus as determined in discussion, though, and that such a discussion as applied to a specific case can override any standard or general policy. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:23, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

(deindenting) But does it not make sense for the page and any related categories to follow the same convention? The article is at Estevan, so the category should follow suit and also move to the new name then. -Royalguard11 (T·R!) 16:16, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I don't dispute that "it makes sense" in that it's one argument in favour of the rename. But there are other factors to consider as well, as discussed above. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:34, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I apologize for "change my mind" and "eagered", I will confirm my change of the category is rename. Steam5 (talk) 00:02, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Rename per nom and DoubleBlue. gidonb (talk) 02:28, 19 May 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:Economy of Arizona

 * 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.  Wizardman  00:27, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * economy of arizona


 * Nominator's rationale: If you look at the contents of the category is appears to be nothing more then a catch all for anything that has an effect on the economy of the state, no matter how minor. As used, this becomes a category without any clearly identify defining characteristic as to the economy of the target place. Some examples of this lack of defining characteristic for the state include: Category:Arizona wine; Toll Brothers; Wells Fargo which would by usage here need to be included in all 50 states and who knows how many countries; Albertsons LLC; Associated Food Stores; Safeway Inc.; and Smith's Food and Drug. When a home builder leaves a state, are they dropped from this category?  This is a trial nomination.  Based on what consensus develops, there may be one or more mass nominations at a later date.  Vegaswikian (talk) 00:19, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * While nominated for deletion, I am open to other solutions to the problem. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:37, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Categories of this type are perfectly valid, as far as I'm concerned. They should simply be cleaned up if they're being used for something not suitable — while it's obviously kind of OCAT in this particular instance, Wells Fargo is filed in 22 of them at once. Take a few things out of the category, sure, but keep.
 * (looks like user:Bearcat forgot to sign :) Grutness...wha?  02:44, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


 * keep as part of a series of 50 such categories, one for each of the 50 states. Deleting everything a person does not like is no solution to anything.  Improve WP, not delete it.  Hmains (talk) 02:48, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep but ruthlessly prune the Wells Fargos, Bankcorps and Safeways. The subcats seem ok -it is a dozen or so nation-wide firms in the main cat that are the problem. But Smith's Food and Drug and Albertsons LLC each only operate in 7 states, and I had never heard of them. I think that is just about ok. What is wrong with the wine sub-cat? Johnbod (talk) 13:58, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The issue with the wine cat is that its impact is not defining on the economy since it is so small. Kind of the same problem with the Smith's Food and Drug and Albertsons LLC.  Not being based there they provide a service but their affect on the economy is minimal.  Any profits flow out of the state.  You could argue that the wages stay in the state, but then it does not matter who owns the stores since they will exist. The specific owner does not affect the economy of the state. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:24, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * If we start demanding that all sub-cats are defining for all parent cats, that is a big change in the ground rules. Most big trees would break down. Johnbod (talk) 02:27, 7 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep - can't the national ones be moved up to Category:Economy of the United States (or higher in some cases, eg Coca Cola)? -- roundhouse0 (talk) 16:38, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * They are all no doubt there already by sub-cats like Category:Companies of the United States, of which this is a sub-cat. Johnbod (talk) 16:47, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


 * comment we have categories named 'Companies based in foo-state' for each US state, but this does not cover all companies involved with a state. Would categories named 'Companies doing business in foo-state' be helpful here to encompass these other companies in a state as well as its 'Companies based in foo-state' cat?  Hmains (talk) 21:12, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * To serve what purpose? Doing that would add 50 or more categories to many company articles.  If you consider that we have companies based in cities, then this could expand to companies doing business in cities.  How many categories would WalMart be in?  Vegaswikian (talk) 21:33, 11 May 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.