Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 July 20



Category:Historical sources on Alexander the Great

 * 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 with the note that it appears all three keeps were from the same editor. Listify made a case, but since most of the information already exists in Historical Alexander the Great, the list basically exists. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:32, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * historical sources on alexander the great


 * Category:Historians whose work on Alexander the Great has been lost (added at 21 JUL 23:21 UTC)
 * Nominator's rationale: Delete. An overly Alexander-centric category. The sources in the category are not notable exclusively for being sources on the life of Alexander the Great. We don't categorize sources by person because they happen to mention that person. Some of the articles included are persons, and we certainly don't categorize historians by people they mention in their written works. The subcategories are also somewhat suspect, though I'm not sure what to propose there. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:08, 20 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep:
 * Agree, not notably exclusive. But, that distinction is irrelevant. These are major sources on Alexander and that distinction is relevant. For example, Plutarch is a major source on numerous historical persons. That he does not treat any exclusively is of no consequence whatever.
 * Agree, we don't categorize historians by people they (only) mention. But, that is irrelevant. This is a categorization of Alexander, not of the historians. These are major sources on Alexander.
 * Rationale about the "suspect" is unelucidated and admittedly unclear. We do not delete on "suspicions."
 * Conclusion. Alexander is a major historical figure. It is very useful to the interested public to know the historical sources of his life and times. The rationale for deletion does not provide reasons that are to the point. Ergo keep and expand the category.Dave (talk) 10:04, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I think you misunderstood much of what I wrote. For one, this is not a "categorization of Alexander", it is a categorization of articles about historians and historical sources. We don't categorize historians or historical sources by people for whom the historians or works are sources for, major or otherwise. Second, the subcategories are not nominated; I was just commenting that they were probably not appropriate categories (they have disappeared from the category since the creator has moved them around). Finally, see WP:USEFUL. Good Ol’factory (talk) 10:13, 24 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Instead of "categorization of Alexander", plug in "categorization of articles about Alexander." Doesn't change the argument. In general the point is categories and articles are to be treated differently and your arguments although they might or might not apply to articles do not apply to categories. Anyway I took a hand as requested. I'm getting back to articles. There are now two points of view on the boards. I favor diversity. There is no "right way" to categorize. So, I have no problem with any of you doing as you see fit. I suggest MORE categorization. Ciao.Dave (talk) 10:59, 24 July 2009 (UTC)


 * An example of categorization of sources on Alexander the Great Catalographer (talk) 06:16, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Elucidation. Information about ancient people is often legendary or of questionable authenticity. An evaluation of sources is often required. Such evaluation is a generally accepted genre.Dave (talk) 10:04, 24 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Category: Lost works which presumably includes also names of authors. A whole wiki-article on a lost work of a reported author by a secondary source is needless. Catalographer (talk) 06:47, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Partial agreement, such an article may well be useless. However, the deletion request does not concern articles but is about a category. The articles would not be deleted but recategorized. Ergo the criticism is irrelevant.
 * To change the subject, none of the articles in this category are primarily about a lost work of a reported author by a secondary source. The topics are more general, the authors are not reported ones but are ones, and often they are not secondary sources but primary ones. Ergo the criticism is misdirected as well as irrelevant.
 * Ancient authors generally worked in libraries evaluating previous authors on their topic. They were influenced by and often plagiarized those authors. It is very useful to the interested public to know who wrote about the topic and what he wrote. The influence might be assessed or a copy identified. Ergo keep and expand this subcategory.Dave (talk) 10:04, 24 July 2009 (UTC)


 * About the other sub-category: separating the legendary Alexander from the historical by Ian Worthington. Catalographer (talk) 06:52, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * A category: Contemporary Historians of.. is included in the Lost works and a category : Ancient Historians on... would exclude Babylonian chronicles and Book of Arda Viraf the oriental sources Catalographer (talk) 06:58, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nominator, together will all its subcategories. Debresser (talk) 08:57, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep and expandDave (talk) 10:42, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Medieval Alexander Project, Alexander the Great: General Sources of University of Rochester. All the categories exist also in the main article Alexander the Great Catalographer (talk) 09:36, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Now all the works are listed with their names not the names of the authors Catalographer (talk) 10:18, 21 July 2009 (UTC)


 * and the new title of the subcatecory is Historians whose work on Alexander the Great has been lost Catalographer (talk) 11:55, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Since there is an article Indo-Greeks (sources) why not Alexander the Great (sources) and categorization of them? Catalographer (talk) 10:26, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd say, delete that one too! Debresser (talk) 21:22, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The recommendation to change the name is based on the implied argument that names can go in only if they are like other names. Such a rationale is false. Wikipedia can never expand under it. Despite its faults Wikipedia relies on the inventive presentations of its contributors. This inventiveness is not original research but is a presentational or communicative inventiveness and therefore is a necessary asset. The argument is false; ergo, keep the name as is.Dave (talk) 10:42, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

the same thing under other titles


 * Historicity of the Iliad
 * Historicity of Jesus
 * Historical Jesus
 * Josephus on Jesus
 * Historical basis for King Arthur
 * Legendary Dukes of Cornwall Catalographer (talk) 07:15, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Those are articles, not categories. I think the articles are probably fine, but not corresponding categories. Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:18, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Alexander and Caesar
 * Anabasis Alexandri
 * Alexander Chronicle
 * Bibliotheca historica
 * Book of Arda Viraf
 * Historiae Alexandri Magni
 * Indica (Arrian)
 * On the Fortune or the Virtue of Alexander the Great
 * These articles are so important to the proper assessment of ancient information that I would say, if we are going to delete them, let Wikipedia delete all the articles on ancient history and not presume to dabble in it. The topics will keep coming up because a major part of ancient lore is the assessment of its historical validity. Keep the alexandrine category and keep all these articles as well.Dave (talk) 10:42, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

From all this only Bibliotheca historica and Book of Arda Viraf are not 100% corresponding categories Catalographer (talk) 07:23, 23 July 2009 (UTC) which can become Book of Arda Viraf on Alexander the Great and Bibliotheca historica on Alexander the Great Catalographer (talk) 07:28, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Listify and Delete to start User:Catalographer's proposed article. Imagine how many of these categories we could have and these should probably be in the main article, but let's see what Catalographer comes up with as a stand alone attempt. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:25, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. The creator has now inappropriately re-jiggered things mid-discussion and has created Category:Historians whose work on Alexander the Great has been lost, which essentially has the same problems as the originally nominated category. I've added this new one to the nomination. The subcategories have also disappeared from listing in the originally-nominated category. (Perhaps someone could have a word with the creator about not doing these kinds of changes mid-discussion. I would do it, except I am the nominator so maybe not the best party to try from a "neutrality" standpoint.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:21, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You are right. This new category, as well as all (previous) subcategories, are all included in my delete. Debresser (talk) 21:22, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Side recommendation: Keep all the categories and add more. Wikipedia in my opinion is so short of categories that I can never find the right ones when I work on articles. There is no limitation of the number of categories. Categories are different from articles. There are and should be many ways to view an article. It is not necessary therefore to constantly combine categories. Make all the categories we choose. They are not mutually exclusive.Dave (talk) 10:42, 24 July 2009 (UTC)


 * A survey of the ancient literature on Alexander would actually be good; although it should probably be an article, not a category, so we can distinguish the Alexander Romance from Arrian. Is there any intention of completing the cat, so it includes Plutarch or Diodorus? if not, it doesn't strike me as very useful. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:39, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Articles are not categories. We are not faced with an "either/or" choice. Categiries can be numerous and multiple and lead into the topic from many points of view. Articles are somewhat restricted. The philosophy of articles therefore cannot be applied to categories. A category is an index entry. In the index we can have many "see also."Dave (talk) 10:42, 24 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Listify and delete -- The resultant list should ultimately be converted to the suggested article surveying the sources on Alexander. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:23, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete the Categories. Here is the article Sources on Alexander the Great Catalographer (talk) 07:23, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree, such an article would be a great thing. However, this discussion is not primarily about article development, but about the use of categories and in particular whether the Alexander categories need to be changed, combined or deleted. Keep all categories.Dave (talk) 10:42, 24 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete now we have the article (which could be renamed). Noter also Category:Historians who accompanied Alexander the Great with 10 members, not integrated here. Johnbod (talk) 15:56, 25 July 2009 (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:Executed people by Alexander the Great

 * 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 per nomination and undo the out of process moves during the discussion. Having said that, new subcategories can be created under the new parent if appropiate. Clearly the out of process changes require this unorthodox close. The close would have been easier without this extra drama, but all that aside, there is consensus for the new name of this category. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:47, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Executed people by Alexander the Great to Category:People executed by Alexander the Great
 * Nominator's rationale: Rename. Reword per English grammar. (Perhaps as a better solution, we may want to consider a rename to, , or , since the people weren't literally executed by Alexander, but just by the state under his orders. E.g., it's , not .) Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:33, 20 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Cleitus the Black, Caranus (son of Philip), Amyntas IV of Macedon were killed by Alexander himself. and here is the main Category:Executed people Catalographer (talk) 06:29, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * What about the Category:Conspirators against Alexander I added alleged or real ; category Somatophylakes two of them did not serve Alexander, which is mentioned. So we can add a clarification about who was killed by Alexander himself, by a third-person under his orders or through judicial procedure. Catalographer (talk) 07:15, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Adolf Hitler and Third Reich are synonymous entities. Stalin and Soviet Union, Alexander and Macedonia, Caesar and Rome are not.Catalographer (talk) 07:42, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Rename per nominator. Disagree with the last comment from Catalographer. His rational is probably that the Third Reich stood only while Hitler was alive, not like Rome, Macedonia and the Soviet Union which existed before and after Ceasar, Alexander and Stalin. Still that is not enough of an argument in this context. Debresser (talk) 08:56, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Most of the cases are conspiracies, related personally to Alexander. Moreover I have not heard of any person killed by the hands or the gun of Adolf himself Catalographer (talk) 11:19, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * In the modern legal and state context it may sound unfamiliar, but in the ancient context it is the exact wording.Catalographer (talk) 10:04, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think they spoke English in the ancient context. Good Ol’factory (talk) 10:19, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I am not referring to People executed or Executed peopleCatalographer (talk) 10:30, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I mean this The king(Βασιλεύς, Basileús) headed the central administration: he led the kingdom from its capital, Pella, and in his royal palace was conserved the state's archive. He was helped in carrying out his work by the Royal Secretary (βασιλικὸς γραμματεύς, basilikós grammateús), whose work was of primary importance, and by the Council.The king was commander of the army, head of the Macedonian religion, and director of diplomacy. Also, only he could conclude treaties Treaties were normally made in the king's name alone.Catalographer (talk) 10:53, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Alternative solution : People executed during the reign of Alexander the Great Catalographer (talk) 10:12, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Rename per nom. The current name suggests that Alexander made some people, and someone executed them. Jafeluv (talk) 10:21, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Rename per nom; generally speaking "executed by" connotes "executed under the authority of/at the direction of" not "personally executed by" otherwise Hitler and Stalin executed no-one. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:27, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. The creator appears to have inappropriately pre-empted this discussion by emptying the contents of the nominated category and creating, so this discussion now essentially becomes what to do with the new category. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:16, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. Now the new category was speedily deleted and emptied, and I don't know where the articles are. What a mess! Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:20, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * New location. Has been moved by creator to, and then there's also . Since no one else has apparently spoken with the creator about moving stuff around mid-CFD, I will. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:44, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I apologize for my mistake Catalographer (talk) 07:18, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Rename per nom, Carlos etc. Johnbod (talk) 15:58, 25 July 2009 (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 involved with Shinto

 * 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. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 23:16, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:People involved with Shinto to Category:Shintoists
 * Nominator's rationale: Rename. I propose changing the name of this category to make it a category for "adherents" or "practitioners" of Shinto, rather than the rather loose name and definition that currently exist. I realise that to some extent Shinto is different than some other religions, in that its "adherents" often are adherents of other religions in addition to Shinto. (I'm not even sure if it would be proper to refer to a follower of Shinto as an "adherent".) For these reasons, I've been unsure what exactly would be the proper name for this category. I raised the issue at the Shinto task force but didn't get a response, so I've just decided to propose Shintoists, which is found in OED. Shintos apparently could also be appropriate. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:48, 20 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Support Shintoists, per OED. Personally, I don't like "Shintos", it sounds a bit like "Islams".VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 07:20, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Let's give it a try. Debresser (talk) 08:54, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Support, per OED. User talk:CarlaudeUser talk:Carlaude 14:39, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Support Shintoists i suppose one day we may have enough articles on people associated with shinto (scholars, etc) who are not themselves shintoists, thus requiring an "involved" or "associated" cat, but i suspect this is adequate for now. on a par with buddhists, christians, etc. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 23:02, 21 July 2009 (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:The Rasmus music videos

 * 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. Vegaswikian (talk) 08:11, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * the rasmus music videos


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete. Redundant to Category:The Rasmus songs, as you can't have a music video without a song; also, no other "music video by artist" categories seem to exist. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 19:46, 20 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep – and move to Category:Music videos and DVDs, where many others are to be found. It isn't redundant as one can have a song without a video. Occuli (talk) 21:22, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. That's not what video categories are for. Instead, they are for video collections. See category:U2 videos, for example.--Mike Selinker (talk) 05:38, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * That is Category:Video albums by artist, a different neck of the woods. Occuli (talk) 08:14, 21 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. There are no separate articles for the videos, so it makes no sense to categorize them as videos rather than songs. The category would make sense if there were articles about the music videos themselves. Jafeluv (talk) 11:40, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - in the absence of articles that are specifically about the videos rather than the songs the category is duplicative. Do we even have any articles that are specifically about a music video rather than being an article about the song which includes a section on the video? On a side note, the entire categorization structure for music video and DVD release is a mess and at some point it needs to be addressed. Otto4711 (talk) 23:48, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I addressed this in this umbrella nomination.--Mike Selinker (talk) 03:03, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * We do have some articles specifically about a music video, eg Thriller (music video). We have others with a reasonable section about the related video eg Jaded (Aerosmith song) (which could be categorised more neatly and with less clutter via a redirect from Jaded (music video), or similar, although Otto seems to dislike this method). And I'm sure there are plenty with no mention in the song article of a video, and yet others which have a notable video not mentioned anywhere (eg House of the Rising Sun, Animals version, has a video mentioned in music video and which my son found on Utube and was enthusing about yesterday). Occuli (talk) 11:30, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * As I mentioned in the umbrella nomination, I couldn't find any individual-song-music-video articles other than the Thriller one.--Mike Selinker (talk) 15:17, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying that I don't "like" the method; I'm saying that with the current constitution of the music videos category, dumping a bunch of redirects into it would make a bad situation worse. I also think that the idea should be discussed before implementation and if consensus is to implement it some sort of guidelines should be in place so that every song article that mentions having a video doesn't end up with a redirect. Otto4711 (talk) 21:03, 23 July 2009 (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:Types of running

 * 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 . Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:50, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * types of running


 * Nominator's rationale: Merge to Category:Running. This category does not seem to add anything useful to Category:Running. Category:Running is presumably there to list the 'types' of running.Twiceuponatime (talk) 13:04, 20 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment – there is Category:Types with a number of subcats similar to this one. Perhaps someone will explain why these are useful. Occuli (talk) 16:45, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nominator. And somebody should tackle the other ones in Category:Types as well. Debresser (talk) 08:53, 21 July 2009 (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:New Zealand umpires

 * 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:New Zealand cricket umpires. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 23:18, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * new zealand umpires


 * Nominator's rationale: already Category:New Zealand sports officials and no Category:Umpires Mayumashu (talk) 12:37, 20 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment – there is the large Category:Cricket umpires (with 300+ articles and no subcats) and also Category:New Zealand field hockey umpires, clearly a subcat of this one. I can't see any obvious reason not to form Category:Cricket umpires by nationality, particularly as not many nations play cricket. An upmerge to Category:New Zealand sports officials might a good idea in the meantime. Occuli (talk) 15:29, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Then you ve got baseball umpires too, for ten or so more countries. Does seem a good one to have ultimately Mayumashu (talk) 19:46, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Sounds reasonable to me, too - though I'd point out to Occuli that the ICC has over 100 member countries, so "not many nations play cricket" is perhaps debatable. Grutness...wha?  00:49, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * How many of them have notable umpires? Occuli (talk) 08:12, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Point taken, though there are a number with redlinks in various international cricket competition articles that suggest that quite a few might have at least one. Grutness...wha?  01:05, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep as a reasonable category whose larger structure is at this moment still underdeveloped. Debresser (talk) 08:52, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment it's highly unclear what kind of Umpires this is for, so it needs to be renamed if it is kept. 76.66.192.64 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:52, 22 July 2009 (UTC).
 * Keep and rename as entirely appropriate sub-cat of Category:Cricket umpires, a actegroy with more than 300 members and scope to grow larger. I would also support the creation of Category:Australian cricket umpires, Category:Bangladesh cricket umpires through to Category:West Indies cricket umpires etc. Note that Australia, Bangladesh etc. would not be a nationality category but a category by "cricket board", i.e. Cricket Australia, Bangladesh Cricket Board, West Indies Cricket Board etc.
 * Keep, create Category:New Zealand cricket umpires and reparent the current category. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:44, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Rename to Category:New Zealand cricket umpires to make it obvious that the category is for cricket umpires and not for tennis, field hockey or any other sport. – PeeJay 08:20, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Rename as per above. Seems like a reasonable category, so long as it is made clear that it is for cricket umpires. — AustralianRupert (talk) 10:20, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * What PeeJay/Jay said. --Dweller (talk) 12:44, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Rename as the last few have suggested, if they are all cricket umpires. It should be a subscat of Category:Cricket umpires and Category:New Zealand sports officials.  Peterkingiron (talk) 22:26, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Rename to Category:New Zealand cricket umpires to match other corresponding entries in the parent Category:Cricket umpires. Alansohn (talk) 01:22, 24 July 2009 (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:Canadian sport officials

 * 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. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 23:18, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Suggest merging Category:Canadian sport officials to Category:Canadian sports officials
 * Nominator's rationale: to match all other sub cat pages listed at Category:Sports officials by nationality Mayumashu (talk) 12:31, 20 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Support – seems reasonable. Occuli (talk) 16:36, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Obvious Debresser (talk) 08:50, 21 July 2009 (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:Olympic athletes of Canada

 * 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:  at 2009 JUL 29. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:26, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming


 * Category:Olympic athletes of Canada to Category:Olympic track and field athletes of Canada
 * Category:Olympic athletes of the United States to Category:Olympic track and field athletes of the United States
 * Nominator's rationale: for clarity, as 'athlete' tends to mean any sportsperson in North America Mayumashu (talk) 11:48, 20 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose I'd never be able to find anything if this were the name. For me they are just "Olympic athletes". Debresser (talk) 08:50, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * We do have Category:Canadian soccer players and not Category:Canadian footballers, amongst many others, to suit local language convention Mayumashu (talk) 10:43, 21 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Support as usage in Canada and the US means that these categories as currently named are identical to "xxx Olympians", which is not what they are supposed to categorize. 76.66.192.64 (talk) 03:53, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. We also have Category:Canadian track and field athletes and Category:American track and field athletes.  The difficulty for North Americans to understand that an athlete does athletics and not just any sport is more significant than for a non-North American to not surmise that a 'track and field athlete' means an 'athlete' Mayumashu (talk) 16:56, 26 July 2009 (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:UFC champions

 * 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. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 23:18, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:UFC champions to Category:Ultimate Fighting Championship champions
 * Nominator's rationale: Rename. Expand abbreviation to match parent category and most other related categories. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:28, 20 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Rename as per nom. Mayumashu (talk) 11:50, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Rename per guideline about avoiding abreviations on Naming conventions (categories). Debresser (talk) 08:49, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Support Rename to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 01:33, 24 July 2009 (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:Dragon Magazine covers

 * 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. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 23:18, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Suggest merging Category:Dragon Magazine covers to Category:Fair use magazine covers
 * Nominator's rationale: Not useful. Just tow entries (and actually, just one would do the job). Damiens .rf 02:26, 20 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep – seems an excellent way of subcatting the large and inscrutable Category:Fair use magazine covers (which is perhaps what the nom intends as the target). (If merged, merge also to Category:Dungeons & Dragons images.) Occuli (talk) 09:33, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Not an "excellent way" since most of the Category:XXXXXXX Magazine covers will contain only one entry. This approach would turn Category:Fair use magazine covers from a large and inscrutable collection of images into a large and inscrutable collection of subcategories. --Damiens .rf 22:58, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * But Category:Dragon Magazine covers is wholly scrutable - I expect to find within it covers for Dragon magazines, with names that may or may not be self-apparent. Eg File:Af136.jpg is inscrutable, but would be assisted by being within Category:Amiga Format magazine covers. Occuli (talk) 00:10, 21 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep For magazines were we do have a substantial number of such Fair Use images there should be no controversy connected with maintaining these subcategories, indeed many already exist. __meco (talk) 14:48, 26 July 2009 (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:Fair use BusinessWeek magazine covers

 * 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. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 23:18, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Suggest merging Category:Fair use BusinessWeek magazine covers to Category:Fair use magazine covers
 * Nominator's rationale: Not useful. Just one entry. There's nothing special about Business Week magazine covers in regard to fair usability. Damiens .rf 02:19, 20 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep – an excellent way of subcatting the large and inscrutable Category:Fair use magazine covers (I have added 2 more covers). Images are hardly ever in more than 2 or 3 categories so OCAT does not arise. Going back to first principles, what are the defining characteristics of an image of a BusinessWeek cover? Occuli (talk) 09:44, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per my rationale given above at Category:Dragon Magazine covers. __meco (talk) 14:51, 26 July 2009 (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.