Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 March 21



Category:Brompton bicycle owners

 * 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 12:57, 27 March 2009 (UTC)


 * brompton bicycle owners


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete What make of bicycle someone owns is not natable. Philip Stevens (talk) 20:40, 21 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete – even though there is neither template nor list. I can't offhand think of any owned item that would lend itself to categorisation. 'People by make of fridge' perhaps. Occuli (talk) 20:54, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - the only replacement I could see would be a "Notable owners" section within the Brompton bicycle article. There's no reason to categorise people by such a minor attribute of their life. MatthewVanitas (talk) 03:27, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep ... if we are going to start categorising people by their choice of vehicle or consumer durable, and then start building the intersection categories between former owners of a Brompton bicycle and other such goods, such as Category:Former owners of Brompton bicycles who now own a Sanyo radio but have never owned an Electrolux vacuum cleaner. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:14, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and Occuli. (Sorry, I'm changing my !vote because I forgot its not yet April Fools day). -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:16, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and common sense. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 02:22, 23 March 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:Obelisks in Washington, D.C.

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


 * The result of the discussion was: upmerge. Kbdank71 13:01, 27 March 2009 (UTC)


 * obelisks in washington, d.c.


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete Underpopulated and highly unlikely there will be any new obelisks built here. On a related note, the category includes Jefferson Pier. Is that even considered an obelisk?. If not, the category would include one article (Washington Monument). Category:Obelisks in the United States includes several subcats that are similarly underpopulated (1 or 2 articles each). I think there's a total of 11 ish US-related obelisk articles. IMHO, Category:Obelisks in the United States doesn't need subcats.  APK  How you durrin?  20:08, 21 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. Should be many more obelisks added over time. The Jefferson Pier article says it has an obelisk.  Like this site, there are many parks that have obelisks that will use these cats & it will be populated over time.  FieldMarine (talk) 20:38, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Parks should not be listed because they contain an obelisk. The category should be for obelisks that are notable and have an article or for redirects for notable obelisks that are mentioned somewhere else, but should eventually have an article.  Vegaswikian (talk) 20:43, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I think it's value added to include the obelisk cat to articles that contain obelisks. If a main article on a park has a section about an obelisk in that park, why not add the obelisk cat? FieldMarine (talk) 21:17, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't believe that is the criteria for adding categories. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:44, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Should be many more obelisks added over time. I really don't think that's going to happen in the near future. The Washington Monument is a symbol of our city, so it would seem strange for the government to erect another obelisk in the District. Anywho, here's a full shot of the Jefferson Pier; it's basically a 2x2 marker. I believe Vegaswikian is correct. The category should only be used for articles specifically dealing with obelisks.  APK  How you durrin?  23:39, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * When I made the comment about adding more over time, I was not referring to the construction of new obelisks, but rather about the additional use of the category over time. I was also not referring specifically to DC.  IMHO, I think there is good merit to including the cat in cases where an obelisk itself does not warrant a separate article, but could be covered as a section in another article, such as an obelisk located in a prominent park.  In this case, including the obelisk cat would be of value to users of the encyclopedia.  On a quick Google search, here are two examples: Veteran’s Memorial Plaza in Indianapolis and the Jefferson Davis Memorial.  Thanks! FieldMarine (talk) 01:35, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think that those are in Washington, D.C. which is the subject of this discussion. Those would go in the parent category for this one, Category:Obelisks in the United States. Vegaswikian (talk) 04:04, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It makes even less sense to me to eliminate only the Washington DC cat & place all the obelisks from there into the parent cat while keeping the other state cats. FieldMarine (talk) 20:28, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The results of this nomination will determine where consensus lies for this type of merge. If this is upmerged then it is likely that the others would be nominated for similar treatment. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:11, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Upmerge to the 2 parents. A seeker after obelisks in Washington, D.C. can use CatScan, or skim through the 11 ish US-related obelisk articles. Occuli (talk) 20:59, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Upmerge (not delete, obviously). Parks with obelisks should not be included.  There are 7 obelisks by state cats, none with more than 2 members. I rarely try to use such by-state categories myself, but when I do I find them incredibly irritating & unhelpful if I'm looking to see what's there, as opposed to already knowing. I would upmerge them all & favour some kind of minimum quorum before by-state schemes are set up. Johnbod (talk) 02:27, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Another alternative would be to list them in both the state and national categories. Cgingold (talk) 07:03, 23 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Upmerge per nom. The similar obelisks by state categories should also be upmerged.  Postdlf (talk) 22:10, 25 March 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:Anime conventions in 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: merge. Kbdank71 13:06, 27 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Suggest merging Category:Anime conventions in Canada to Category:Anime conventions
 * Suggest merging Category:Anime conventions in the United Kingdom to Category:Anime conventions
 * Nominator's rationale: These categories are overly focused (why just Canada instead of North America?) and not justified by the number of articles they contain, nor are they part of a larger categorization scheme of "Anime conventions in X" (and such a scheme couldn't be supported at this time anyways). At least for now, I'm suggesting that they be upmerged to Category:Anime conventions. 「ダイノ ガイ 千 ？！」(Dinoguy1000) 17:48, 21 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. — 「ダイノ ガイ  千 ？！」(Dinoguy1000) 17:54, 21 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Upmerge but also to Category:Conventions in Canada and Category:Conventions in the United Kingdom resp. Hmm, Category:Conventions really won't do at all ... [retreats] . Occuli (talk) 21:08, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I see no problem with division by country, since things are usually divided by country, not continent, even biota and geographical features, which make more sense divided by continent. 76.66.193.69 (talk) 05:40, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * There is no problem with them being split by country, except that there currently aren't enough articles to justify the split. --Dinoguy1000 as 66.116.12.126 (talk) 22:39, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The rationale given is that it's not appropriate to divide Canada from North America. 76.66.193.69 (talk) 01:47, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I never said that Canada and the US shouldn't be split, I said it made no sense to have a cat for Canada when there isn't one for the US (or Australia, or Japan, or...). --Dinoguy1000 as 66.116.12.126 (talk) 03:42, 23 March 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:La Salle

 * 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 13:03, 27 March 2009 (UTC)


 * la salle


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete Redundant category since Category:De La Salle Philippines and Category:Lasallian educational institutions are already existing. Xeltran (talk) 15:15, 21 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Upmerge to Category:De La Salle Philippines (which is a subcat of Category:Lasallian educational institutions). At least one of the articles (which are all in the Philippines) is not otherwise in a La Salle cat. Occuli (talk) 17:29, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy kill this category, as there are ever so many La Salles and this is a highly ambiguous category name. 76.66.193.69 (talk) 05:42, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 02:22, 23 March 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:National electric power policy

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


 * The result of the discussion was: relisted on 27th. Kbdank71 13:37, 27 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Propose renaming Category:National electric power policy to Category:Electric power policy
 * Nominator's rationale: This category is confusing and does not fit well into the current classification system. It says containing articles describe national energy policy, energy economics, and summary economic overviews of electrical power generation, distribution and consumption, as well as the related social and political issues. This issues are covered by other categories, mainly by Category:Energy policy by country and national series categories. Therefore, I propose to refine this category and after cleanup rename it Category:Electric power policy as a subcategory of Category:Energy policy. As an alternative, after cleanup it could be merged into Category:Energy policy. Beagel (talk) 18:45, 21 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Alternate name merge. The Category:Energy policy by country was created later but substantially overlaps Category:National electric power policy. (There were no energy policy articles at the time). I suggest that both categories should be merged to create a category called, say Category:National energy policy.  The goal here is to emphasize that the articles discuss policy at the national level, not state or local level. The category Category:National electric power policy contains many articles that are not about electricity, but about energy in general. It should have been called "National energy policy" from day one. Alas and alack.  Now is a good time to fix that.


 * Renaming it to "Electric power policy" would be the wrong thing to do, because 1) more than half the articles there are not about electric policy, but are about energy policy, and 2) all of the articles are about policy at the national level. Thus, "Electric power policy" makes no sense, unless one removed most of the articles currently in there, and then added articles about state/local policy. That would not be a category rename, but a major restructuring.


 * Since "national energy policy" and "energy policy by country" are essentially the same category, these two should be merged. That seems like far-n-away the easiest, best, nicest solution. The new cat should be called "national energy policy", as this is a prettier name that the rather linguistically awkward ".. by country". linas (talk) 15:00, 22 March 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:Electric power by country

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


 * The result of the discussion was: relisted on 27th. Kbdank71 13:14, 27 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Suggest merging Category:Electric power by country to Category:Electricity sector by country
 * Nominator's rationale: Both categories serve the same purpose of categorization electricity sector related articles by country. The name Electricity sector by country is more precise. Beagel (talk) 10:43, 21 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment - Category:Electric power by country is not what it says and is serving no purpose. It has just 2 children, both illegitimate - Category:Power companies by country is a subcat scheme for Category:Electric power companies and the other one is not by country at all (2 articles, no subcats). Delete Category:Electric power by country. (The second one is OK at first glance.) Occuli (talk) 11:45, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. There could be parallel categorization schemes. Category:Power companies by country belongs to both: Category:Electric power companies and Category:Electric power by country/Category:Electricity sector by country. Beagel (talk) 12:05, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I must say my head begins to spin with all these 'XXX by YYY' schemes, which are usually wrongly named, wrongly applied and wrongly subcatted. Category:Power companies by country should be renamed to Category:Electric power companies by country as there is no Category:Power companies. There is no Category:Electricity sector either. Phrases such as 'cans of worms', 'dog's breakfasts', 'Pandora's box' take over my thoughts. Occuli (talk) 12:52, 21 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment - I do not have a lot of experience on how to best use categories in Wikipedia, but since I have been asked to comment here are my two cents that largely echo what others have written here: "Electric power by country" seems to be limited to power companies and power plants. "Electricity sector by country" is broader. I would suggest to delete "Electric power by country", create subcategories "Electricity sector in xxx" for all countries listed in either category (power/electricity sector) and then use "Power stations in xxx" and "Power companies in xxx" as subcategories of the newly created categories "Electricity sector in xxx". "Power companies by country" and "Power stations by country" would obviously stay. It would also be nice to then have a link from every article "Electricity sector in xxx" to the Category "Power stations in xxx" and "Power companies in xxx".--Mschiffler (talk) 18:12, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Reverse merge Category:Electricity sector by country to Category:Electric power by country. I don't see what relevant material is included from "electricity sector" but excluded from "Electric power", and electric power is much more accessible terminology than using the trendy jargon word of "sector".   We have a chance here to use plain English, and so let's do it. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:23, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Reverse merge "Electric power" is the clearer title. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:29, 26 March 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:Journalists killed in America

 * 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. Kbdank71 13:16, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

journalists killed in america
 * Rename to Category:Journalists killed in the United States, the standard term used in Wiki categories.  Cgingold (talk) 10:13, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Rename - true. Occuli (talk) 10:39, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete OCAT by profession and how died and where died. C'mon, we have few other categories where we divvy up the deaths by occupation. Why journalists? Because some people have a POV that journalists are only killed because they are journalists, and not because they happen to be victims of just plain old violent crime. Well, folks, you're just wrong. If this is worth categorizing at all it should be reformulated along the lines of the subcats of Category:Journalists killed while covering military conflicts. And, yes, the other sister cats should be deleted too. Note: also we use formulations that tie the action to the death so that they are logically related in other professions such as Category:Aviators killed in aviation accidents or incidents in the United States and Category:Sports deaths in the United States, etc... Carlossuarez46 (talk) 02:27, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Carlos, do you realize if you had taken the time to look at the head note for the category you could have saved yourself the trouble of setting everybody straight on this issue, because you would have seen the reference to "killed in the line of duty", which is clearly the intent of these categories. What say we rename to Category:Journalists killed in the line of duty in the United States? Cgingold (talk) 06:58, 23 March 2009 (UTC)


 * rename to Category:Journalists killed in the line of duty in the United States since that is what is in the category. This could be followed by renaming the parent and sister categories.  There is no reason whatsoever to delete these categories other than peevish excitement, which should count for less than nothing in WP. Hmains (talk) 02:10, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * rename certainly to United States. I know its murder rate is high, but is it necessary to specify "on duty" in the title.  This could be dealt with by providing a short head note, making it clear that it is only for those killed on duty, rather than in a domestic dispute (e.g. for cheating on a spouse).  Peterkingiron (talk) 19:33, 26 March 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:Shining Force

 * 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:Shining (series) per main article and other articles of Category:Role-playing video games. Kbdank71 13:22, 27 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Propose renaming Category:Shining Force to Category:Shining series
 * Nominator's rationale: Rename. Per main article. This category is about all of the Shining games, not just the ones named Shining Force. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:34, 21 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Rename - true. And it follows a naming pattern of siblings in Category:Role-playing video games (tho the main article is at Shining (series)). Occuli (talk) 12:56, 21 March 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:Racist Product Trademarks

 * 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.  If anyone would like to create a list, I will provide the articles that were in this category.  Kbdank71 13:27, 27 March 2009 (UTC)


 * racist product trademarks


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete. Obviously POV and subjective. Twitchy finger almost reached for delete button, but decided to bring it here. Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:55, 21 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment – the 3 articles collected do appear to share a common trait; and there is the Robertson's golliwog character as well. However I doubt whether there is an acceptable rename, so I will agree with Good LK (Long Knives) Olfactory. Occuli (talk) 10:59, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Twitch - "racist" is an unacceptably subjective basis for categorization. Otto4711 (talk) 14:57, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - totally subjective, and filters a wide variety of media through a specifically modern Western perspective. I could vaguely see listifying the subject, but it'd be hard to find a NPOV title.  Something like "List of product trademarks controversial due to racial sensitivies" or whatnot.  But definitely not worth its own category, and not under the current title. MatthewVanitas (talk) 19:17, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - Keep your safeties on, folks -- there may be a way to salvage this one after all. Obviously we can't use a term like "racist" in a category name. However, what we're dealing with here is racial stereotypes, so that is the operative term. (I'll come back to this shortly.) There's also a secondary issue that I'm not quite sure about: are these "trademarks" or "brands"? I'm leaning toward the latter, but it's hard to say for sure. Even after reading the better part of both articles, the distinction between them seems pretty fuzzy. Nonetheless, we have very sizable category structures under both headings.


 * Putting that aside for the moment, I added another article (Uncle Ben's Rice) to the category, and also identified another such figure (Rastus), which is used by Cream of Wheat (just not sure whether to put one or the other, or both, in the category). More importantly, I have added five parent cats --, , , , and -- so I think the category now has a pretty solid foundation. What about renaming to something along the lines of ? (feel free to tweak the wording)   Cgingold (talk) 20:07, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm still having trouble with the underlying concept. The "problem" with Uncle Ben is ongoing white/black racial tension in the US, it's not something inherent to the trademark.  The trademark is just a smiling black man, who in some non-current advertising spoke in a black dialect.  I feel like the category is an attempt to join disparate things together as "ways black people are kept down" when they're all just random expressions of their time period, where the racism is inherent to the time rather than the product.  Also, are you going to include depictions of Native Americans, East Asians, the Irish, etc?  If so, the whole concept is getting pretty vague.  If not, you might as well call it Category:Brands based on African American archetypes or something like that.  "Stereotype" is a pretty NPOV word, because again it's not like Uncle Ben is some particularly warped figure.  It's just controversial because modern Americans associate his origin with a time of great racial strife. MatthewVanitas (talk) 20:33, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * First of all, you're making some heavy-duty assumptions that don't really have anything to do with the reformulated/reconceived category that I'm suggesting. I chose the term "stereotype" precisely because it IS a neutral (NPOV) term. Readers can decide for themselves whether these brands/trademarks are "racist" or "controversial" (and whether there is a "problem" with Uncle Ben) -- but none of those terms are required for inclusion in the category. No doubt some people regard Uncle Ben as inoffensive, but that doesn't alter the fact that he is nonetheless a (racial/ethnic) stereotype. That's the key to the whole thing. Cgingold (talk) 22:15, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The word "stereotype" is pretty POV. If I have some guy in 18th century Irish attire on my American product, that means completely different things now than it would in 1890, when "Irish" connonted all kinds of negative and primitive concepts.  Similarly, the "Rasmus" character on Cream of Wheat is offensive because of the time period he represents, not the fact that he's a reasonably accurate depiction, physically and linguistically, of an African American of his time period.  I feel this category puts title a lot of POV context into the issue. MatthewVanitas (talk) 03:31, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with MatthewVanitas that this formulation would be problematic for a category. It could possibly be the subject of an article that would be very interesting, but certainly this is something that we should be relying on reliable sources for, and not just deciding for ourselves that a racial stereotype is being used. Because of that, a category would be inappropriate, in my opinion. For example, is the Pontiac brand logo (either the new one or the old one) based on a "racial stereotype"? I would bet we could find WP users who would say "yes" and some who would say "no". Find a reliable source that discusses the issue, and then we could write about the issue in WP. Until then, let's not go down the route of trying to have a category where users can argue over whether brands or logos meet their own standard of stereotypy.Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:20, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't agree with MatthewVanitas -- he still seems not to have grasped the basic fact that stereotypes don't necessarily portray negative attributes (that notion is itself something of a stereotype about stereotypes). Here are two good dictionary definitions that aren't predicated on negativity: "oversimplified conception: an oversimplified standardized image of a person or group" (Encarta); "A standardized mental picture that represents an oversimplified opinion or uncritical judgment." (Webster's New Collegiate).
 * I do think that Good Ol’factory raises a valid concern about the potential problems that might arise with respect to the possibility that some editors might apply the category based on their personal judgement instead of adhering to inclusion criteria that would restrict its use to those deemed to be stereotypes by reliable sources. However, I'm not persuaded that the likelihood of that happening is so high as to preclude going forward with what I've outlined. If those concerns are borne out and it proves to be problematic, I will most assuredly bring it here for deletion myself. Cgingold (talk) 21:57, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Where's the generally agreed and easily applied definition of "oversimplified" which will allow this definition to work? Without some clear and objective standard for what constitutes "oversimplification", the notion of a "stereotype" remains far too POV to make any sort of viable category. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:43, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * If we're avoiding the whole negative/positive issue, it just gets even more absurd. How many products have a "standardized" white person on the label?  Almost nobody ever complains about the Betty Crocker image, because it's not seen as negative, whereas with Aunt Jemima no matter how you dress it up the origins of the trademark are from a time when blacks were oppressed.  You either include POV issues about how "negative" a given "stereotype" is, or you end up getting a huge category of practically every trademark with a human on it.  Colonel Sanders is a "stereotype" of a Southern aristocrat, but the original point of this category was to point out lingering examples of racial division in America. MatthewVanitas (talk) 18:22, 23 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong delete. There seems to be general agreement that the notion of a "racist trademark" is too POV, and I'm not persuaded that Cgingold's notion of redefining the category around stereotypes is any more solid.  What exactly is a stereotype?  How is it distinguished from the result of statistical analysis?  Look at how the article on stereotype is weak (under-referenced and in need of cleanup), and then consider a hyopthetical brand of "Afro fried chicken", whose logo is a black face looking out from behind the bars of a prison cell.  Is that a stereotype?  Do black Americans eat fried chicken  more than other Americans?  (Cue the first POV argument).  And is it a stereotype to put the black face behind bars?  Cue a big debate about whether the massive over-representation of African-Americans in US prisons is a reflection of African-American criminality of a racist judicial system, and even if there is agreement on that point, there is a further argument about whether this representation is a fair portrayal of statistical "fact" or a stereotyping of all African Americans by the perceived criminality of a minority.   This sort of argument can be addressed in an article which can explore the nuances, but not in a binary choice about whether to categorise. Per Good Ol'factory, "let's not go down the route of trying to have a category where users can argue over whether brands or logos meet their own standard of stereotypy", because these arguments will often be irresoluble.  The category system simply cannot accommodate this sort of question, where the view looks very different from different angles. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:39, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and obviously. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 02:31, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. What is a racist trademark? (Would George Foreman Grill go here?) &mdash; Mattisse (Talk) 17:25, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Listify: How about this for a compromise? List of trademarks featuring Native Americans and similar lists could be filed under both Category:Trademarks and their appropriate ethnic categories.  That way you'd have comprehensive lists yet no POV issues.  I just kinda tossed together a _very_ rough article on Native American trademarks, so maybe improve that and start other lists for different groups, then let folks on related Wikiprojects know? MatthewVanitas (talk) 23:32, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I think you're on the right track, Matthew - though it might be better to broaden the list to include sections for other ethnic groups, rather than dividing them up into separate articles. Btw, the article (such as it is) is already under attack by another editor, who's been adding silly cleanup/warning (&notability) templates. Cgingold (talk) 03:10, 26 March 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:Chordophones

 * 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:String instruments and delete. Kbdank71 13:34, 27 March 2009 (UTC)


 * chordophones


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete Synonymous with Category:String instruments, but barely 5% as well developed. Advise delete to avoid the hassle of two completely parallel categories. MatthewVanitas (talk) 06:52, 21 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete as Category:String instruments includes the 2 instances mentioned in Chordophone of instruments not usually regarded in the West as 'string' (Pianos and musical bows). Occuli (talk) 14:22, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, use Category:String instruments Redheylin (talk) 03:33, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Not exactly the same as “string instruments”: the word “chordophone” is used in a certain context (alongside with “membranophone”, “idiophone”, “aerophone” and “electrophone”) while “string instruments” is used in another context (alongside with “wind instruments”, “percussion instruments” and “keyboard instruments”). Ten Islands (talk) 13:48, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, so say they're 98% parallel categories. I'd say it does more harm then good to maintain two 98% parallels, as there's a risk articles will get put into one and not the other.  I'd say it makes more sense to have String instruments and have a Chordophone article within it, and anyone curious about that 2% of non-crossover can glance at the Chordophone article.  Extremely parallel categories just seem like an easy opportunity for articles to get misfiled/underfiled, which defeats the entire purpose of categories. MatthewVanitas (talk) 06:29, 24 March 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:Non-Iranian football managers in Iran

 * 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. Kbdank71 13:34, 27 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Propose renaming Category:Non-Iranian football managers in Iran to Category:Expatriate football managers in Iran
 * Nominator's rationale: following a more standard naming format on wikip. for cat pages Mayumashu (talk) 05:52, 21 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete not needed, a "current" category, and also not useful. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 02:32, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Rename as nom - this is a much better format. Carlossuarez46 is always making non-constructive comments on national categories.  Peterkingiron (talk) 19:35, 26 March 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.