Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 September 24



Submarines by navy

 * 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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:23, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming:
 * Category:Royal Australian Navy submarines to Category:Submarines of the Royal Australian Navy
 * Category:Royal Canadian Navy submarines to Category:Submarines of the Royal Canadian Navy
 * Category:Canadian Forces submarines to Category:Submarines of the Canadian Forces
 * Category:Chilean Navy submarines to Category:Submarines of the Chilean Navy
 * Category:Indian Navy submarines to Category:Submarines of the Indian Navy
 * Category:Italian Navy submarines to Category:Submarines of the Marina Militare
 * Category:Polish Navy submarines to Category:Submarines of the Polish Navy
 * Category:Royal Navy submarines to Category:Submarines of the Royal Navy
 * Category:Imperial Russian Navy submarines to Category:Submarines of the Imperial Russian Navy
 * Category:Russian Navy submarines to Category:Submarines of the Russian Navy
 * Category:Soviet Navy submarines to Category:Submarines of the Soviet Navy
 * Category:Turkish Navy submarines to Category:Submarines of the Turkish Navy
 * Category:United States Navy submarines to Category:Submarines of the United States Navy
 * Nominator's rationale: For consistency with common naming style employed by the other 35 subcategories of Category:Submarines by navy. Marina Militare is suggested to match Category:Marina Militare and related categories since "Italian Navy" is ambiguous. Related CFDs for cruisers and destroyers by navy: 1 and 2 — Bellhalla (talk) 23:58, 24 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Rename all per nominator. In my opinion this should be a speedy criteria. Debresser (talk) 18:48, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Support Renames to match standard prevailing in parent category. Alansohn (talk) 01:37, 27 September 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:Serbian alternative rock bands

 * 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. Jafeluv (talk) 12:27, 2 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Propose renaming Category:Serbian alternative rock bands to Category:Serbian alternative rock groups
 * Nominator's rationale: Rename. Change "bands" to "groups" per standard. See similar categories in . Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:46, 24 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Rename per nominator. In my opinion this should be a speedy criteria. Debresser (talk) 18:47, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Rename, I agree with Debresser, this should be a speedy criteria. Ostalocutanje (talk)


 * 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:F class submarines

 * 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. Jafeluv (talk) 11:13, 5 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Propose renaming Category:F class submarines to Category:United States F class submarines
 * Nominator's rationale: Rename. To disambiguate from Category:British F class submarines. Styling of proposed name matches the disambiguation style for other 'letter' class submarines. — Bellhalla (talk) 22:57, 24 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Support Rename to match title of parent article and to properly disambiguate from similarly-named category. Alansohn (talk) 18:25, 2 October 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:Epics

 * 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:Epic poems; Debresser has volunteered to create Category:Epic poetry and to appropriately divide the contents. Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:00, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Epics to Category:Epic poetry
 * Nominator's rationale: Rename to match the parent article, epic poetry, and to avoid the imprecise, colloquial reading of what "epic" means. Postdlf (talk) 21:27, 24 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Rename The category contains articles about the genre as well as individual poems, so the proposed name is more accurate as well.-choster (talk) 14:31, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Rename per both. Johnbod (talk) 03:21, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Alternative proposal I propose creating Category:Epic poetry and then divide the articles among Category:Epics for the epic stories themselves, and Category:Epic poetry for all other articles that are about, or otherwise related to, these stories. Debresser (talk) 18:46, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * If the alternative is accepted then the existing category should be renamed to Category:Epic poems as the issue of the colloquial definition of "epic" would remain. Otto4711 (talk) 19:22, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Debresser's idea is a good one, but in that case rename to Category:Epic poems per Otto. Johnbod (talk) 19:57, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm also fine with creating Epic poetry as a parent and renaming Epics to Epic poems. This may help keep out things like "epic" films and television mini-series (!) that creep in from time to time.-choster (talk) 16:15, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Makes sense. Postdlf (talk) 19:59, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Support alternative proposal, to separate general topic articles from the list category. For clarity, the epics category should be renamed to Category:Epic poems. The other epics categories (Ancient Greek comic epics, Ancient Greek epics, Characters in epics, Characters in epics by author, Narrative techniques in epics and Tamil epics) should probably use "epic poems" as well, but they can be nominated separately after this one is decided. Jafeluv (talk) 12:36, 2 October 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:Jewish Theological Seminary alumni

 * 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. Jafeluv (talk) 12:26, 2 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Propose renaming Category:Jewish Theological Seminary alumni to Category:Jewish Theological Seminary of America alumni
 * Nominator's rationale: Rename. To match title of parnet category and the parent article Jewish Theological Seminary of America. Alansohn (talk) 20:52, 24 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Rename. As there's also Jewish Theological Seminary of Breslau. Might be worth making Jewish Theological Seminary a disambiguation page rather than redirect to Jewish Theological Seminary of America. — ξ xplicit  20:57, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with ξ  on both points. Debresser (talk) 18:41, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Rename.--Epeefleche (talk) 15:18, 30 September 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:Iraq war crimes

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


 * The result of the discussion was: Merge into Category:War crimes in Iraq'''. Jafeluv (talk) 12:24, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

iraq war crimes

This is a listing of American crimes committed in the Iraq War, the current naming structure sounds like it's Iraqi crimes. Sherurcij (speaker for the dead) 20:22, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * You didn't state what you intended as a solution, but merging to Category:War crimes in Iraq would address your complaint and match it to the scheme in Category:War crimes by country (but I wonder if it makes more sense to categorize by conflict). Postdlf (talk) 21:32, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge into Category:War crimes in Iraq per Postdlf. Debresser (talk) 18:40, 26 September 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 from Bishop, California

 * 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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:21, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Propose deletion: Category:People from Bishop, California.
 * Nominator's rationale: Too small a town to merit its own category. Already covered by Category:People from Inyo County, California. Emptied into larger category (Inyo County). Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 17:10, 24 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep and restore contents. I'm not convinced that 5 entries (6 if you count Susan Kunze), is too small for a category like this. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:37, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - part of Category:People by city in the United States. Moreover it seems to have a disproportionate number of notable residents; and the articles I have looked at do not mention Inyo county. Occuli (talk) 20:44, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Small city with a disproportionate number of definingly notable residents. Alansohn (talk) 20:53, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * A "disproportionate number of definingly notable residents"?? Please explain. And why should Susan Kunze be counted? Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 22:28, 24 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep per Vegaswikian.--Epeefleche (talk) 15:19, 30 September 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:Afghani economists

 * 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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:19, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Afghani economists to Category:Afghan economists
 * Nominator's rationale: Rename. Standard naming per Category:Afghan people by occupation. Tassedethe (talk) 16:22, 24 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Rename per nom and convention. Occuli (talk) 21:51, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Rename per both above. Debresser (talk) 18:39, 26 September 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:United Kingdom city councils

 * 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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:24, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * united kingdom city councils


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete. Duplicates Category:Local authorities of the United Kingdom, which is divided into England, Scotland, Wales. Further subdivisions should either be by geographic area or type (non-metropolitan/metropolitan/London borough) rather than by honorific title. Also implied parity of status between the three countries, which is false. MRSC (talk) 10:27, 24 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete as per nom. Seems to add nothing to the category structure that is already there. Twiceuponatime (talk) 12:21, 24 September 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:Hillsong original album 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: Merge. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:16, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Suggest merging Category:Hillsong original album covers to Category:Hillsong album covers
 * Nominator's rationale: Trivial categorization. There's no need to separate original album covers from re-release album covers. — ξ xplicit  05:08, 24 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Merge and delete. A bad idea. Debresser (talk) 18:38, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Upmerge as nominated. - Fayenatic (talk) 12:12, 28 September 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:CHiPs episodes

 * 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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:18, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * chips episodes


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete - single-article category. It is unlikely that individual CHiPs episodes are independently notable. If there is a sudden slew of such articles then the category can be re-created. Otto4711 (talk) 04:16, 24 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete as too small. Debresser (talk) 18:38, 26 September 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:Plays for one performer

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


 * The result of the discussion was: Withdrawn by nominator. NAC. Otto4711 (talk) 20:42, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Plays for one performer to Category:One-person shows
 * Nominator's rationale:  Rename Suggest we change to match main article One-person show and WP:COMMONNAME. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:32, 24 September 2009 (UTC) WITHDRAWN


 * Rename to match main article. --RL0919 (talk) 03:00, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose - One-person show appears to be addressing a concept separate from and broader than a play for one performer. One-person show focuses on monologues and routines primarily written by the performer (perhaps in collaboration with a writing partner) while a play for one performer is something written by a playwright and performed by an actor who may or may not be connected to the playwright. This strikes me as sufficient distinction that such plays should not be lumped in amongst stand-up routines, monologues and the like. Otto4711 (talk) 04:21, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Further comment: we also have Category:Monodrama which covers what appears to be the same exact territory as the nominated category and indeed there is significant overlap. Otto4711 (talk) 04:24, 24 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Rename to Category:One-person plays or Keep. Many "one-person performances" (a key term in the article lean) are not also "one-person plays"-- just as many performances are not plays. User talk:CarlaudeUser talk:Carlaude 04:24, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Comments – it seems to me that Category:One-person shows (which includes say a comedian) is a parent of Category:Monodrama (which includes opera), which is in turn a parent of Category:Plays for one performer. In which case cfd is not needed. Occuli (talk) 10:06, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm convinced: withdrawn. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:19, 24 September 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.

Booian Peruvians to Peruvian people of Booian descent

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


 * The result of the discussion was: Rename all. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:27, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming


 * Category:Arab-Peruvians to Category:Peruvian people of Arab descent
 * Category:Peruvians of Aymara descent to Category:Peruvian people of Aymara descent
 * Category:Belgian Peruvians to Category:Peruvian people of Belgian descent
 * Category:Afro-Peruvians to Category:Peruvian people of Black African descent
 * Category:British-Peruvians to Category:Peruvian people of British descent
 * Category:Chinese Peruvians to Category:Peruvian people of Chinese descent
 * Category:Croatian-Peruvians to Category:Peruvian people of Croatian descent
 * Category:English Peruvians to Category:Peruvian people of English descent
 * Category:French-Peruvians to Category:Peruvian people of French descent
 * Category:German Peruvians to Category:Peruvian people of German descent
 * Category:Irish Peruvians to Category:Peruvian people of Irish descent
 * Category:Italian-Peruvians to Category:Peruvian people of Italian descent
 * Category:Japanese Peruvians to Category:Peruvian people of Japanese descent
 * Category:Korean Peruvians to Category:Peruvian people of Korean descent
 * Category:Polish Peruvians to Category:Peruvian people of Polish descent
 * Category:Peruvians of Quechua descent to Category:Peruvian people of Quechua descent
 * Category:Scottish-Peruvians to Category:Peruvian people of Scottish descent
 * Category:Spanish Peruvians to Category:Peruvian people of Spanish descent
 * Category:Peruvians of Venezuelan descent to Category:Peruvian people of Venezuelan descent
 * Nominator's rationale: Rename. This is another in a series of similar proposals. Propose changing "Peruvians" to "Peruvian people" and changing the format of some of these categories from the old "Booian-Foos" naming system in order to standardize them and conform them with other similar categories, the parent, and the parent . Not all nationalities have an appropriate "noun-form" that can be used, so using "Peruvian people" is able to bring cross-category and cross-nationality consistency in these categories. I realise "Peruvians" is shorter than "Peruvian people", but in my opinion this benefit is outweighed by the greater benefit brought by inter-category constistencies. See previous similar discussions for more information and further discussion: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7. — Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:07, 24 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Question/Comment -- This seems to bee a lot less needed than "Poles vs Polish people." Peruvians sounds plenty clear without saying "Peruvian people" to me. What exatly is the benefit here of the "cross-category and cross-nationality consistency." User talk:CarlaudeUser talk:Carlaude 04:18, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I assume you have looked at the nominated categories above? None of the other "ethnic or national descent" categories (save the American ones, which some users claim is a special case) use the old "Barian Fooers" model, as this one does. This is to change them all to the standard formatting. It's not solely an issue of "Peruvians" vs. "Peruvian people". It's an issue of, e.g., Category:Chinese Peruvians vs. Category:Peruvian people of Chinese descent. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:46, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I have looked at them, but let me ask again. I understand that some nationalities do not have an appropriate "noun-form" that can be used, so we use "Fooian people" for those. How does this "consistency" of using "Fooian people" even for those that do have a suitable "noun-form" help Wikipedia? User talk:CarlaudeUser talk:Carlaude 07:27, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * For editors who type category names in (as opposed to reaching a category through click browsing), it would help such a user to know what to type so he or she did not have to guess if he or she should type "Fooers" or "Fooian people". If there was a broad consistency that when "Fooers" or "Fooian people" could both correctly be used, that "Fooian people" is the one that is used, it would eliminate the need to guess which is used in any particular category being typed in. The current situation also requires users to know and be able to correctly spell both the Fooian and Fooer forms of a nationality, which at times can be challenging—it's easier for users to just have one standard to learn. These categories are currently the only ones that consistently have departed from the standard. There is no benefit to having them different, except that using "Fooers" is shorter. Hope that helps, but as I said, this nomination goes somewhat beyond this narrow issue. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:13, 24 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Rename per extensive recent consensus. Occuli (talk) 09:58, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Rename per nom. Mayumashu (talk) 02:44, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Rename per nominator. Debresser (talk) 18:37, 26 September 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.