Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 August 12



Category:Second-language acquisition

 * 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:Second language acquisition.  Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:48, 14 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Propose renaming Category:Second-language acquisition to Category:Second language acquisition
 * Nominator's rationale: Rename. The proposed name is more common; the current name is almost never used. Further details at Talk:Second language acquisition. r ʨ anaɢ (talk) 23:45, 12 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Rename. Regardless of where the article should be, a category should have the same title as its parent article, if possible.  Nyttend (talk) 00:18, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify: I did just move the article myself right before I proposed this category rename. I'm not sure if the article move will stick; I left a message about it at the article's talk page, and if it becomes contentious the article may end up getting moved back. r ʨ anaɢ (talk) 02:20, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The move of that article has been undone and it's going to be discussed a bit; can we put this on hold until that is resolved? Sorry for jumping the gun. r ʨ anaɢ (talk) 21:09, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Question - Does "second-language" imply just the second language, or should this perhaps be "secondary-language" implying all languages that are not the primary? --Lquilter (talk) 02:05, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The name of the field is "second language acquisition" (no hyphen). "Secondary-language acquisition" would be a neologism.--Mike Selinker (talk) 03:28, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Rename you can have multiple second languages. That is because to aquire something as a third language is to have even less skill in it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:11, 27 August 2012 (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:Spacesuits

 * 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: Don't rename. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:58, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Spacesuits to Category:Space suits
 * Propose renaming Category:American spacesuits to Category:American space suits
 * Propose renaming Category:Soviet and Russian spacesuits to Category:Soviet and Russian space suits
 * Nominator's rationale: Contested speedy. I was surprised to find the article for this category was at Space suit instead of Spacesuit, and indeed has, as far as I can tell, been at the spaced (pardon the pun) name since its creation in 2002(!). However the objection was that the article should be at the unspaced name. So to space or not to space, that is the question... The Bushranger One ping only 22:42, 12 August 2012 (UTC)


 * rename per nom to match main article Space suits and all other space technology articles except space vehicles. Hmains (talk) 23:30, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Rename. It seems better to me to have the article at spacesuit, but categories should always match their parent articles.  Nyttend (talk) 00:17, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * That is the other option - renaming the article, if that's preferred. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:40, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Do the reverse rename the article instead, to spacesuit -- 70.24.247.242 (talk) 02:07, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * REname article -- The compound word is much better. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:35, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Reverse, rename article instead. There was a very brief discussion at the article talk page in 2005. It's not likely to be opposed and is not worth raising a WP:RM; just do it. – Fayenatic  L ondon 20:11, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now; while the article and category should be brought in line, a discussion on the correct title for the article should be held first, and my preference would be to rename the article. -- W.  D.   Graham  11:58, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Per the above, I withdraw and agree that the article should be renamed. - The Bushranger One ping only 13:05, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * See Talk:Space suit. Mangoe (talk) 14:11, 27 August 2012 (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:Tiangong

 * 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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 22:33, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Tiangong to Category:Tiangong program
 * Propose renaming Category:Shenzhou programme to Category:Shenzhou program
 * Nominator's rationale: Contested speedies per WP:ENGVAR. It was suggested by the objector that "programme" would be appropriate here as China includes Hong Kong, however it seems to me that that would only apply to articles about HK itself - and is debatable anyway. (Note also it has been suggested that "program" be adopted for all non-British space topics.)


 * Category:Tiangong to Category:Tiangong program – C2D. The Bushranger One ping only 04:55, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Category:Shenzhou programme to Category:Shenzhou program – C2D. The Bushranger One ping only 04:55, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment wouldn't MOS:TIES suggest we use Hong Kong Enlgish? (the only English variety native to China) -- 70.24.247.242 (talk) 05:32, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Er...I'd presume that would only apply if the article was about Hong Kong...note that the article is, and always has been, at "program". - The Bushranger One ping only 16:36, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Is there a decent source on actual spellings in Hong Kong English? The article implies a mix of travellers who bring back varieties from abroad (hence skyscrapers that are named both "Centre" and "Center"), a dialect with a Chinglish reputation and very few actual attempts to record or standardise the spelling. Timrollpickering (talk) 13:49, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The Bushranger One ping only 22:36, 12 August 2012 (UTC)


 * rename per nom to 'program' to match their parent category Category:Chinese space program and its same named main article Chinese space program Hmains (talk) 23:26, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment I've queried WPHK and WPCHINA on the matter -- 70.24.247.242 (talk) 02:13, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I don't mind which way this goes as long as the program/me is consistent within a country. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:05, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Rename. as Category:Tiangong will be better described as a space programme. Category:Shenzhou programme should be renamed to Category:Shenzhou program, as China does not follow Hong Kong's English conventions and American English conventions are usually used. --Wylve (talk) 06:57, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Rename per nom.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:14, 27 August 2012 (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:Telecommunications term stubs

 * 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. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:49, 14 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Propose deleting telecommunications term stubs


 * Nominator's rationale: This stub tag was created based on Category:Telecommunications terms, which is now proposed for deletion deleted. This stub type is no longer needed, for all the reasons discussed in the proposal to delete the parent category. Both the category and the stub template should be deleted--Srleffler (talk) 16:27, 12 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Merge both to "telecommunications stubs"; only used on 9 articles now, and it would not be desirable to use it more widely as discussed here. – Fayenatic  L ondon 20:18, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete both per linked discussion, replace template with telecomm-stub or one of its more appropriate children for all 9 remaining --Qetuth (talk) 05:39, 15 August 2012 (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:Establishments by country and decade

 * 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: split per nominator. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:50, 16 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Propose splitting Category:Establishments by country and decade to Category:Establishments by decade by country and Category:Establishments by country by decade
 * Nominator's rationale: Split. The decades part of the Establishments by location and time hierarchy is a bit unwieldy at this level since the many categories of the type XXXXs establishments by country‎ and the several hundred ones of the type Establishments in xxxxxxx by decade‎ all go into the same, this, container category. As the original creator of this whole scheme I missed identifying this problem emerging caused by differences in the "by decades" hierarchy compared to the "by years" one. The latter uses Category:Establishments by country as the container for all the by country categories, which means that either particular provisions need be taken for the decades, centuries and millennia correspondents or we risk ending up with the situation that I am currently attempting to fix. Since there are far fewer centuries and millennia than there are decades, I think making the split which I now propose should be sufficient, and I don't see any need to make changes to those other two structures in connection with the current process. __meco (talk) 08:10, 12 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Support. When a category has 373 subcategories, each of which fits into one or the other of two natural groupings, we definitely should split it into two subcategories based on those groupings.  Just one question — what do you want to happen to the current category?  Just leave it as a parent for the two new ones, or something else?  Nyttend (talk) 12:38, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, PLEASE. One can look at the first page of members and see that it contains the union of two distinct and separate sets. Mangoe (talk) 12:52, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment – I was under the impression (cf Category:People by occupation and nationality and Category:People by nationality and occupation) that  Category:Establishments by country and decade means  '(Establishments by country) by decade'. In which case we merely need to create  Category:Establishments by decade and country and move 1/2 the subcats. Oculi (talk) 13:00, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Split -- Furthermore split out the pre-1000 categories into Category:First millennium establishments by decade. Nevertheless, I am dubious about the value of many of the subcategories what end off by getting a single article (if that): some need merging into by century categories, becasue there is so little in them.  Peterkingiron (talk) 16:01, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * see also further comments below. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:29, 13 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Split and Upmerge to the by century categories. Decades add an unnecessary level of navigation.  It is easier to navigate by centuries rather then decades.  The big difference is that you have 100 subcategories per page rather then 10 per page.  Since the decade years are together navigation is not difficult! This has been done in limited cases without and outcry that it did not work, so why not do that here? This also has the advantage of reducing, but not eliminating, the very small categories Peterkingiron is concerned with. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:45, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Bad idea: many of these decade categories are fine in their current state, and they improve navigation. Let's leave the matter of which ones are too small for a different CFD.  Nyttend (talk) 02:07, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * We certainly have too many levels. A page can hold some 200 items.  I have in the past advocated merging annual categories into decades.  However, I would be happy to eliminate the decades and keep the years: all 100 years will go on one page.  This will also deal with my issue as to mixing three and four digit years, rendering my suggested "first millenium" category unnecessary.  Implementing this will involve an enormous mass nomination.  Is some one willing to follow this up?  Peterkingiron (talk) 10:32, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * If this happens, do we need a full discussion on all of them or can we do a few and speedy the rest? Once the first few are set up, the rest become copy and pastes which takes time.  I would be willing to assist on the work. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:36, 13 August 2012 (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:Songs about the Cold War

 * 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: listify. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:54, 14 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Propose deleting songs about the cold war


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete. Fails Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information amongst other guidelines. I have checked a number of the articles, making comments at User:Richhoncho/Songs by theme which shows of the 12 members I checked only one of them might actually be about the Cold War
 * At what point does using a single word in a song or a song title be considered defining? Unless it is set out in the lead of the article with WP:V, it is NOT defining. WP:OR applies when a song is added to a category without supporting text and reference.The idea of categorization is to unite articles with a defining categoristic - see Overcategorization and specifically, WP:DEFINING.
 * Songs, and song titles, use Simile, Metaphor, Analogy, Allegory, Parable, Figure of Speech, Euphemism and every other linquistic known, but this category (and all others by theme) denies lyricists and songwriters the ability to use linguistics when writing lyrics. Comparing love to a cold war is not a song about THE Cold War!
 * It should also be noted that fiction/novels are not categorised by this sort of category. However, there are a few lists by theme at Category:Lists of novels. Richhoncho (talk) 07:28, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Spotted too late, this category has been deleted before Discussion November 3, 2008. --Richhoncho (talk) 07:47, 12 August 2012 (UTC)


 * keep A little cleanup leaves articles that are about Cold War themes: Berlin and its wall, nuclear war/destruction, east-west conflict, etc.  This category is an obvious part of its parents: Category:Works about the Cold War and Category:Songs by war which do not need to have these songs placed directly into them. Hmains (talk) 23:20, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Response. I assume you removed 13 entries. I also note that there are still a number of entries I have read that are most definitely not "about the cold war." It is impossible to maintain categories like this without ignoring one of the main WP policies, - WP:NPOV. Some songs/song articles mentioned, some were set in, some used as motif, but none were actually about the cold war. The Berlin Wall might be a product of the cold war, but it is not the cold war and a love story set against a backdrop of the Berlin Wall has no business being in this category. Although grouped with the "Songs by war" this category does not belong in the category as it is presently titled. --Richhoncho (talk) 02:15, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Fundamentally, the Cold War was all about frames of mind and so its impact was cultural as illustrated by these songs. Hmains (talk) 02:34, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't disagree that the Cold War had a social and cultural impact on songs that should be reflected at WP. I just don't think that categories is the way to do it. A scholarly list with explanations rather than a quick HotCat is the way to go. For what it's worth I too have been going through every article in the category and making a couple of notes. Perhaps this will illustrate why song categories by theme do not work, including this one. Furthermore I doubt you and I will agree which of the ones below should be removed - further evidence that categories do not work when metaphors do!
 * I agree that the Cold War was about states of mind ... but I think that's why it's actually difficult to categorize things related to it; especially things as fairly short and often oblique as songs. --Lquilter (talk) 00:35, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

--Richhoncho (talk) 03:17, 15 August 2012 (UTC) But, some of the things grouped within "Songs by theme" are perhaps not actually "themes" -- e.g., "category:trade union songs", which has some songs about unions and other songs more by association ("The Preacher and the Slave"). And then there are songs-about categories that are arguably genres (category:holiday songs; category:wedding songs; category:religious songs). And a lot of songs-about categories are actually fairly simple to implement (Category:Songs about automobiles and Category:Vehicle wreck ballads). I guess I'm not sure. --Lquilter (talk) 12:24, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete and Listify / Article-ify - Given the reach & breadth of Cold War-related conflicts -- almost all latter-20th century conflicts could be tied in some way to the Cold War -- it could sweep in almost all songs about war or nuclear peril from that period of time. Some times the songs would be about specific conflicts and thus only obliquely about the "Cold War".  Rarely would songs directly be about the "cold war" -- as demonstrated by Richhoncho's list.  (Thanks Richhoncho!)  I think categories are not the right way to do this, although I think it's an interesting topic.  Instead I would do "Cold War in popular culture" as an article and possibly associated lists, basically a spin-off from Cold War. --Lquilter (talk) 02:11, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Listify/etc. per User:Lquilter. While I do disagree with many of the "assessments" in the chart above, I do think that we're starting to see a trend of "songs about X" cats justifiably being listified. Maybe Category:Songs by theme needs a group nom? - jc37 23:24, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * JC37, This is one time when I am pleased somebody disagrees with my assessments - it proves these categories don't work. It is still hit and miss whether a song by theme cat gets deleted hence one at a time at present. Cheers. --Richhoncho (talk) 08:18, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I haven't been back on CFD long enough to see the trend. But let's go slow on deleting the whole songs-by-FOO category tree.  I agree that in general "songs about FOO" is one of those criteria where "about" and the FOO subject themselves are both so relative that its not a good use of the category function.  I also note that since WP:NSONG discourages articles about many individual songs, then a lot of otherwise notable songs that might fit in any of those subcategories wouldn't be included -- another example of how the category function isn't the best way to handle this issue.
 * Point taken and I know I wouldn't nominate the Trade Union songs for deletion, because an entry in that category is clearly definable, unlike "songs about..."--Richhoncho (talk) 13:57, 22 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Listify, as this will make it a lot more manageable and useful. I would be inclined to keep some of the entries criticised above, in a list where they could be given context, e.g. a section for love songs set against Cold War borders. – Fayenatic  L ondon 09:21, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Listify the El Salvador connection to the Cold War is not OR, but US intervention in Latin America being moved by fear of repeats of Cuba and Nicaragua needs to be explained. The Cold War is a nebulous enough term that a list seems to be needed to explain all connections.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:21, 27 August 2012 (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:Ulama-e-Deoband

 * 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.

There was a clear consensus to rename away from the current for, but not a clear consensus on which of the two alternative names to prefer. However, it seems to me that the claim about "Deobandi ulama" being a widely-used term follows the naming policy of WP:COMMONAME, and that the arguments in favour of "Deobandi scholars" are not so well-founded in policy. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:03, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The result of the discussion was: rename  to Category:Deobandi ulama.


 * Propose renaming Category:Ulama-e-Deoband to Category:Deobandi ulama
 * Nominator's rationale: Rename. Title should be in English. Axiom292 (talk) 06:32, 12 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Ulama-e-Deoband: Should remain unchanged. Those who represent Deobandi movement are traditionally known as Ulama-e-Deoband. And it is a widely used term.--Abu Bakr (talk) 16:01, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * But is it a widely used term in English sources? Searching Google books for "Deobandi ulama" shows that "Deobandi ulama" is often used to describe ulama that follow the Deobandi school. Searching "Ulama-e-Deoband" gives no English results. Axiom292 (talk) 19:19, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Translate and provide category with a head note to explain what it is about. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:55, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * revoted below. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:06, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Translating "ulama" would probably result in "Muslim scholars of Islam". Currently most ulama are categorized under Category:Muslim scholars of Islam. However, that category contains some Muslims that are scholars of Islam, yet not ulama. So I think that a Category:Ulama should be created as a subcategory of Category:Muslim scholars of Islam, and different types of ulama would fit there, named appropriately, such as "Deobandi ulama". Axiom292 (talk) 19:30, 12 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Rename, categories normally use English language rather than local languages, except where the foreign-language terms are widely known and used in English media. – Fayenatic  L ondon 09:36, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * According to WP:CAT, standard article naming conventions apply to categories. There is an Ulama article as well as a Deobandi article (because neither term has an English-language equivalent), so wouldn't Category:Deobandi ulama be acceptable? I have already created Category:Ulama. Category:Deobandi ulama would be a subcategory of Category:Hanafi ulama. Axiom292 (talk) 20:32, 29 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Rename Deobani and ulama are both acceptable terms in an English-language encyclopedia. However they should be combined in a way that uses English rules of combination, not according to Urdu word combination procedures.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:25, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Rename to Category:Deobandi adherents or Category:Deobandi scholars to explain what Deobandis are. My understanding is that the movement started as an Indian reaction to (syncretic) folk Islam and may have been encouraged by the British, as a means of removing influence on Indian affairs from older Islamic scholastic centres that were result in political influence from abroad.  Peterkingiron (talk) 16:06, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Category:Deobandi scholars would work in my view.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:24, 10 September 2012 (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:Islamic clergy

 * 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:Islamic religious leaders. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:06, 14 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Propose deleting islamic clergy


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete. There is no such thing as Islamic clergy. Axiom292 (talk) 03:37, 12 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep unless articles such as Shi'a clergy first be deleted. Islamic clergy presently redirects to Ulama, which three times speaks of "Islamic clergy".  Nyttend (talk) 04:24, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep -- Islam may not have an ordained clergy in the same way as many Chritian denominations, but the fact that this catregiory is populated suggests that it is needed. Would Category:Islamic clerics be better, by analogy with several subcategories?  Peterkingiron (talk) 15:54, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * After removing redundant subcategories, and those that don't even belong (such as Ottoman sultans), it now contains Category:Imams, Category:Shi'a clerics, and Category:Sunni clerics. These could all be accommodated in Category:Islamic religious leaders. As for Category:Sunni clerics, it is barely populated. Besides four articles, it contains Category:Grand Muftis, which is already in Category:Islamic religious leaders. People described as "Islamic clerics" in the media would usually either be Ulama (Islamic religious scholars) or Imams. Being an Imam (in the Sunni sense of the word) is merely an occupation. Again, both of these fit under Category:Islamic religious leaders. Axiom292 (talk) 19:09, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Remember that a cleric is a clergyman; the former is essentially a rarer synonym of the latter. Nyttend (talk) 00:10, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Right. What I was trying to say was that Category:Sunni clerics should also be deleted, because its contents could be re-categorized in a more meaningful place. What is an Islamic cleric anyway? Axiom292 (talk) 04:45, 13 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Upmerge to Category:Islamic religious leaders. The sub-cats by century can then be speedily renamed to match. We can follow this up with the clergy categories for at least some other religions; if it works for them all, then the clergy-by-nationality categories and Category:Clergy can all be upmerged to Religious leaders. – Fayenatic  L ondon 21:06, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree. Axiom292 (talk) 01:12, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. – Fayenatic  L ondon 21:06, 13 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Support Upmerge to Category:Islamic religious leaders. This resolves the issue that led me to vote keep above.  Peterkingiron (talk) 16:09, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Rename to Category:Islamic religious leaders.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:26, 10 September 2012 (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:Signers of the United States Declaration of Independence
<div class="boilerplate vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


 * The result of the discussion was: no consensus. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:19, 14 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Propose renaming Category:Signers of the United States Declaration of Independence to Category:Signatories of the United States Declaration of Independence
 * Nominator's rationale: The parent category is Category:Signatories of declarations of independence, and all three of its other subcategories (Albania, Israel, and the Republic of Ireland) use "Signatories of _____". Nyttend (talk) 02:17, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

* Support per nom. Couldn't this have been speedied? --Richhoncho (talk) 07:37, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Support this! I think that's how English is supposed to work, so yay! :) jengod (talk) 07:32, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I didn't want to try that — the USA category is older than the Albanian and Irish categories, plus the parent. It was created at the same time as the Israeli after a 2009 CFD, and the predecessor Category:Signers of the U.S. Declaration of Independence was more than two years old than the predecessor Category:Signatories of the Israeli declaration of independence.  Renaming an old category to fit a lot of newer ones is a good situation for discussion, but when a category predates the existence of a tree, I don't think it good to try to speedy-move it onto that tree.  Nyttend (talk) 12:19, 12 August 2012 (UTC)


 * reverse rename of the parent and other categories There's no particularly good reason to prefer "signatories" over "signers", and indeed the former word is more commonly used of nations ascribing to agreements and treaties. The use of "signers" for the US declaration has at least a century of precedent if not two. Also, the higher level of Category:Signatories by document contains a mixture of "signer" and "signatory" categories. I would propose the following instead:
 * Category:Prague Declaration on European Conscience and Communism signatories‎ to Category:Signers of the Prague Declaration on European Conscience and Communis
 * Category:Signatories of declarations of independence to Category:Signers of declarations of independence
 * Category:Signatories to the Declaration of Arbroath to Category:Signers of the Declaration of Arbroath
 * Category:Charter 77 signatories to Category:Signers of Charter 77
 * Category:Charter 08 signatories to Category:Signers of Charter 08
 * Category:Signatories by document to Category:Signers by document
 * Category:Signatories of the Albanian Declaration of Independence to Category:Signers of the Albanian Declaration of Independence
 * Category:Signatories of the Israeli Declaration of Independence to Category:Signers of the Israeli Declaration of Independence
 * Category:Signatories of the Proclamation of the Irish Republic to Category:Signers of the Proclamation of the Irish Republic
 * I've left Category:English subscribers to the Solemn League and Covenant 1643 out of this since I'm not persuaded that it's a category of signers in the sense we normally think of that. Mangoe (talk) 13:13, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Fixed several links, changing them from "Category signers" to "Category:signers". Please note that the parent and the Irish were recently created for the first time; they've not been renamed from anything else.  You're right to leave out the SL&C subscribers; in this context, "subscription" means that you publicly state your agreement with the SL&C and your belief in the principles behind it, rather than simply putting your name on the physical document.  Nyttend (talk) 13:24, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * All that being said, I support Mangoe's revised proposal. I don't see a good reason to prefer either "signers" or "signatories", so we simply should go with the one that's already used more commonly, and he provides clear evidence that "signers" is actually more common.  Nyttend (talk) 00:13, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I do too - except the two charter ones, per my comments below. - jc37 23:44, 21 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Weak support per nomination. Far more convoluted than I originally thought. Looking at ADofI only they are referred to as signatures to in most of the places I looked, "signers" has other meanings and therefore open to interpretation. The word signatory/ies wasn't used until 1866, but I prefer it because it is more specific in today's idiom. --Richhoncho (talk) 01:52, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Support -- The usual noun is "signatories". "Signers" is probably not a neologism, but is a mere noun form of the verb.  Peterkingiron (talk) 09:22, 13 August 2012 (UTC) (originally added to wrong section).
 * "Signer", if you believe the old OED, has the older provenance by a least a century and a half ("signatory" shows an older usage, but for an entirely different sense). It is hardly a neologism. The US government prefers "signers" (e.g. here). Searching for "signatories" tends to produce results for treaties, referring to countries as subscribing to them; also the preferred usage seems to be "signatory to" by a considerable margin. Mangoe (talk) 11:42, 13 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep William Hooper was a signer. Through him, the Province of North Carolina was a signatory.- choster (talk) 14:42, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep per the common name rule. This is what they are always called.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:18, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Support A person signs their signature. They therefore leave a signature, rather than just a sign (with its multiple meanings), thus making them a signatory. A signer could refer to a billboard painter, somebody using sign language etc. Better to use a more accurate description, and certainly though it may be in use in American English, signer is not a term used in British or Commonwealth English that I am aware of, so therefore instances such as the Declaration of Arbroath,, or the Proclamation of the Irish Republic et al. should certainly not be changed. Brendandh (talk) 10:27, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Perhaps then the American category should keep its proper American name? Mangoe (talk) 11:57, 15 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Preference for signatories which seems to be the prevalent usage in existing categories. Tim! (talk) 06:27, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Mangoe said what I was going to: signatories are parties signing to indicate that they will abide by (and/or act upon) the terms of the document (like a treaty). One signs a declaration. (Also noting that while a signatory may be a signer, a signer is not necessarily a signatory. A signatory is typically a representative of some sort.) - jc37 23:36, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose renamings from "signatories", as "signatories" is the contemporary term. If "signer" is archaic, then rename all signers to signatories; however, if signer is still in use in American English, then leave it alone. – Fayenatic  L ondon 09:46, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * "Signers" is perfectly contemporary usage here. As I think at least one person above remarked, "signatories" would be reserved for the parties bound by the document: the signatories to the Declaration would therefore include Maryland and Virginia, not Samuel Chase and Thomas Jefferson. Mangoe (talk) 10:57, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * "...the signatories to the Declaration would therefore include Maryland and Virginia, not Samuel Chase and Thomas Jefferson." - Exactly. - jc37 12:58, 27 August 2012 (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.