< November 30	December 2 >

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

The result of the discussion was: Rename. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:21, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Manhattan Transfer albums to Category:The Manhattan Transfer albums

Nominator's rationale: Rename. To match parent category. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 21:47, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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 - not contested for more than five days. Tiptoety ^talk 22:01, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete Circular category. The only albums they produced are ones they also recorded. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 21:43, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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 - not contested for more than five days. Tiptoety ^talk 22:02, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete Per precedent (see below), albums should not be categorized by producer unless the producer has an article, and again I see no proof that Irwin meets WP:MUSIC. This one also has a second strike against it as it contains only one album and two redirects. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 21:35, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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 - not contested after five days. Tiptoety ^talk 22:03, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete Per precedent, albums should not be categorized by producer unless the producer has an article, see below. I see no proof that Brockbank meets WP:MUSIC, especially given that this very category is the first Google hit. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 21:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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 - not contested after five days. Tiptoety ^talk 22:04, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete Per precedent here and here, albums shouldn't be categorized by producer unless the producer has an article. I see no evidence that Harry Maslin has the potential for an article. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 21:30, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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. Tiptoety ^talk 22:05, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete duplicates Category:Greek people. DrKiernan (talk) 15:30, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom as duplicate. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You mean Merge. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:32, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete obvious dupe; both are already in subcats of the other. Johnbod (talk) 20:27, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:10, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Aside from being mis-spellled, this is a single-article category with little potential for expansion. Upmerge the article to the lone parent cat. Notified creator with ((subst:cfd-notify)) Cgingold (talk) 14:51, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Lenticel ^(talk) 00:01, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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

The result of the discussion was: Rename. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:20, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:UNO Mavericks football players to Category:Nebraska-Omaha Mavericks football players

Nominator's rationale: Media refers to "Nebraska-Omaha", also to make similar to Category:Nebraska-Omaha Mavericks ice hockey players. DandyDan2007 (talk) 13:16, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. "UNO Mavericks" appears frequently on omavs.com itself and does not appear to be incorrect or deprecated; however, the latter form appears to be much more common as well as less ambiguous. -choster (talk) 02:12, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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

The result of the discussion was: Rename. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:19, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Charlton Athletic F.C. Reserves Managers to Category:Charlton Athletic F.C. non-playing staff

Nominator's rationale: Rename. The position of reserve team manager is not a career-defining role in football; not just at Charlton Athletic, but all clubs. I suggest that, in line with other clubs, such as Manchester United, Arsenal and Aston Villa, this category be renamed. – Pee Jay 12:28, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related page moves. – Pee Jay 18:15, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Reserve team managers are not notable positions in and of themselves, but it is noteworthy that the person concerned was employed by that club. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 18:17, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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 to rename --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 15:55, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:American opera companies to Category:Opera companies of the United States

Propose renaming Category:Argentine opera companies to Category:Opera companies of Argentina

Propose renaming Category:Australian opera companies to Category:Opera companies of Australia

Propose renaming Category:Austrian opera companies to Category:Opera companies of Austria

Propose renaming Category:British opera companies to Category:Opera companies of the United Kingdom

Propose renaming Category:Bulgarian opera companies to Category:Opera companies of Bulgaria

Propose renaming Category:Canadian opera companies to Category:Opera companies of Canada

Propose renaming Category:Danish opera companies to Category:Opera companies of Denmark

Propose renaming Category:Dutch opera companies to Category:Opera companies of the Netherlands

Propose renaming Category:Estonian opera companies to Category:Opera companies of Estonia

Propose renaming Category:Finnish opera companies to Category:Opera companies of Finland

Propose renaming Category:French opera companies to Category:Opera companies of France

Propose renaming Category:German opera companies to Category:Opera companies of Germany

Propose renaming Category:Greek opera companies to Category:Opera companies of Greece

Propose renaming Category:Italian opera companies to Category:Opera companies of Italy

Propose renaming Category:Moldovan opera companies to Category:Opera companies of Moldova

Propose renaming Category:New Zealand opera companies to Category:Opera companies of New Zealand

Propose renaming Category:Norwegian opera companies to Category:Opera companies of Norway

Propose renaming Category:Polish opera companies to Category:Opera companies of Poland

Propose renaming Category:Romanian opera companies to Category:Opera companies of Romania

Propose renaming Category:Russian opera companies to Category:Opera companies of Russia

May need to be split into "Russia" and "Soviet Union"

Propose renaming Category:South African opera companies to Category:Opera companies of South Africa

Propose renaming Category:Swedish opera companies to Category:Opera companies of Sweden

Propose renaming Category:Swiss opera companies to Category:Opera companies of Switzerland

Propose renaming Category:Thai opera companies to Category:Opera companies of Thailand

Propose renaming Category:Turkish opera companies to Category:Opera companies of Turkey

Propose renaming Category:Ukrainian opera companies to Category:Opera companies of Ukraine

Nominator's rationale: Rename all - per this recent CFD there is support for renaming these subcats to follow other similar category structures. Otto4711 (talk) 11:59, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note - all subcats of Category:Opera companies by country are tagged; do they all have to be listed on this page as well? Otto4711 (talk) 12:00, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, they should be listed here. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:18, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh. Otto4711 (talk) 02:54, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename all paying attention to the Russia and Soviet Union issue. Note, I also made a minor correction to the Switzerland target cat. Neier (talk) 12:38, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all per category discussions at the opera wikiproject. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Opera/Archive 73. Further note, although you certainly did not have to it would have been nice to inform the opera project about this discussion.Nrswanson (talk) 22:53, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No one is suggesting deleting the categories and the discussion to which you linked does not address the issue of "Fooian opera companies" vs "Opera companies of Foo". Otto4711 (talk) 13:33, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I fail to see how the nominator's referral to this CFD has much to do with this current proposal, especially after dismissing Nrswanson's pointing to the discussion of that very issue at the Opera Project. After all, the idea to rename all categories to "Opera companies in foo" (note "in") was not subject of that CFD and was only raised very late in that discussion (by Otto4711 and supported by 3 editors, 1 of them anonymous).
There are e.g. currently 608 categories named "… of Germany" and probably a similar number of the form "German …"; I assume other countries would yield similar results. Are those next to be renamed?
I have really no preference either way, but neither can I see any advantage at all in the renaming of these categories, given the current overall situation. It seems to me it's way too late to attempt a comprehensive process to create uniformity in the naming of categories; it follows that there is no gainful point to the proposed exercise, it's a waste of time and resources, bound to confuse readers and editors alike.
PS: On Commons, as in the above mentioned CFD, these categories are named Opera houses in foo, not of as proposed here. Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:18, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Opera houses" is not the same thing as "Opera companies" and we are not bound by how Commons names similar categories. If you review in your example what is categorized as "of Germany" and what is categorized as "German" you will find that inanimate objects and other non-human things are categorized as the former and that humans are categorized as the latter. It is not at all confusing to readers for this uniformity to be extended to this category and indeed uniformity in naming convention. Otto4711 (talk) 05:56, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Personally, I am ambivalent, but I am swayed by the argument that the opera folks prefer the current titles. Alansohn (talk) 14:30, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Except of course that the linked discussion, as already noted, does not address Fooian opera companies vs Opera companies of Foo. Otto4711 (talk) 05:56, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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:Visitor attractions in the Quad Cities --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 22:19, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - per WP:OC#SUBJECTIVE. No possible objective definition of "point of interest," no objective way to determine who or how many must be interested to qualify. Otto4711 (talk) 11:24, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Rename to Category:Visitor attractions in the Quad Cities ~~Keep~~ No objective definition is needed. Use reliable and verifiable sources to evaluate if they meet the clearly-defined inclusion criteria. Alansohn (talk) 19:17, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are no inclusion criteria on the category page, "clearly-defined" or otherwise. Why comment if you're not even going to bother to look at the category first? Otto4711 (talk) 20:54, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Landmarks in the Quad Cities, per Category:Landmarks in Iowa, as there is no existing "points of interest" category scheme. Postdlf (talk) 19:58, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose the suggested rename as it is every bit as vague and subjective as "points of interest". Otto4711 (talk) 20:54, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We should at least be consistently vague and subjective, no? No point in having this as sui generis when it can at least conform to what already exists, at least for now. Postdlf (talk) 20:58, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did change the parent since it did not seem to be the correct one. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:15, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Visitor attractions in the Quad Cities given the logical parent of Category:Visitor attractions in Iowa. These are better described as visitor attractions then as landmarks. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:14, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Visitor attractions in the Quad Cities and give visitors to the page a clue about Quad Cities (not globally known). (And remove any which are not plausible as visitor attractions.) Occuli (talk) 09:56, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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. Tiptoety ^talk 22:06, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete So, uhhh, what's this category about? Wikipedia doesn't have a proper article on "Digital revolution" that explains it; that wikilink redirects to Timeline of computing 1950–1979 (and Digital Revolution redirects to Timeline of computing 1990–present; neither article mentions the term), but a great many of the articles in this category are about things that are current. A Google search turns up a variety of conflicting answers to the question of what this term means, which would make it very difficult to produce a coherent category. The category is applied to a whole bunch of topics and biographies that don't mention the term at all, which makes it especially suspect... categories aren't supposed to be in the business of revealing something about the topic that isn't discussed in the article. Warren -talk- 11:56, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it would be interesting to hear from the category's creator. Notified creator with ((subst:cfd-notify)) Cgingold (talk) 16:03, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. With no main article, the category is ambiguous and POV. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:10, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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:Rutgers School of Law - Newark alumni. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:18, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Rutgers Law - Newark alumni to Category:Rutgers School of Law—Newark alumni

Nominator's rationale: Rename to match parent and sister categories. Eastlaw (talk) 07:59, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose the use of non-standard characters in category names as a barrier to navigation. Otto4711 (talk) 11:25, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support rename to Category:Rutgers School of Law - Newark alumni but the em-dash looks excessive in all Rutgers—xxx instances. Occuli (talk) 16:13, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Rutgers School of Law - Newark alumni per Occuli, which more closely matches the article title, with the exception of the dash issue. I agree with Otto that the non-typable character is a barrier to navigation and should be avoided. My only question is that we should probably develop a broad standard on this issue and address it with a substantial consensus either way, rather than deal with the issue one category at a time. Alansohn (talk) 20:13, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment--if you folks feel that the Em-dash shouldn't be used, then maybe we should rename the parent and sister categories as well. What do you think? --Eastlaw (talk) 21:28, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There have been previous rename attempts using en-dash in category names (but not any with em-dash as far as I know). Consensus has been elusive. I would myself support a rename of the parent and sister categories to 'Law - Newark'. Occuli (talk) 10:03, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:12, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is a holdover after we merged all but Luffy. Currently it holds only Luffy's article and the main list and is likely to not expand for the foreseeable future. It have posted a CfD tag on it.じんない 06:28, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete that puppy, since as the nominator says redundant after merging. —Quasirandom (talk) 02:17, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Lenticel ^(talk) 02:24, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a useless category. Alternatively, you could have completely emptied it (by recategorizing Luffy, the char list, and the redirect cats under Category:One Piece), waited 4 days, and CSDed it. —Dino guy 1000 22:49, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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. Honestly, I can't see much movement on this issue since the last CfD, primarily because no wave of new users participated in a discussion on the merits (and those who have opposed changes to the categories in the past have not modified their positions in any substantive way here, which acts to counterbalance those who support the changes). Just to be clear (and because the meaning of past closes for these categories have apparently been misunderstood), this discussion demonstrates that there is no consensus for renaming, deletion, or retention of the categories in question. Thus, they are kept "as is" by default. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:29, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Category:Fictional witches to Category:Fictional characters who use magic

Merge Category:DC Comics witches to Category:Fictional characters in DC Comics who use magic

Merge Category:Marvel Comics witches to Category:Fictional characters in Marvel Comics who use magic

I ask the closer to please take this CFD discussion, this CfD discussion, and this CfD discussion under consideration when closing this discussion.

Per those discussions, the word "witch" has issues of vagueness in definition and application.

This was apparently a "catch-all" cat, from before the target cat above existed. Many of the members aren't actually called "witches", but simply are female characters who use magic.

As noted at Magician (fantasy)#Names and terminology, what the names applied to magic-using characters means varies depending on the author.

And finally, having these separate would seem to be a hindrance, rather than a help, to navigation.

However, rather than outright deletion, I'm proposing to merge these instead. - jc37 03:28, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Delete - as nominator. - jc37 03:28, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly oppose and procedural close - we just had this discussion, what, two weeks ago? Otto4711 (talk) 04:08, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Did you even click on the links I provided? Probably not. - jc37 09:18, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Um, actually I read the discussions as they were ongoing. Like the ones for these categories that closed out barely a month ago. So, yeah, still gonna have to go with keep and close as borderline abuse of process. Otto4711 (talk) 11:20, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
First, it's been over a month and a half; Second, the original nomination was for deletion, this is for merger; Third, they closed as "no consensus" which means that they can be renominated at any time; and finally, Fourth, the closer even suggested renomination. (Which is why I question whether you actually checked out the links provided.)

That said, considering your strong oppose in the last discussion, I suppose your current comments shouldn't be surprising. - jc37 11:50, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The last CFD for "fictional witches" closed October 8. The renomination was November 13. In what universe is that "over a month and a half"? The Marvel and DC witches CFD closed October 2. Again, not "over a month and a half". Otto4711 (talk) 15:44, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
First, even if we go from the closures rather than the date of nomination (September 23), that's still over a month. But besides that, the other points above still apply... - jc37 16:51, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all and whale slap This goes well above and beyond the usual and customary abuse of process that we tolerate here for some unknown reason. Six weeks is hardly long enough to show any change in consensus. Making a minor tweak to the terms of your demands hardly changes anything. Alansohn (talk) 12:58, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per keepers. Too soon; nothing significant has changed. Johnbod (talk) 17:20, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Since what? Since no consensus? Again, did you even read the previous closure? - jc37 17:35, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, in a short break from my trolling activities. I might point out I did not participate in any of the other debates. Johnbod (talk) 17:40, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll be happy to provide a link to the previous discussion (noting, of course, that it's already the first discussion link in the nom, above). - jc37 03:19, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What on earth are you talking about now? Johnbod (talk) 03:54, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You mentioned that you hadn't been "in any of the other debates" in response to my question of whether you read the links provided. So I was presuming good faith, despite appearances, and offering to provide such a link. And my apologies if commenting here has forced you to take a "short break" from past activities. - jc37 04:02, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I say I have read the debates, and so you offer to provide a link to one? Even for you, the absence of logic seems striking (never mind the baffling comment below - but please don't explain it). Johnbod (talk) 04:07, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, the "yes" referred to having read them? I thought that referred to my question of "since when". My apologies for misunderstanding your response. - jc37 04:17, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, but how - oh never mind. Johnbod (talk) 05:06, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per keepers. Perhaps we can at least get a consensus that it is too soon to be revisiting these. Occuli (talk) 20:54, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. Where's Cgingold? If we're going to have a barbeque, shouldn't the whole group be here? Maybe we should invite some Australians to toss another shrimp on the barbie? - jc37 03:22, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, you got my attention, jc -- I couldn't figure out why my ears kept tingling every time I glanced at this page... Since you invoked my name, here's what I think: If the characters are identified by the author as "witches" (or are said to be practicing "witchcraft"), leave their articles in these categories. If they are not so described, and are merely practicing some form of magic, move their articles into the parent cats. And a word to the wise, jc: be very careful when you tangle with a coven of witches... Cgingold (talk) 14:05, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with that idea is that every author (as noted) defines the term differently. And thus this falls under "vague inclusion criteria". - jc37 16:02, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you OK? (If you are going to introduce Australians for whatever reason, their preferred spelling is barbecue.) Occuli (talk) 12:55, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. Clearly there are problems with the current names. There is no abuse of process in this nomination. In fact process recommends a follow on nomination when there is no consensus especially for lack of consensus for what the name should be. While this option may not have been proposed in the first discussions it is a very reasonable follow on to try and achieve consensus for a better name for these categories. This needs to be discussed on the merits and not on some presumed process violation. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:57, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom and Vegaswikian. I was going to side with the "keep, too soon" crowd, but then I read the prior CFD's. Category:Fictional wizards was merged to Category:Fictional characters who use magic, why shouldn't witches? And I stand by my comments in the other CFD in that "keep and patrol" never works (yes, I know nobody said that here, but when people are complaining because this was "too close" to the prior CFD, then those people are confirming that decision. Otherwise, they'd come up with actual reasons to keep). --Kbdank71 16:13, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:24, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Admin relisting comment : In my closure of the initial discussion where I said I would be relisting this discussion, I addressed the issue of whether this nomination was "too soon" or not, and decided that based on the specific circumstances, it was not. Therefore, I'd like to see a discussion on the merits of the proposal from here-on out. So far we have two users other than the nominator who support the merge, and one comment opposing. Below, please express your support or opposition to the substance of the proposal only. Those who previously made comments on purely procedural grounds are of course welcome to make a new comment. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:24, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep When authors and creators of fiction develop characters, they endow them with a series of characteristics. While hair color or name may be arbitrary, making a character a witch is a strong deliberate choice as a defining characteristic. The term "Witch" has a rather clear definition in the minds of most readers that "magic user" will never have. Using descriptions of a character's primary background from the source work or in references in reliable sources will satisfy the inclusion criteria. The proposed term "characters who use magic" is not only unfamiliar and arbitrary, but would be even more overbroad, including anyone who pulls a rabbit out of a hat or does a card trick. With "witch" we can look for a rather specific and defining description and set of traits; with "magic user" we're making completely subjective interpretations that even adding the word "related" won't help. Furthermore, I am baffled by the rules of the CfD deletion game, which appear to tolerate an unlimited number of efforts to delete categories, even after a clear consensus is reached for retention. Once a category is deleted, any attempt to recreate the category -- even after addressing any possible concerns, legitimate or otherwise -- is routinely slapped down as "recreation of a previously deleted category" without any consideration of changes or procedural technicalities. If it were up to me, I'd start swinging with that same stinking whale carcass I invoked in my earlier vote. Alansohn (talk) 19:33, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Just to be clear, there was no "clear consensus ... reached for retention" in the previous CfDs. They were all closed as "no consensus". Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 20:42, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I want to be sure that my comment above (which is now bolded) is/was understood to support Keeping the category, with restrictions. In addition, I think that the previous CFD for Category:Fictional Martians, wherein I made very much the same argument -- and which was closed as a clear Keep -- should be regarded as precedent that weighs in favor of keeping this category. Cgingold (talk) 00:59, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how that applies here. Martians wasn't being suggested for merging. (That wasn't even discussed.) This is about merging from a non-specific label which differs and varies depending on how each author defines it. (And they define it quite differently, as noted even in the Wikipedia article noted in the nom.) The characters will still be categorised, just instead, the category for each will be due to the character's ability to inherently use magic, rather than by the variously defined label "witch".
If it helps, consider this a rename. It's only a "merge", because the category name already exists. - jc37 10:15, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I made reference to the Martians CFD is because you raised the same argument about different authors having different notions as to what a "Martian" is, just as you've argued vis-a-vis Witches. That argument was soundly rejected in the case of Martians, as it should be here. Merged or deleted, the category is lost all the same, jc. Cgingold (talk) 14:37, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for clarifying your reasoning. As for "lost", the goal here is and should be navigation. In a merge, all the members are still grouped together, they're merely also grouped with other, similar entries. Often, that's a benefit to navigation. Category diffusion should only be used when necessary, and while perhaps a case could be made for keeping Martians separate from the broader extra-terrestrials, there is no such benfit here. What all these characters have in common, is that they use magic. What they actually all don't have in common is that the author called the character a "witch". In most of these cases, that simply isn't the case. And as others have noted, it's been a common act of WP:OR to include characters in this cat. Seems to me smarter to be cognizant of common practice, and merely change the name. By changing from suggesting the application of a "label", to the already established "superhuman power", we allow for the variance in author definition and appellation (warlocks, sorcerers, witches, wizards, etc.), and reduce overcategorisation. And meanwhile there are already lists for the specific appellations, which then allows for explanations of how each author specifically definied the terms, placing them in context, and allowing for sourcing. No loss, and all gain. - jc37 20:03, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I like the semantic hoops of calling "merge" the same as "rename". The proposal will move 160 articles for the far-better-defined character of "witch" into the completely undefined catchall of "characters who use magic". Whether we're talking about Witches or Martians (or Atlanteans), they don't exist in the real world. These are fictional creations. When an author or other creator of fiction defines a character, the fact that the character of "witch" is chosen is rather deliberate. The author could have chosen any of a number of alternate titles, or simply called them a "character who uses magic". They didn't. They used the word "witch".

Sure, we can keep on talking in semantic circles that there is no hard and fast definition for "witch", but there is none for any word in the English language, even for "magic". Category:Fictional characters who use magic is defined as including "characters in fiction who exhibit magical powers or abilities". The gigantic problem is that Magic is a laundry list of definitions, including both both Magic (illusion) and Magic (paranormal) (of which Witch is listed as a subdefinition). Assuming you mean to exclude abilities such as conjuring rabbits out of top hats with the wave of a white-tipped plastic stick and assuming that you're sticking with the kind that means "anything that is not explainable by any laws of science" we have no better of a definition. The Magic (paranormal) article lists dozens upon dozens of forms of magic and magical traditions. It leaves us with nothing but a muddle.

The traditional counterargument is that there is that there is some case that might be a borderline witch, therefore the entire category must be eliminated. This is a useless argument in general, as there are questionable cases that can be raised in any and all categories, and these questionable cases should be dealt with on a case-by-case basis for inclusion or exclusion from within each category. In this case, for each questionable witch you could offer, I could suggest a dozen questionable "magic users". The broader parent of "characters who use magic" solves nothing and only makes for an even bigger muddle.

As the intention of the category system is to help readers navigate to groups of articles with similar characteristics, these characters deserve to be meaningfully categorized by how their creators defined them. Alansohn (talk) 13:12, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While some of your assertions aren't accurate (not every member of this cat was called a "witch" by their author, and in some cases, a particular character may have been written (and therefore defined variously) by more than a single author, such as the case in serial fiction like radio, television, or comics); I find it interesting that the whole of your arguement would seem to support listification, due to vagueness of inclusion criteria. (Due to both "magic" and "witch".) - jc37 20:43, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Even with subtle variations in definition, my sources say that "witch" is a rather well-defined characteristic, supported by ample reliable and verifiable sources. I do enjoy the technique of just stating that something is "vague" and therefore requires a list. Alansohn (talk) 14:25, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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: complicated. Rename Anglo-Saxon, Feminist, Islamic, Middle East, and Religious per DGG. No consensus for Classical scholars, noting an outstanding classics v. classical issue and the subcategories issue. For clarity, this should probably be re-nominated either by itself or with its subcategories. Keep Biblical, Etruscan, Legal, and Pre-Columbian at their current names. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.}

Propose renaming:

Category:Anglo-Saxon scholars to Category:Scholars of Anglo-Saxon studies
Category:Biblical scholars to Category:Scholars of the Bible
Category:Classical scholars to Category:Scholars of classical studies
Category:Etruscan scholars to Category:Scholars of Etruscan studies
Category:Feminist scholars to Category:Scholars of feminism
Category:Islamic scholars to Category:Scholars of Islam
Category:Legal scholars to Category:Scholars of law
Category:Middle East scholars to Category:Scholars of Middle East studies
Category:Pre-Columbian scholars to Category:Scholars of Pre-Columbian studies
Category:Religious scholars to Category:Scholars of religion

Nominator's rationale: Rename. The current names are ambiguous. Eliyak T·C 01:16, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename all except prefer Category:Scholars of feminist theory and Category:Scholars of religious studies. I'm not 100% on my proposal the former; however, these are not scholars of feminism (as a movement) but scholars who apply feminist methodology/philosophy in fields like feminist economics or feminist literary criticism. As for the latter, scholars of religion would be Category:Theologians, but the category in fact is for scholars of secular religious studies.-choster (talk) 02:38, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose to avoid excesse verbiage & legalism. There are two or three which are ambiguous, (I do not think there were any pre-columbian, Etruscan scholars, Biblical, scholars, and Legal scholars is unambiguous.(there are 2 or 3 people who might count as anglo-Saxons who were scholar) , but other I would suggest renaming

Category:Anglo-Saxon scholars to Category:Anglo-Saxon studies scholars
Category:Classical scholars to Category:classics scholars
Category:Feminist scholars to Category:Feminist studies Scholars
Category:Islamic scholars to Category:Islamic studies Scholars
Category:Middle East scholars to Category: Middle East studies scholars
Category:Religious scholars to Category:Religious studies Scholars

still clumsy, but not quite as much so, at least not to my ears. DGG (talk) 22:33, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The s in "scholars" should not be capitalized in any case, but I agree that this is a better construction than "Scholars of Foo" which has bugged me for well over a year. Otto4711 (talk) 00:35, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename as per DGG only - with small "s"s per Otto. DGG picks out the ones where ambiguity is present. Johnbod (talk) 20:30, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - On the whole I support DGG's proposal, but for total clarity I would add Category:Pre-Columbian studies scholars and Category:Etruscan studies scholars. (I'm less concerned with Biblical and legal, as those are both extremely familiar terms.) As for Category:Classical scholars, that should be renamed to Category:Classical studies scholars -- not to Category:Classics scholars, which would suggest books for most people. Cgingold (talk) 00:53, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose proposal. Agree with DCG, Otto4711, & Johnbod. I don't see what the point for example is of "Scholars of the Bible" when a Google Scholar search reveals an overwhelming advantage of Biblical scholars over Scholars of the Bible, with I believe no confusion therein. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 14:48, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename as per DGG's proposal. We should rename the categories only where ambiguity exists, and in no case should a name change create greater ambiguity than previously existed. --Eastlaw (talk) 02:58, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"in no case should a name change create greater ambiguity" - which is precisely why I made a point of specifying Category:Classical studies scholars rather than Category:Classics scholars. I also feel that "Pre-Columbian scholars" and "Etruscan scholars', while perhaps less problematic in that regard than some of the others, would still benefit from insertion of the word "studies", since they can easily be construed as referring to the identity of the scholars, rather than their fields of study. Cgingold (talk) 15:25, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support DGG's proposal, noting that "scholars" should be in lower case. Alansohn (talk) 14:26, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note re Category:Classical scholars - I've just discovered that this category includes 20 subcategories by nationality -- all of which use the formula "Xan/ish classical scholars" -- a fact that wasn't touched on in this discussion. Whatever one's preference of name for this head category, any renaming should only proceed in a separate CFD that includes all of those sub-cats (none of which were tagged for this CFD), and not as part of a group renaming proposal for other, unrelated categories. So regardless of any concensus that may exist with respect to other categories, I strongly recommend closing out this particular category as No concensus in order to allow for a properly noticed and structured CFD to take place (assuming that DGG or another editor wishes to pursue this). Cgingold (talk) 12:53, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just checked to be sure that none of the other categories included in DGG's proposal share this problem, and it seems this is the only one. Cgingold (talk) 13:05, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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

The result of the discussion was: Rename. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:15, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Louis Cha → Category:Jin Yong

Category:Jinyong characters → Category:Jin Yong characters

Category:Novels by Jinyong → Category:Novels by Jin Yong

Nominator's rationale: Rename in order to be consistent with the main article: Jin Yong.--Nohansen (talk) 00:20, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support using his pen-name is better than choosing between his actual names. 76.66.195.63 (talk) 06:48, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to match parent article.--Lenticel ^(talk) 02:27, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.

December 1

Category:Manhattan Transfer albums

Category:Albums produced by Level 42

Category:Albums produced by Bobby Irwin

Category:Albums produced by Neil Brockbank

Category:Albums produced by Harry Maslin

Category:People from Greece

Category:Smalll wind turbines

Category:UNO Mavericks football players

Category:Charlton Athletic F.C. Reserves Managers

Opera companies by country

Category:Points of Interest in the Quad Cities

Category:Digital Revolution

Category:Rutgers Law - Newark alumni

Category:One Piece characters

Category:Fictional witches

Category:DC Comics witches

Category:Marvel Comics witches

Scholars

Jin Yong categories