< February 17	February 19 >

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. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 00:41, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:People of Kosovo to Category:Kosovar people

Nominator's rationale: Category doesn't currently conform to our naming conventions. Hemlock Martinis (talk) 23:42, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. Oops: I created the second category without doing a thorough search which would have turned up the first. But I agree that "Kosovar people" better reflects the naming conventions. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:04, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge for consistency per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:42, 22 February 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. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 00:42, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Portuguese cycling races to Category:Cycle races in Portugal

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories)—<sport> in <country>, and as others in Category:Cycle races by country. Severo^TC 23:17, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. --Eliyak T·C 23:26, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:42, 22 February 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. Kbdank71 18:01, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Le Tour de Langkawi to Category:Tour de Langkawi

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Avoiding the definite article, as the main article page, Tour de Langkawi, has done for a while now without objection. Severo^TC 23:11, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:43, 22 February 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. Kbdank71 18:03, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~:Propose renaming Category:Canadians deported to Category:People deported from Canada~~ :Nominator's rationale: Rename. Doesn't make clear if it's for Canadians citizens deported from a second country or people, like Ernst Zundel or Jeremy Hinzman, who wanted to stay in Canada and were deported. Kevlar67 (talk) 21:40, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw I see now that both those category names should contain a different group of people. People deported from anada (e.g. Ernst Zundel) in one, and Canadians deported from other contries (e.g. Maher Arar) in another. Kevlar67 (talk) 16:49, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I would have expected "Canadians deported" to refer to people sent back from elsewhere to Canada! Peterkingiron (talk) 22:07, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not defining, as we don't categorize people for brushes with the law that don't end up in prison, remember all the DUI and drug categories we flushed, and deportation is at about the same level as those. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:44, 22 February 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. Kbdank71 18:04, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Listify. These categories constitute categorization by a relatively trivial trait. --Eliyak T·C 04:54, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. —Eliyak T·C 05:34, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Everything can be viewed as relative trivial, relative to what? to its subject as a Jewish community it isn't trivial at all, It has more than 5 subject articles in of itself. The cat is impotent and should stand--YY (talk) 10:42, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep There are 70 articles in Category:United States places with Orthodox Jewish communities. What is trivial about an Orthodox Jewish community? Subdividing a category by geography is a normal and proper procedure. --Redaktor (talk) 11:05, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - categorizing places by the religious or ethnic people who happen to inhabit them is untenable. Any city of any size is going to have people of various religions and ethnicities who tend to collect themselves in particular neighborhoods and in few, perhaps no, cases are the cities defined by that. New York City could end up with dozens if not hundreds of such categories. Otto4711 (talk) 13:25, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would have no difficulty supporting categories for the likes of Crown Heights, Bethnal Green and so on, but a random member of the US category, Morristown, New Jersey has a long & pretty comprehensive article, that mentions it has the highest % of Colombian-americans in the US but does not mention Jews at all. Categories seem way too loosely used. Johnbod (talk) 14:39, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
List - seee block settlement or ethnic enclave for precedent. Only named ethnic communities are categorized (e.g. Chinatown), others are listed. Kevlar67 (talk) 21:42, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and if any do not fit the category, either improve the article or remove the tag. DGG (talk) 05:07, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As an Orthodox Jew who expects to relocate frequently within the continental United States over the next 5-10 years of my life, I find the United States places with Orthodox Jewish communities category to be highly useful. For Orthodox Jews, knowing about the existence of a community in a given region is very important, as it indicates that Kosher food can be found in the area, that there are Orthodox synagogues at which to pray, and that a variety of specialized communal services will be available. This seems like exactly the kind of information that Wikipedia is supposed to make freely available on the web. I don't understand why the editors would consider this an insignificant or pointless category. That may be true for a majority of Wikipedia users, but for Orthodox Jews, this is a highly significant category. I find it insulting to my co-religionists that the editors would choose to think otherwise.
Comment One point I would like to add (to my keep just above) is that it is somewhat silly for the pages to link to Wikipedia entries for specific cities, since, as a user above commented, many of these entries make no mention of the Orthodox Jewish enclaves in those cities. Ideally, the links would be to entries for the Orthodox Jewish communities of each city - however, this might become arduous, unless a lot of people can be mobilized to write about their own communities. And turning the page into a list would be preferable to deleting the page outright - if that suits the editors, I would be willing to take on the responsibility of converting the category to a list entry myself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chicagoshim (talk • contribs) 21:01, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think if you read through categories, lists, and series boxes, you would not find it "insulting". Each of these three are different ways of indexing and providing access to content, and each has advantages and disadvantages. It's not an attack or an insult to consider that the features and bugs of the "category" system make it less useful than some other organizational scheme for this particular semantic construction. --Lquilter (talk) 22:05, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and listify - Given the problems listed above in a "category" identifying communities by population, this is a perfect example of an instance in which a list would work better. The list permits short descriptions of the communities, even if they're lacking in the article on the larger cities (Johnbod); it permits referencing; it doesn't face us with the problem of categorizing NYC, Chicago, LA, San Francisco, and other large cities along hundreds of past and present identified "communities" (Otto4711). But it permits identification of the neighborhoods in a useful way (Chicagoshim, Yidisheryid, Redaktor). It also lets us have some historic specificity, so we can include, for instance, neighborhood A in the 1920s, and neighborhood B in the 1980s. Heck, I'm already mentally working on the list of gay communities: Boys' town in Chicago, 1990s Chelsea in NYC, the Castro. This model is already in use as pointed out by Kevlar67. Finally, a list lets us include small neighborhoods or communities which really might be "trivial" if used to categorize large cities. --Lquilter (talk) 22:05, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I want to further explain why I feel the category should be deleted. As an Orthodox Jew, I fully understand how the existence of an Orthodox community in a locale is a very important characteristic, from our perspective. However, objectively it is not really defining of the place at all. Articles should usually not be categorized by a minor trait of the subject at hand. (In this sense, "minor" means that it is on a par with a few dozen other traits regarding the same subject.) Wikipedia's overcategorization policy uses this principle several times. For example, an actor should not be categorized by a movie he was in, and a sporting arena should not be categorized by an event held there. The existence of Orthodox Jews in a city, similarly, is one item in a potentially very long list of characteristics of that city, and is not defining. --Eliyak T·C 23:18, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unneeded race/ethnicity/religion categories. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:45, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and listify per lquilter.Dsp13 (talk) 21:09, 22 February 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. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 00:43, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Eponymous category for a comic strip. Category only contains four pages and is very likely to expand. Nothing would be harmed if this category were removed. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 04:22, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - nothing here that can't be linked through the strip's article as a navigational hub, nothing that can't be categorized elsewhere, no need for the category. Otto4711 (talk) 13:27, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom & ample precedent. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:45, 22 February 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. Kbdank71 18:00, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Games awards to Category:Game awards

Nominator's rationale: Similar to the one below, this is parallel to Category:Film awards (it's not "Films awards"). Its subcategory Category:Video game awards also suggests a singular should be used.--Mike Selinker (talk) 02:05, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It appears that some of the awards in here are for the games (specific games) or game designers, both of which are reasonably game awards, but some of them are for gamers. Rather than splitting the category to what seems like an unnecessary degree, what about "Game and gamer awards"? --Lquilter (talk) 19:12, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That seems a bit much. Let's just limit the category to those about games and designers in the header.--Mike Selinker (talk) 21:55, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename also eliminated the possible confusion with awards given out by the magazine Games. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:46, 22 February 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. Kbdank71 17:59, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Games magazines to Category:Game magazines

Nominator's rationale: I thought I'd try this again, after not succeeding with this nomination eighteen months ago. I think that its subcategories of Category:Role-playing game magazines and Category:Video game magazines suggest the main category should have a singular "Game". Also this avoids minor confusion with magazines in the Games (magazine) family of magazines.--Mike Selinker (talk) 02:01, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom, and eliminates the ambiguity of the magazine Games. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:46, 22 February 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. Kbdank71 17:59, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Educational institutions established in an unknown year to Category:Educational institutions with year of establishment missing

Nominator's rationale: This category currently contains articles about educational institutions where the year of establishment is missing in the article. In other categories there is a convention of distinguishing such missing dates from objectively unknown dates (e.g. Category:Year of birth missing vs. Category:Year of birth unknown. Indeed, this distinction is drawn between the parent category of this category, Category:Year of establishment missing and another category, Category:Year of establishment unknown. The missing / unknown distinction is useful and it would be nice not to have it confused like this. Dsp13 (talk) 01:41, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename Per nom. Lugnuts (talk) 15:21, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:47, 22 February 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. Kbdank71 17:58, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Commonwealth Triathlon Championships to Category:Triathlon at the Commonwealth Games

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Commonwealth Games rather than Championships, and in the standard naming format. Severo^TC 01:28, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:47, 22 February 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.

February 18

Category:People of Kosovo

Category:Portuguese cycling races

Category:Le Tour de Langkawi

Category:Canadians deported

Orthodox Jewish communities

Category:FoxTrot

Category:Games awards

Category:Games magazines

Category:Educational institutions established in an unknown year

Category:Commonwealth Triathlon Championships