< January 8	January 10 >

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the discussion was delete. Kbdank71 15:34, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Cause of death unknown (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete 1 article here, we have the huge disputed causes of death category as its parent which is probably where the one article ought to be left. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:37, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• If Category:Cause of death disputed is too big (and I've seen much bigger) we ought to break it up into subcats, of which this can be one. I'm not sure, btw, that this article (or any of the large number of articles with death unknown, like Euthydemus I of Bactria) belong in the supercat. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:46, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The wisdom of having a "disputed" category at all is probably worth a debate - not here & now - I'll probably nominate it for a rename/delete shortly depending on how this fares. But in some sense, I agree that many ancient people we have no clue how they died, what value is there of having a category for them - really they have nothing in common except for the limitation of our current knowledge with respect to them: since we have all sorts of race/religion/handedness/sexual orientation categories do we want "unkowns" for each wherein we can dump all the people that we don't know about that aspect of them? I think not. As for disputed causes of death, the future discussion, let me just preface the (as yet to be opened) debate on that, by saying: I acknowledge that there are notable deaths for which the cause is disputed and the dispute (whether scholarly or popular) is notably covered by RSes and all that; I also acknowledge that there are notable deaths where the immediate cause is not in general disputed but the more mediate causes or actors are disputed (i.e., JFK was shot - but by whom? why? etc...); and finally, there are deaths while disputed by some have not generated the coverage that makes that dispute sufficiently notable on which to categorize the article, so maybe we need to read into "disputed" the words "notably disputed" -as we do for most cats any way Category:People from California doesn't include me though literally it ought. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:30, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete --This is not defining at all. Many of the cause of death cats aren't either IMO, but this is far worse. If you were giving a very brief description of someone whose cause of death was unknown, would you really bring that up? If this is wanted as a sort of maintenance category, can we at least move it to talk pages, the way we have Category:Date of birth missing? LeSnail (talk) 02:57, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not really defining - maybe move to the talk page as per LeSnail's suggestion? Cause of death disputed is certainly notable, but this isn't. Lugnuts (talk) 19:08, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete (probably)- Date of birth missing is potentially useful because some one might be able to improve the article by sadding it. The same would apply to date of death. However, cause of death is rarely notable. There are several possible scenarios: (1) what in England is a coroner's "Open verdict", meaning that it is left undecided what the cause of death was, for example where there is a possibility of suicide, but other causes cannot be ruled out; (2) historical figures where no more is known than that they died; (3) some murder victims (4) etc. I have grave doubts as to the merits of this category. However I might be persuaded to change my mind if a good reason for retention is given. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:31, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the discussion was No consensus. The category contains a mix of place types so a discussion here may not be able to reach a consensus. I suggest that this discussion move to the category talk page. Once a consensus is worked out there, the discussion can come back here if necessary. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:47, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Unincorporated communities in New Jersey with Category:Neighborhoods in New Jersey

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Misleading. In other states "unincorporated communities" are land outside the boundaries of any incorporated municipality. In New Jersey, there is no such land. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:31, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: If this goes through, the corresponding categories in the New England region would need to be renamed for consistency. --Polaron | Talk 02:20, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Probably a good idea; but I'm not sure the same situation applies in, say, Maine. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:51, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose merge - These are two different things. The neighborhoods category are areas of cities and are known as neighborhoods, which has a very fluid and changing definition over time. Neighborhoods don't form parts of postal addresses. The unincorporated communities are primary place names. Usually, this revolves around a post office or a railroad station. The name of the community stands on its own even though the community has no government. The government belongs to whatever municipality the community lies within. These are usually CDPs or ZCTAs according to the US Census Bureau. Here, the place name is usually used on addresses. See Unincorporated community (New Jersey). Perhaps this category should be renamed, but certainly not merged. Thanks for posting at WT:NJ and letting us know about this debate. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 16:37, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. Macopin, New Jersey, for example, which is in this category, is part of West Milford, New Jersey. Per Unincorporated area, "an unincorporated area is a region of land that is not a part of any municipality". Hence, Macopin is not unincorporated. It's just a neighborhood. It doesn't have its own ZIP code, or its own train station, and it is not a Census-designated place, as "A CDP may not be located partially or entirely within an incorporated place" [1]. I know there is Unincorporated community (New Jersey), but it has no sources to show why unincorporated areas in New Jersey differ from unincorporated areas elsewhere. --Kbdank71 15:57, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the discussion was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:22, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Filipino ethnic musicians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Not clear what this is for. If it is for ethnically Filipino people, who are musicians, it needs to be renamed or else deleted as OC by irrelevant ethnicity. If it is supposed to be for people who play some sort of "ethnic" music, then it needs renaming. Intro to category is not helpful, nor is the only member Danny Sillada. I'm confused. LeSnail (talk) 23:16, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unnecessary race/ethnicity category. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:33, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the discussion was delete. Kbdank71 14:43, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Most Serene Republics (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Categorization by name. Main article is a dab page. LeSnail (talk) 23:09, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• A dab page between the members of the category; some people like navigating by cats. Weak Keep, if deleted make template or use ((Otherarticles)). A trivial, but interesting, link. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:34, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• I wouldn't say the disambiguation is the "Main article" of the category. I created this category because I felt it would be somewhat useful to show that there are multiple Most Serene Republics; I spent ten years believing there was only one. There could be someone else thinking the same thing. Though I must concur with Septentrionalis/PMAnderson—if this is deleted a ((Otherarticles)) should be inserted in its wake.76.87.160.171 (talk) 03:27, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The only relationship in included items seems to be that "Most Serene Republic" was included in the name of the state, so it is categorization by name only, per nom. It's the equivalent of putting all people with the surname of "Jones" in the same category. Snocrates 23:40, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete OCAT by name, and one would think that there can only be one "most" of anything, so something must be the second most serene republic. :-). Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:34, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strictly these are Serenissima, which implies no more than "very Serene"; but the English form is traditional.Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:50, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep - a small category with no room for expansion. The main article (which is really little more than a disambiguation page) adequately covers the subject and should be described as the category's main article (if retained). Peterkingiron (talk) 18:38, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, although a category for "Medieval republics" would be useful I think. Johnbod (talk) 03:06, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Is there actually a meaningful distinction between a "most serene republic" and a plain republic beyond the name? If not, then delete. I also agree with Johnbod that a medieval republics category might be a good idea. Bearcat (talk) 22:09, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not that I can see, or that is mentioned in the main article. Johnbod (talk) 22:17, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, and Upmerge two to Category:Republics as San Marino and the main article are not in that head category at the moment. The others are in Category:Former republics. In anticipation of category deletion, I'm adding Most Serene Republic under "See also" on the other 4. - Fayenatic (talk) 18:05, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the discussion was rename Category:Lake Forest, CA to Category:Lake Forest, California. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:07, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Lake Forest, CA to Category:Lake Forest, California

Nominator's rationale: For consistency with main article Lake Forest, California and all other subcats of Category:Cities in Orange County, California. LeSnail (talk) 22:54, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename by expanding abbreviation per nom. Snocrates 23:20, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename - expand abbreviation. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:07, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. When I first started the category I wasn't thinking about CA vs California. CarverM (talk) 01:49, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom; also the people should be placed into Category:People from Lake Forest, California or some larger equivalent. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:35, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the discussion was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:09, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Past and present air bases of New England to Category:Air bases in New England

Nominator's rationale: "Past and present" is superfluous, and might encourage someone to split into "past" and "present" subcats. Also, these are not air bases of New England--they are air bases of the US armed forces, and are located in New England. LeSnail (talk) 22:49, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

True, great point, i'm all in. When can I change it? Kevin Rutherford (talk) 23:00, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It will be done by a bot in a about a week (assuming no one else objects). LeSnail (talk) 23:11, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could you insert at the top that the category is for military air bases? Some people are wrongly categorizing civil airports here for reasons that are not immediately clear to me. Perhaps if they read a disclaimer, they wouldn't be so hasty. Thanks. Student7 (talk) 23:18, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. There is no need to classify these by US region, past or present. If any breakout is needed it should be at the state level. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:10, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Vegaswikian. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:36, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. We should also note, as Student7 pointed out, that the current name is also ambiguous. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:24, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Please Note Student7 stated, after I told him that the civilian airports were used for national guard use or were usually former military airports themselves,

  It dawned on me, after I left the message, that commercial airports are often used by the Air National Guard, in Burlington, VT, for example. So the designation "air base" may still be valid. I think I'd better withdraw my objection! :) A bit more complicated than I first thought!

  I just thought you guys should know. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 21:28, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the discussion was no consensus. Kbdank71 14:45, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Followup to the recent deletion of German loanwords from Czech. The category (created together with German loanwords cat) is partly duplicate of the List of English words of Czech origin (an useful list with context). Having an origin in Czech language is hardly a defining feature for robots, pistol may or may not derive from 15th century Czech word and camellia was named after Georg Joseph Kamel, it is not derived from a Czech word. I suggest to delete the category. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 17:16, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kbdank71 18:17, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Keep, category German loanwords from Czech is a different case. Czech loanwords define only loanwords in English. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 17:18, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Indeed, the other category was a very different case, but delete this anyway. This is categorization by an aspect of name. The origin of the English word for robot is not a defining characteristic of robots. LeSnail (talk) 20:49, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - in the absence of a discussion of the entire Category:English words and phrases of foreign origin structure, which is fairly extensive. Otto4711 (talk) 00:07, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I agree with LeSnail, but the time has come to debate all the tree as referenced by Otto, and now is as good a time as any. Loan words are encyclopedic, sourced lists of them are great, but as nom says its not a defining feature of the subject of the article any more than the fact that a city was named after some famous person (hence deletion of Category:Eponymous cities and its sub-cats), while the lists of such namings are encyclopedic because they are notable, while categories need cohesion and something that relates them. Here, the loan word categories are problematic for several reasons: (a) it's a categorization based on coincidence of etymology; (b) these things have nothing much together; (c) sourcing/verifiability; (d) the sheer abundance of these were they fully populated would make some of these among the largest categories; (e) are we sure that we are talking real loanwords from Fooish or something of Fooish derivation? our editors seem to gloss over the distinction - so Ecology is claimed to be a German loanword, but German is Ökologie, neither is it Greek for it was coined from Greek roots but alas apparently never existed in Greek before in English; and (f) borrowing a loan word from another language may (or may not) have anything to do with whether the concept originated from that linguistic culture, making the admixture of articles not even relevant on a cultural level: like all the -ology articles claimed to be Greek loanwords; I guess they gave us Scientology as well? On the whole these ought to be deleted - all of them, but we'll use the Czech as a test case and if deleted, nominate the others. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:18, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non-defining characteristic. As an aside, it's not being applied responsibly, either: pistol is of indeterminate origin per the article, pram (ship) does not even mention etymology, kolache is arguably not a loanword, etc. Maralia (talk) 22:18, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Kolache is loaned from Koláče, why do you think it is not a loanword? ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 22:24, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• The possible miscategorization of any particular article in the category is not relevant to whether the category itself should be retained. Otto4711 (talk) 23:55, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• My argument is that category does not provide sufficient context. For example Calash (undercarriage) is not an obvious Czech loanword. From what I found it is English loanword from French "caleche" from Czech "kolesa" which itself may be based on a German word having Yiddish origin [2].

• Czech word "prám", according to Czech sources, e.g. [3], derives from a proto-Indoeuropean word. German "Prahm" derives from the Czech. Dutch and English equivalents may (says the linked text) derive as well (and if, then they more likely obtained it from the German rather than from the Czech language). Is a category really the right place to present something as clear truth when the reality has been so complicated?

• I nominated only the Czech category as this is something I care about. I do not have stamina to deal with the whole category tree. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 23:23, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Otto4711 - Neparis (talk) 00:42, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Most entries are doubtful, and few would remain if the category would be thoroughly cleaned up. the Czech word Polka, literally meaning "Polish woman", also in Polish? Shouldn't that read "... also in Czech"? And if Semtex is there, why not Skoda and other brands? At least Pilsner and Budweiser are not included. -- Matthead  DisOuß   17:17, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: so there are also others similar categories [4], that should be deleted also based on this consensus? ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 09:59, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the discussion was no consensus. Kbdank71 14:47, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Traditionalism to Category:Integral Traditionalism

Nominator's rationale: ambiguous (Traditionalism has any number of meanings). The category's scope is Integral Traditionalism. dab (𒁳) 15:24, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kbdank71 18:15, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• rename per nom Reading the main article, this seems like an appropriate and helpful name for the category. Hmains (talk) 05:07, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename with question - Definitely include the "Integral" at the beginning. My question is the cap-T. The article caps T in Traditionalism all the way through, but lots of people do that with movements & ideas that are near & dear to their heart. To me it looks like WP style would have it lower-t, but that may be my own ignorance -- is the phrase "Integral Traditionalism" always or overwhelmingly written with a capital I and T such that it has taken on the character of a proper name? If so, then go with "IT"; otherwise, I believe it should be "Integral traditionalism" (and the article should be fixed as well).--Lquilter (talk) 18:59, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• comment all words of a proper noun (name of a particular person, place, or thing) are capitalized under English rules. Hmains (talk) 17:31, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but is this a particular person, place, or thing? It's an intellectual doctrine. --Lquilter (talk) 23:20, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Hmmm "Integral Traditionalism" gets a grand total of 4 Google scholar results, only 2 of which seem to be on-topic. Perennialism gets more, but mostly on different topics. The main article is called "Traditionalist school and we should follow that, with in my view a qualifier as most uses of even that will refer to other things, so Rename to Traditionalist school of philosophy - or just delete as too obscure. Johnbod (talk) 00:47, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the discussion was not renamed. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:11, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Theatre companies in the United States to Category:American theatre companies

Propose renaming Category:Theatre companies in Sweden to Category:Swedish theatre companies

Propose renaming Category:Theatre companies in Russia to Category:Russian theatre companies

Propose renaming Category:Theatre companies in the Republic of Ireland to Category:Irish theatre companies

Propose renaming Category:Theatre companies in the Philippines to Category:Filipino theatre companies

Propose renaming Category:Theatre companies in Canada to Category:Canadian theatre companies

Propose renaming Category:Theatre companies in Germany to Category:German theatre companies

Nominator's rationale: Rename. In line with Category:Fooian foos naming convention. Otto4711 (talk) 15:23, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• keep these and rename the ones which do not match this Category: foo in foocountry naming convention. These are 'theatre companies by country', not 'theatre companies by nationality' and for good reason. For example, a 'German theatre company' could exist in the United States, but that company belongs in the US category, not in the Germany category. Do not confuse things. Hmains (talk) 22:01, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't believe that a "German theatre company" could exist in the United States. A German-language theatre company might, but that's an entirely different question. Otto4711 (talk) 02:42, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• comment regardless, these are in a category 'by country' not a category 'by nationality' and therefore these subcats are named correctly. Hmains (talk) 01:16, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• That naming convention is hardly uniform. Category:Architecture by country uses the Fooian arhitecture structure, Category:Broadcasting by country uses a mix, Category:Media by country uses Fooian media, Category:Film studios uses Fooian studios and so on. Otto4711 (talk) 17:17, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kbdank71 14:39, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• keep I've never gone that far up the tree before, but I find Theatre companies in London -> Theatre companies in England -> British theatre companies -> Theatre companies by country; only one of those entries seems inconsistent to me. I think category naming conventions should be consistent throughout the hierarchy. I agree keeping the existing and renaming the disparate category names to the official name of the country seems more sensible. It is also consistent with the Theatres in ... categories, to which it must relate. Kbthompson (talk) 17:50, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There is quite a difference between Category:Theatre companies in the Philippines and Category:Filipino theatre companies. The former is clear-cut: they are companies in the country of the Philippines. The latter is not: it could either mean in the country, or companies in other countries where the actors, directors, whatnot, have Filipino lineage. —  MusicMaker5376 19:00, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Theatre companies by country seems clear and useful. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:43, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. As an example: I recently attended a production put on by a company that only performs french authored and french influenced plays. All the members come from france or are of french ancestry. However, the company has never performed outside of America. Per the proposed naming, this company could be in either "Category: French theatre companies" or "Category: American theatre companies" (or both). The current naming convention is infinitely more specific. --omtay38 06:47, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Renaming them will bring the exact same problem we are now having with the musicals by nationality.--19:09, 12 January 2008 (UTC)Yamanbaiia^{(free hugs!)}

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the discussion was no consensus. Kbdank71 14:56, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Books by writers from peoples indigenous to the Americas (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Rename to Category:Books by indigenous writers of the Americas. The current name is too wordy & poorly-phrased. If anybody can improve on my suggested name, please do! Notified creator with ((cfd-notify)) Cgingold (talk) 11:44, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Sting_au Talk 06:01, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. As category creator, believe me when I say I don't like the current title - but the category is designed to cover writers who are Native American, First Nations, or from any peoples indigenous to the Americas (Tlingit, Hawaiian, various South American groups). If you change it from "peoples indigenous to..." to "people indigenous to..." then that would expand the atual meaning of the category to cover anyone born in the Americas, regardless of ethnicity, which would make the category pointless (and there is definitely a need for this category). In other words, the tribal affiliation is important, not the individual person's place of birth. Vizjim (talk) 15:02, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I understand your concerns, and I agree that it's important to get the title right. How about going with a slight modification of my proposed rename, using a capital "I" in Indigenous to convey that it's not merely an adjective? And then we can add some explanatory info just to be sure the intent of the category is clear to everybody. Cgingold (talk) 13:06, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Let's relist this so we can elicit additional input from other editors. Cgingold (talk) 13:12, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea to relist. Not sure that the capital "I" can bear the weight you suggest: would welcome other editor's input. Vizjim (talk) 16:47, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kbdank71 14:33, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment + 2 possibilities - Vizjim's comment regarding the capital "I" is spot-on. Another suggestion: "Books by writers from American indigenous peoples" would be a little shorter and I believe it is semantically very close to the current title. "Books by American indigenous writers" is even shorter but may pose other issues. --Lquilter (talk) 19:05, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I had considered the latter, but with both of these (and others) we run into the same problem: for most readers, the term "American" denotes "of the United States", but the category is intended to cover all of "the Americas". We don't even use "American" to cover all of North America, since Canadian indigenous peoples are referred to with distinct terms (usually "First Nations" rather than "Native American"). To my knowledge, there is no single term that encompasses ALL of the indigenous peoples in the Americas. Unfortunately, there's no simple, elegant and truly perfect way to accomplish what we're trying to do here, at least as far as I can see. However, my sense is that most people at this point are aware that "Indigenous" (especially with a capital "I") refers to "Indigenous People(s)". So, when all is said and done, I think that Category:Books by Indigenous writers of the Americas is still less problematic than any of the other names we've come up with so far -- especially when combined with a brief explanatory note re the term "Indigenous". Cgingold (talk) 19:56, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'd forgotten about the use of "American" to mean US-only. Damn. --Lquilter (talk) 20:18, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, maybe we should check with the German Wikipedia -- I bet they'd just throw two nouns & three adjectives together and, presto!, they've got just the word they're looking for! :) Cgingold (talk) 20:45, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete OCAT by race/ethnicity, this is a morass of determining who is "indigenous" and how "indigenous" must they be. I no doubt have Mexican Indian ancenstry, as do most people from Central America and many from South America - are we all indigenous pursuant to the same race classifications that WP uses for other groups? is it 25% like Irish in England? or one drop like African American categories? please let me know, or better yet delete this category.... Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:40, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• In answer to that last point, determination of membership of indigenous peoples varies throughout the Americas. Usually (though by no means always) the primary affiliation is NOT racial, it is membership of a specific political entity, usually known as a tribe. However, there are also tribes that have not been recognised by the US and Canadian governments, and many people descended from tribal peoples are not enrolled as members of that tribe. Affiliation by descent does not necessarily have to imply the tired old concept of race. However, your comment is useful to explain why I ended up with such a complex way of putting it! Vizjim (talk) 22:59, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Tribal affiliation is a poor way to categorize people and then to mix someone up by tribe & occupation is further OCAT. Tribal affiliation is the subject of numerous disputes especially for tribes rich by oil or gambling - there are lots of disputes and acrimony about who is in the tribe to get a cut of the cash. Similarly, what's "indigenous" African-Americans seem a people indigenous to the Americas - they as a people started in the Americas, too. As for the "tired old concept of race" - I've been trying as best as I can to rid WP of categorizations based on that - and however you want to define this category it is a race category because it is a race-exclusionary category: no Anglo white guy can fit in. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:06, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• That's just POV-pushing by any other name. There are university departments devoted to African-American, Native American, Asian American literatures. Publishers have race-specific lists, and there are race-specific publishers as well. Bookstores have race-specific sections. The concept of race, while not firmly grounded in biological reality, is a lived reality for millions. Henry Louis Gates tells the story, for example, of five black academics who went to a critical race theory seminar, at which everyone agreed that there was no such thing as race. At the end of the seminar, none of them was able to attract the attention of a taxi driver, while the white delegate had no trouble. The moral of the story is pretty clear - even though race is only a human concept, it nonetheless does condition the experiences people have, because it colours the way in which others react to them. But in this case, of course, we are not talking about race only: we are talking about political affiliation, cultural affiliation, religious understandings, common histories of cultural genocide by European nations, common histories of destruction through smallpox and other new diseases... all of this serves to explain why these writers are commonly placed in one category, and why a category like this is useful to researchers using Wikipedia. Vizjim (talk) 07:30, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• As for "no Anglo white guy can fit in": correct, but naive. No Anglo white guy will have come from the same nexus of experience that we're talking about here. That's why the category exists. Just like there are religious specific categories and nation specific categories (both of which, again, are human concepts without scientific justification), so this category should continue to exist. Vizjim (talk) 07:32, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the discussion was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:21, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Memphis rap artists to Category:Memphis rappers

Nominator's rationale: For consistency with parent Category:American rappers and siblings there. LeSnail (talk) 03:27, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I'm wondering about the rationale for even having this category, given that there are no other sub-cats of rappers by city. (To be clear, I'm not arguing one way or the other, just raising the issue.) Cgingold (talk) 23:33, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unnecessary to divide this by city as there seems to be nothing about Memphis rap (a redirect to this category) that makes it different than any other city's rap. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:43, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the discussion was Speedy deleted by Anthony Appleyard. LeSnail (talk) 02:04, 16 January 2008 (UTC) Non-admin closure[reply]

Category:UK Rock Folk Hipp Hopp (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: I don't think this is a generally accepted genre. If kept, should be renamed to spell out United Kingdom. LeSnail (talk) 03:23, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete - empty since creation. Tagged. Otto4711 (talk) 15:09, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It wasn't empty when I nominated it. LeSnail (talk) 19:45, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was populated by Babar Luck. LeSnail (talk) 19:46, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:44, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was Close as a duplicate discusion. As pointed out below, the Jan 6 discussion is still open. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:15, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Chicago musicals (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Originally posted as part of the Musicals by nationality grouping until it was removed by User:TonyTheTiger. Original rational as posted on that nomination:

All of the "Musicals by nationality" categories seemed like a decent idea over at WikiProject Musical Theatre where they are maintained but have proven to me more of a hassle than they are worth. It is difficult to classify a musical by nationality due to their collaborative writing nature and multiple performance locations. In multiple discussions (available here for clarity) the editors had found difficulty choosing which category to add to which article.
For example, the musical Miss Saigon was written with French and Tunisian composers, an American lyricist, premered in London, has been performed the longest in New York and takes place in Vietnam. So which category does it get? This example was only the tip of the iceberg.
Obviously some musicals may fit into a specific category more than others and some categories may have more entries, however to avoid systemic bias, all should be deleted.

Additionally, this category is currently underpopulated and would be of little use for organizational purposes. This category cannot be looked at in the same way that Category:Broadway musicals, Category:London West End musicals, and Category:Off-Broadway musicals can (per the comment on the previous nomination). These previous three denote locations where new and original pieces of musical theatre are both contemporarily and historically written and performed. Chicago, on the other hand, performs musicals that were written and originally performed elsewhere (the two musicals in the category now originated on broadway). Inclusion of this category would provide reason to create "Category: Boston Musicals," "Category: Los Angeles Musicals," and so on. WikiProject Musical Theatre has had several discussions on this topic (available here) and the project has no desire to maintain any of these categories listed for deletion. --omtay38 02:28, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The retention of this category would not only require the creation of Category:Boston musicals, Category:Mombasa musicals and the like, but would also require the addition of each category for each city in which a musical has ever played to its article, resulting in HORRENDOUS and COMPLETELY useless overcategorization. —  MusicMaker5376 03:00, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The category has been reinstated at its original discussion. This nomination should be closed as a duplicate nom. —  MusicMaker5376 03:30, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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: Speedy delete by User:Bearcat. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:44, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Things that are sexy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Maybe this is speediable. Vague inclusion criteria, and POV, at least. Almost worthy of WP:DAFT. LeSnail (talk) 02:07, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely speediable; the only thing that's actually filed in the category is itself on WP:AFD as a likely hoax. Dirty deed done (dirt cheap!) Bearcat (talk) 03:17, 9 January 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 discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the discussion was eject from the ring, or something similar. Bencherlite^Talk 01:05, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest deletion of Category:WWE celebrities

Nominator's rationale: We don't need a category to collect celebrities who've happened to make appearances on WWE television shows; this is a non-defining and hence WP:OCAT characteristic of the celebrities so categorized. (Cyndi Lauper? Donald Trump? Liberace? How is this category particularly relevant and defining to those people?) Bearcat (talk) 00:17, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Delete per nom. -- bulletproof ^3:16 01:54, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nondefining and overcategorization. Maralia (talk) 18:08, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete - in the few months I have been editing, it appears that some of the pro wrestling fans here have a bit too much time on their hands and like adding references to their hobby to every article possible. This needs to stop if Wikipedia is to be taken seriously. Paul Harald Kaspar (talk) 08:52, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Per nom. - Mafia Expert (talk) 17:27, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:45, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This category is fairly ridiculous given that some would consider WWE performers themselves to be celebrities. No rationale is given as to how individuals in this category are selected. The fact these people have appeared in WWE is excessively trivial given their individual accomplishments. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 04:35, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very few wrestlers are considered celebs (Hogan, Cena, Stone Cold, The Rock, Piper, etc.). I can't agree with the idea that generally WWE performers are celebrities, becuase I wouldn't really consider Funaki, Colin Delaney, Elijah Burke, The Highlanders, The Hardys, Big Daddy V, etc. as celebs. Feedback ^☎ 10:40, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I don't know... You see wrestlers making personal appearances, doing TV show appearances, etc. and probably have wider recognition than some of the 'celebrities' in this category. Colin Delaney I have to agree with though :^) ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 10:48, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. iMatthew 20:58, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom NiciVampireHeart (talk) 00:18, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the discussion was merge. Bencherlite^Talk 01:02, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Taliban founders to Category:Taliban leaders

Nominator's rationale: Merge, Category only has one article in it at the time of nomination, and from my reading of Taliban, it's difficult to say with certainty that certain individuals were the "founders" of the Taliban. It seems safer to just include them in the more general category of leaders. In any case, the category does not seem to be in use, really. Snocrates 00:01, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. Johnbod (talk) 08:56, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. There wasn't ever a founding convention or like-wise of the Taliban movement, it had a much more gradual evolution. --Soman (talk) 14:30, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. Kyriakos (talk) 00:19, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. - Mafia Expert (talk) 17:26, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:45, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.