< November 21	November 23 >

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

The result of the discussion was: rename. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:23, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Stock exchanges of India to Category:Stock exchanges in India

Nominator's rationale: Rename to standardize with Category:Stock exchanges in the United States, Category:Stock exchanges in Russia, etc. Hemlock Martinis (talk) 22:52, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Very good. --Mr Accountable (talk) 01:01, 23 November 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 all. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:45, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:1st century Christian history to Category:1st century Christianity

Propose renaming Category:2nd century Christian history to Category:2nd century Christianity

Propose renaming Category:3rd century Christian history to Category:3rd century Christianity

Propose renaming Category:4th century Christian history to Category:4th century Christianity

Propose renaming Category:5th century Christian history to Category:5th century Christianity

Propose renaming Category:20th century in Christianity to Category:20th century Christianity

Propose renaming Category:21st century in Christianity to Category:21st century Christianity

Nominator's rationale: Rename. The category names should all be made consistent. Carlaude ^(talk) 22:43, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree rename. As Carlaude argues. Jaraalbe (talk) 10:26, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename as nom. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:00, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom.-choster (talk) 23:03, 23 November 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:Judges in Northern Ireland Stwalkerster [ talk ] 17:45, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Northern Ireland judges to Category:Northern Irish judges

Nominator's rationale: 'Northern Irish' is the accepted adjective form Mayumashu (talk) 21:49, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose (now see below) as far as I can see, this is for judges in the separate legal system in Northern Ireland (Northern Ireland law), not a "country of origin" category. Johnbod (talk) 08:39, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. I think that's probably correct, but are there any judges in the Northern Ireland law system that aren't "Northern Irish"? I can't see any after a cursory review of about half the articles. So I don't see how this is any different than any of the categories in Category:Judges by nationality, since they all typically sit as judges in their home nationality law system. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:00, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There were I think a number of judges imported, especially for the Diplock courts. Also there are, I suspect, quite a few judges who are NI by origin but ~~had the sense to~~ moved elsewhere to practice - south, west, east. The category is rather more useful capturing judges in NI than from it, I think. Johnbod (talk) 10:57, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, OK. Maybe the judges within the UK presents a rather different situation. I'd be fine with a keep if it's more reflective of reality. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:45, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

then howabout Category:Judges in Northern Ireland? Mayumashu (talk) 23:25, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support rename to Category:Judges in Northern Ireland though I don't really mind the status quo either. Eluchil404 (talk) 07:59, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support rename to Category:Judges in Northern Ireland. Derek Andrews (talk) 10:55, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with Category:Judges in Northern Ireland. Johnbod (talk) 10:59, 10 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: Merge. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:49, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:British people in China to Category:British expatriates in China

Nominator's rationale: as per naming convention for people who have spent time resident in a foreign country Mayumashu (talk) 19:27, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. I don't see any particular reason to leave this as an exception to the naming convention. But I am wondering about the head note, which specifically refers to diplomats. Are diplomats normally considered expatriates? I'm not aware of them being categorized as such. Cgingold (talk) 00:31, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. A diplomat would only not be considered an "expatriate" because the embassy and residence of the ambassador are usually legally considered sovereign territory of the sending country. Thus, the British ambassador in the British embassy in Beijing is actually, strictly speaking, "in" the United Kingdom. But if we get this pedantic, then the people aren't "in" China at all, so the "problem" with diplomats exists no matter which wording is selected. I suggest we ignore the issue as we have done for all other expatriate categories. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:27, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But that is a good point that he ambatssador and any embassy workers are not expats. At some point, the cat page lists should reflect this truth Mayumashu (talk) 22:59, 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: delete. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:28, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete Overcategorization. These albums are already categorized by year and genre, no need to have a combined cat. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 18:56, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per prior consensus at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_November_19#Category:Hip_hop_albums_in_2008. Terraxos (talk) 16:48, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both - not sure why they didn't get nuked with the others but clearly consensus is against this division. Otto4711 (talk) 20:21, 29 November 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: Forget it No one wants to help me, as usual, so I'll do it myself. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 02:52, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Songs written by Boudleaux Bryant and Category:Songs written by Felice Bryant to Category:Songs written by Felice and Boudleaux Bryant

Nominator's rationale: I want both of these categories merged into a new category called Category:Songs written by Felice and Boudleaux Bryant to match the parent article Felice and Boudleaux Bryant. They are known as a songwriting couple and apparently neither ever worked without the other, so I see no harm in a shared category (so it wouldn't be any different from, say, Category:Songs written by The Warren Brothers). Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 18:13, 22 November 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. This is the stated consensus with one opinion for a rename based on a comment about a possible rename. One position is that there is no other linking, but it appears that the articles do in fact link the various articles. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:58, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete The articles listed in this category are not of loosely connected similar topics; rather, they're vastly different yet tightly related articles that are best served by a coherent narrative. The narrative is already there, provided by the main articles. Thus, the category serves no useful purpose, and should be deleted. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 16:35, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – it seems to me that the various articles collected here are all related to the Bronze Soldier of Tallinn and are not otherwise readily found. So it seems to me that the category does serve a useful purpose but could perhaps be renamed (to Category:Bronze Soldier of Tallinn perhaps, to match its article). Occuli (talk) 21:49, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - as a small category with little apparent growth potential. The articles are linked together through the text of the various articles. If retained, rename per Occuli. Otto4711 (talk) 22:02, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
REname as suggested by Occuli. This matches the main article and describes the content more precisely. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:04, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, all the articles are wiki-linked to each other in the relevant context within the text of the articles themselves, so the category doesn't really serve any additional purpose, nor is there any potential for growth. Martintg (talk) 19:49, 24 November 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 all. Without prejudice to creation of one of Peter's proposals (also without prejudice to a CfD on the category if it is created. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:52, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete Newly created small categories with few pages. EVER (well, at least for another few millennia.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:55, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete first two. Merge the last one (and similar categories for other distant centuries), wither by upmerging or into a new Category:Films set in the distant future (with a head note in the category, explaining that it is for films set in 24th or later centuries. Alternatively Category:Films set in 24th or later centuries. 23rd century has a reasonably large population and might thereofre be kept. I appreviate that my solution will require a furhter CFD. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:12, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. No objection to that modification. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:46, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom; I don't see much need for a 'Films set in the distant future' category myself, but if someone wants to create it they can always do so - it doesn't require a CFD. Terraxos (talk) 16:45, 29 November 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: keep current name. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:48, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:K-Horror to Category:South Korean horror films

Nominator's rationale: Every article in this category is a horror film produced in South Korea. Renaming it "South Korean horror films" would make it fit in better with its fellow sub-categories at Category:Horror films by country. Nohansen (talk) 02:48, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as this does actually seem to be be the widely used name for the genre (see the article: K-horror). Moreover, we have Category:J-Horror (not to mention Category:J-pop and who knows what else), and unless that's also going to be nominated, this one should be kept for consistency reasons. Terraxos (talk) 03:55, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If the category is renamed to Category:South Korean horror films, Category:K-Horror can always be recreated as a parent category (the same way Category:J-Horror is parent to Category:Japanese horror films, Category:Horror anime and manga and Category:Japanese horror writers). I asked for the renaming because I know a bot will take care of the re-categorization for me and I won't have to do it by hand; it was never my intention to outright delete the category.--Nohansen (talk) 04:18, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Google: 41,600 for "K-horror", 3,110 for "South Korean horror film". The fact that the category currently contains only South Korean films is irrelevant. As with Japan, other genres of horror produced in the country fit under this category. And North Korea also makes films, etc., making this category potentially more versatile than the Japanese one. "South Korean horror films" sounds more academic, but the Google hits show K-horror is in more common use by over ten times. And unless we're going to also rename the "J-" categories to sound more academic (which I do not recommend), then this one should remain. Dekkappai (talk) 15:16, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. Even the most cursory of google searches will show that K-Horror is an established term, along with the likes of K-Pop and J-Horror. I see no compelling reason to force a more "correct" term over one that is perfectly valid and correct, just so we can make the category "fit in better". PC78 (talk) 15:46, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually if you search for "K-horror -wiki", you get 43,400. "Korean horror -wiki" gets 514,000 and "Korean-horror -wiki" narrows it to 68,900. There's also Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories) to consider, which calls to avoid abbreviations unless they "have become the official name" (which doesn't seem to be the case here); and WP:NAME#Prefer spelled-out phrases to abbreviations, which calls to avoid abbreviations "unless the term you are naming is almost exclusively known only by its abbreviation and is widely known and used in that form" (which, again, doesn't seem to be the case given the number of google hits). The fact that J-Horror is currently using the abbreviation shouldn't influence this CFD. Still, my intention is not to "delete" the category, but having it conform to the convention of its parent category Category:Horror films by country.--Nohansen (talk) 16:19, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The category name should, I believe, be consistant with the article name, and there is no convention that requires categories to "conform" in such a manner that you are proposing. Should an unabbreviated name be prefered, however, then the correct term would be "Korean horror". I don't believe that you have checked the contents of this category thoroughly enough; some of the films here predate the existance of South Korea. Did it ever occur that perhaps the best option here would be to remove the category from Category:Horror films by country? I did after all create it primarily as a subcategory of Category:Asian horror. PC78 (talk) 16:34, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I could have missed something, but I went through the category (before recommending a renaming) and found that all the articles in it are identified as South Korean films. Again, the intention is not to delete. It's just that it'd be easier to have a bot do the renaming and re-categorizing to Category:South Korean horror films and then re-create Category:K-Horror as its parent category (which I fully intended to do). The end result would be: Category:South Korean horror films as a sub-category of Category:Horror films by country and Category:K-Horror; and Category:K-Horror as a sub-category of Category:Asian horror.--Nohansen (talk) 16:46, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I got your proposal, I just don't support it. I don't see any pressing need at this time to break up this category in the manner you suggest. PC78 (talk) 16:52, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're not giving much to work with ("I got your proposal, I just don't support it"). How can I argue with that? Oh, well...--Nohansen (talk) 16:58, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I could say the same; your previous comment was essentially just a reiteration of what you had said previously, and I got it the first time. I actually think I've given you quite a bit above. Besides the fact that these are films from two distinct countries (Korea and South Korea), there are aspects of genre at play that make K-Horror and J-Horror encyclopedic subjects in a way that perhaps British horror or German horror are not. It may be prudent to split this category at some point in the future, but as I said above and as Dekkappai says below, to do so now along the lines you suggest would be a tad redundant, and all for the sake of imposing consistancy. PC78 (talk) 18:18, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If I reiterate it is because I want to make sure that what I'm saying is not misconstrued or misinterpreted. For example, I pointed out that all the articles in Category:K-Horror are identified as South Korean films; none of them are produced in North Korea or Pre-1948 Korea, so there are no two (or three) distinct countries represented. If there are, that makes the need for re-categorization all the more pressing (see Category:Korean films). Also, I've never challenged the encyclopedic value of an article on Korean horror cinema (or Korean horror in general), so I don't see how that relates to the naming conventions I cited before.--Nohansen (talk) 18:42, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My bad, there are several films from both pre-1948 Korea and North Korea which I thought were in that category but aren't (though probably should be); but I wholehaertedly disagree that this makes recategorization more pressing. Beyond that, I'm not sure what else you expec me to say. I've already said that K-Horror is an established term, and that subcategorization is at this time both unnecessary and redundant, and that opinion remains unchanged. PC78 (talk) 19:36, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When you say "subcategorization is at this time both unnecessary and redundant" I guess that you mean it is unnecesary because the category does not currently include horror films produced in North Korea or Pre-1948 Korea. I admit to only being familiar with South Korean cinema, but if you know of any articles on horror films from North Korea or Pre-1948 Korea they should be included. And afterwards, the category would most likely be diffused into Category:Pre-1948 Korean horror films, Category:North Korean horror films and Category:South Korean horror films --just like Category:Korean films... Articles on Korean films are divided by political era into the appropriate subcategories. Why shouldn't articles on Korean horror films follow suit?--Nohansen (talk) 21:02, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) I think your proposal is unnecessary because what you want to do is take all of these articles and shunt them into a new, single subcategory, and all for the rather misguided purpose of forcing consistency in Category:Horror films by country; there is simply no need to diffuse this category. If I might draw a pertinent analogy, it would be a bit like creating Category:Italian western films as a subcategory of Category:Spaghetti Westerns, i.e. redundant overcategorization. PC78 (talk) 07:57, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It was early here when I posted the above, and didn't get the full idea: J-horror is the umbrella under which "Japanese horror films" etc. exist, and that K-horror should follow the same pattern. I don't think this is such a bad idea itself, but, as the nominator points out, K-horror is currently only "Korean horror film", so placing that under a larger umbrella category "K-horror" at this point would be redundant. Later on, if we start getting articles on other Korean horror genres, the discussion can come up again. Also, PC78 correctly points out above that pre-Korean War films are "Korean" not "South Korean", and, again, the North does have its film/arts activity-- I don't know about horror specifically. As to making J- and K-horror in line with naming conventions under "Horror by country", I don't think it applies. As far as I know, there are no equivalent terms for horror in other countries. "G-horror" for German horror films? Never heard of it. "B-horror" for British? No, these are not terms, but "J-" and "K-" are terms which are in wide use. Dekkappai (talk) 17:40, 23 November 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.

November 22

Category:Stock exchanges of India

Category:Centuries in Christianity

Category:Northern Ireland judges

Category:British people in China

Category:2005 hip hop albums

Category:2008 hip hop albums

Category:Songs written by Boudleaux Bryant

Category:Bronze Soldier

5th millennium

Category:K-Horror