< February 25	February 27 >

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:

• Category:Supporters of same-sex marriage to Category:Organizations that support same-sex marriage
• Category:Opponents of same-sex marriage to Category:Organizations that oppose same-sex marriage

Timrollpickering (talk) 17:47, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Opponents of same-sex marriage to Category:Political opposition to same-sex marriage (or similar).

Rationale: This is a subcategory of Category:Political organizations by issue and already contains a warning that "As per WP:OC#OPINION, it is particularly inappropriate to include individuals in this category unless they are both notable and activists with respect to this issue." The category needs to be renamed in order to discourage editors from using it as an unattributed editorial label, and also so that including an article in this category does not imply that Wikipedia defines the position of the organization or individual. Geometry guy 23:06, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As the category in question was created at the same time as, and with the intention of mirroring Supporters of same-sex marriage, it might be sensible to rename both categories or neither. --joe decker^{talk to me} 03:54, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I entirely agree: please consider that category added to the nomination/rationale. This nomination is motivated by principle more than one or two particular instances. Geometry guy 00:20, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename. This change would be sensible, as would a corresponding change to Category:Supporters of same-sex marriage. The problem with the current name is that it almost begs for the addition of people articles, when really the category is dedicated for organisations, and a category that categorizes people who oppose same-sex marriage has been deleted multiple times. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:42, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Alt. rename, and remove biographies – Although I do agree that a rename is needed, I think that using the phrase "political opposition" would create confusion. It could imply that the category should contain articles about politicians who oppose same-sex marriage or laws prohibitng same-sex marriage.
  Since the categories seem to focus on organizations, I think that the word "organizations" should appear in the title—e.g., Category:Organizations that oppose same-sex marriage and Category:Organizations that support same-sex marriage. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 07:30, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  How about simply dropping the "political", i.e., "Opposition to same-sex marriage"? Geometry guy 16:39, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  It, too, would be an improvement over the current title, but it would not explicitly limit the category's scope to organizations only. My suggested title would, as you mentioned in the nomination, involve "Wikipedia defin[ing] the position of the organization", but we do this already in many other cases (e.g., the members of Category:Political organizations by issue) and the definition would be based on reliable sources and/or self-identification by the organization. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 00:03, 7 March 2011 (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 both categories to Category:Roman Catholic parishes and churches in the United States. There's consensus for a merger with the combined name allowing for recreation of either category if there are sufficient exclusive articles. Timrollpickering (talk) 19:12, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Roman Catholic parishes in the United States to Category:Roman Catholic churches in the United States

Nominator's rationale: Merge. Included in this nomination are all subcategories entitled "Roman Catholic parishes in [STATE]", each of which should be merged into "Roman Catholic churches in [STATE]". It appears that someone has decided to categorise parishes and church buildings separately. Common practice, both in the United States and in other countries, is to cover a parish and its building in the same article; there's no reason to have separate articles for them, and if the same article covers both, there's no reason to have separate categories. Coverage of church buildings and congregations of other Christian denominations are typically done in the same way: we don't have separate articles or categories for Presbyterian church buildings and Presbyterian congregations, Episcopal parishes and Episcopal church buildings, etc. Nyttend (talk) 17:54, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• • I don't agree. Common practice, both in the United States and in other countries, is to cover a parish and its building in the same article - Common practice doesn't exclude new type of articles, or force to merge because we didn't have such types before. More information about notability of the Roman Catholic parishes and churches: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Catholicism#Parishes and churches notability.--WlaKom (talk) 21:15, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support merger I am actually really amazed of the entire hoopla that has surrounded this discussion on church vs parish vs school in the past month or two. All this talk has added very little content to Wikipedia and has not increased content quality in any way. However, I do not see a reason for duplication in the category structure. In the end "simplicity rules" is one of the keys in ontology design and should be followed here too. I will not comment further here, and I think it is better to efforts on much needed content improvement rather than tangential never ending talk page expansions. History2007 (talk) 07:02, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• This nomination is about merging categories where each one has substantial amount of articles, not about articles (this topic was already discussed and never obtain a consensus), is pointless and should never be discuss. The nominator tries to force his WP:POV.It is no matter whether it is about religion or about the sport. Creating special rules for the Catholic faith may be regarded as discrimination. See the guidance WP:CATEGORY. --WlaKom (talk) 08:59, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Reverse merge to Category:Roman Catholic parishes in the United States The local faith community as a whole is a parish, and as the broader but still common term which reflects more accurately the actual content of the articles, it is the most correct and most appropriate term to categorize under. In the U.S., a typical parish includes a church, rectory, and school, and often a parish meeting hall, shrines, and a convent/priory. Most recently created articles are based on NRHP listings, and these tend to cover historic buildings across the campus (e.g. St. Bridget's Roman Catholic Church Complex (Bloomfield, New York), St. Michael's Roman Catholic Church, Convent, Rectory, and School (Providence, Rhode Island)). Other articles may have little to say on the architecture, but a lot on the historical or cultural significance of the parish (e.g. St. Ambrose Cathedral (Des Moines), St. Laurentius Parish, Philadelphia). In either case, the articles cover topics broader than simply the house of worship, and this is true even in cases where the congregation has moved quarters or been dissolved. While many parishes refer to themselves as the Church of Foo or Foo Church, and the articles named accordingly, this is simply a name with no more bearing on categorization than Kentucky referring to itself as a commonwealth.- choster (talk) 21:46, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge the categories - there no reason to have two such broadly overlapping categories. Choster makes a good case for merging them to the parish name. Another possibility would be to merge them to Category:Roman Catholic parishes and churches in the United States which would make it clear that whichever entity was being covered in a given article, it would fall in the scope of the category. Wlakom, there is no creating special rules for Catholics here; instead it is making articles about Catholic churches/parishes/whatevers follow the same category rules we use for everything else here. LadyofShalott 22:40, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Category:Roman Catholic parishes and churches in the United States to allow for all types of articles. This should not be taken as a precendednt for similar categories in europe or elsewhere, which generally are more about the architecture than the creche. Johnbod (talk) 02:01, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• do not merge a parish is an area; a church is a building. They belong to different category trees, regardless of the particular religion involved. Hmains (talk) 04:13, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• That is not quite correct, at least in Catholicism; ecclesiastical parishes may be divided into territorial parishes and personal parishes. The former comprises territory within a diocese, but in practice almost all properties of a parish are situated on the same campus as the church or in very close proximity to it. The latter is one designated by a bishop, to serve Tridentine Mass practitioners, members of minority ethnic or immigrant groups ("national" parishes"), university students, or other non-geographically concentrated populations, and are specifically non-territorial.- choster (talk) 15:26, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Do all understand what "Sub-Category" means and what is this for? Categorize articles by characteristics of the topic - from guidance WP:CATEGORY.--WlaKom (talk) 08:40, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. I'm not sure why we would have articles on parishes in any case. The church may be significant, but the parish is generally not. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:45, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• But again, these are not just articles about churches, they tend to cover all manner of ecclesiastical buildings associated with the whole parish, a "Church, Girls’ School, Rectory, Boys’ School, Convent, Brothers’ Residence, and the Parish Hall," to quote one stub. Placing these buildings in context will entail some history of the institution and probably its worshippers as the article is expanded. Simple "church" as a term might have been usefully vague on the point, but while I was away CfD averred that "church" was never suitable, with somewhere around a third to half of the categories so-named becoming "church buildings"— or can we conveniently read this to say "buildings associated with a church"? ;) - choster (talk) 15:26, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• As I said, most parishes are not notable. A church may be notable for historical reasons, but an ecclesiastical parish is just an area and maybe some buildings associated with that church. In almost every case, the parish itself will not be notable enough to have an article written about it. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:38, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Yup, looking through the articles, I would say that most should be deleted and a handful should be renamed to be about their church. I think we should probably merge the categories and then go about getting most of the articles deleted as non-notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:45, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose for now. Churches are distinct from parishes. Easily enough merged into a higher level category next step up. Supposedly it is quite difficult to construct an article on congretations/parishes. This is good, because there are other denominations with 6 people meeting in someone's house. A physical church suggests stability of a sort. Catholic congregations are generally large, so that isn't a problem. I appreciate where they are together in the same article, they receive a double category, but so what?

We really have the same problem with places, with the article representing both the place itself, the people living there, and the government, even though these may have separate subsections. No one even thinks about refining categories to include one for government, for example, which would be way more accurate than it is now.

Keep the two. This may settle out in another year or two. I don't think it is time yet. And I don't want to see an article on "Marcia's Church of the Saving Prophet" based, however indirectly, on this change! Student7 (talk) 19:05, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• This is really a completely different problem. With very few exceptions (all of which can be recategorized as "churches" because they are articles on historic buildings) this duplicates Category:Polish-American Roman Catholic parishes in the United States, and every single such article is claiming notability solely on the basis of being a Polish parish. I'd be willing to argue that this could all be reduced to list articles (e.g. Polish-American Roman Catholic parishes in New England) but in any case the real categorization seems to be something like Catholic parishes of the United States by ethnic group. I also have a great deal of difficulty with the notability discussion mentioned above as it was started by User:WlaKom pretty much in defense of creating the articles in the Polish categories and hasn't really been subjected to wide discussion. Mangoe (talk) 03:46, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support merge to parishes and churches form. While it is true that parish and church are distinct terms, they are used interchangeaby, and many articles cover both. To make things more tricky using the term "church" for a building is only one way to use the term. When we say "The Church of Rome" we most certainly do not mean a building. Due to some parishes, especially in urban areas, having multiple Church buildings, in some cases because multiple hisoric buildings with notable design exist in the area but the massive loss of Catholic populatin has forced consolidation of parishes in the area, a process that has occured in Detroit and Cleveland among other cities, there are going to be exceptions to the overlap rule, but I think they are best treated by a dual category name and not by parralel category structures.John Pack Lambert (talk) 09:51, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Coming from a Mormon perspective I reverse the statement "Mormon wards are like parishes" and come up with the conclusion that they are geographical units. This is at some level true, since there are maps made of parish boundaries. However it is also clear from the above discussion that in actual usage parish often is used for the Church and auxiliary buildings. There are of course the various ethnic, linguistic, student or other specific group and issues like Tridentine mass exceptions to geographicallity listed above. However from what I have gathered from Catholics I know many attended mass at parishes that do not fit any of the four exceptions to territoriality and yet are clearly not the parish they live in. Also if I understood a map pubished in the Destroit News about five years ago at least at that time there was a parish in Sterling Heights, Michigan that contained two distict churches at least three miles apart. St. Michael's Parish in Sterling Heights has a cultural hall that is at least half a mile away and is actually in Clinton Township (although this means just across one road). On a only tangentially related issue, would Uniate parishes and churches be in these categories. At least in Metro Detroit where I was raised this is a very important question.John Pack Lambert (talk) 10:03, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - This discussion begins to be similar to the debate which came first: chicken or the egg.

Given that this is faith, the classification of articles on enWiki must be based on full respect for the faith, its values and the official classification. People who write on Wikipedia does not have the right to force the classification of the articles and their notability based on their perception that the general principles of Wikipedia are in the first place, and then based on the classifications of the Protestant Church. Each religion has its own criteria for validity and division that must be respected. Statements of some people show a lack of knowledge about the Roman Catholic Church or religious intolerance. If in any religious group is the most important place and other objects are subordinate to him, is not allowed to change this. As for the Roman Catholic Church, I already gave the source of the official rules which apply.

Once again I remind you that this discussion is about the categorization of articles. Categorize articles by characteristics of the topic - from guidance WP:CATEGORY--WlaKom (talk) 10:30, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Notice: see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/St. Casimir Roman Catholic Parish (Yonkers, New York) which is connected to this discussion. Mangoe (talk) 21:31, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support but allow recreation of the parish category if and when we clearly have a sufficient number of notable articles exclusively on parishes. As stated above, most of these are notable for the structure itself and not the parish. Information about the parish can be included in the building article and if it is notable on it's own, the parish article can be split out. While one could argue that there is some overlap or interaction between the church article and a parish article, it does not justify a merged category which would not have any good parent categories. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:25, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Further analysis[edit]

I have looked through the pages in Category:Polish-American Roman Catholic parishes in the United States and its subcats, and they exactly duplicate the contents of the categories in question here with four exceptions:

1. There's one Polish parish which got missed and is only categorized within a diocese (and there's a whole 'nother level of trouble there).
2. There's one parish created by a different user which isn't categorized as Polish (because it isn't).
3. There's a list of parishes in Fresno which isn't characterized as Polish either.
4. Category:Roman Catholic churches in Pennsylvania is a subcat of Category:Roman Catholic parishes in Pennsylvania.

A look into the various Polish parish articles discloses that everyone I've looked at so far claims notability on the basis of being an ethnic parish. Many are stubby and are about parishes that have closed; the longer ones appear to rely on parish histories. I continue to doubt the notability of the lot of them. Mangoe (talk) 16:35, 9 March 2011 (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 main/upmerge subs to parents. Timrollpickering (talk) 19:34, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Association football defenders by nationality (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: over-categorisation . Matthew_hk tc 15:57, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I also nominated the subcat and related:

Category:Afghan football goalkeepers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Afghan football defenders (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Afghan football midfielders (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Dutch football defenders (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Moroccan football defenders (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Matthew_hk tc 16:03, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete too specific of an intersection for it to be notable. Bulldog123 18:50, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I'm wary of "triple-intersection" categories like these. They are likely to add an enormous amount of new categories, and most of the ones they would replace are currently manageable (many have less than 100 articles, others might have as much as one or two thousand, but none are unmanageable). Jogurney (talk) 15:14, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - If this becomes standard we could have a problem, especially since some players change positions. Even more fun is that sometimes people try to through in ethnic origin as well. just think of it we could have Category:American basketball forwards of Polish descent. Nothing will beat Category:Australian quarterbacks of American football of Samoan descent but there is a threat it would be Catgory:Samoan Australian American football quarterbacks which is maybe worse. Maybe because if you through of in a category name twice it is confusing, so we might have to go with Category:American football quarterbacks from Australia of Samoan descent. Anyway you look at it you have to say "stop trying to put so many intersections in a category".John Pack Lambert (talk) 09:38, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Per Jogurney, delete Category:Association football defenders by nationality and upmerge (selectively) each subcategory to its two parents, checking for existing categorization. I think that the upmerges should be handled manually rather than by Cydebot. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 07:41, 6 March 2011 (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 as follows:

• Category:Wirral to Category:Wirral (borough)
• Category:Buildings and structures in Wirral to Category:Buildings and structures in Wirral (borough)
• Category:Local government in Wirral to Category:Local government in Wirral (borough)
• Category:Parks and commons in the Wirral to Category:Parks and commons in Wirral (borough)
• Category:People from Wirral (district) to Category:People from Wirral (borough)
• Category:Politics of Wirral to Category:Politics of Wirral (borough)
• Category:Schools in Wirral to Category:Schools in Wirral (borough)
• Category:Sport in Wirral to Category:Sport in Wirral (borough)
• Category:Towns and villages in Wirral to Category:Towns and villages in Wirral (borough)

There's clear consensus for disambiguating the categories and "Wirral (borough)" is acceptable to most. The question of whether all the Metropolitan borough articles and/or categories should use the short or long form of the names is unclear and best addressed in a wider nomination. Timrollpickering (talk) 11:17, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Wirral to Category:Metropolitan Borough of Wirral

Propose renaming Category:Buildings and structures in Wirral to Category:Buildings and structures in the Metropolitan Borough of Wirral

Propose renaming Category:Local government in Wirral to Category:Local government in the Metropolitan Borough of Wirral

Propose renaming Category:Parks and commons in the Wirral to Category:Parks and commons in the Metropolitan Borough of Wirral

Propose renaming Category:People from Wirral (district) to Category:People from the Metropolitan Borough of Wirral

Propose renaming Category:Politics of Wirral to Category:Politics of the Metropolitan Borough of Wirral

Propose renaming Category:Schools in Wirral to Category:Schools in the Metropolitan Borough of Wirral

Propose renaming Category:Sport in Wirral to Category:Sport in the Metropolitan Borough of Wirral

Propose renaming Category:Towns and villages in Wirral to Category:Towns and villages in the Metropolitan Borough of Wirral

Nominator's rationale: Rename: These categories should be renamed to avoid confusion between the Metropolitan Borough of Wirral and the Wirral Peninsula. At the moment there is great ambiguity between which one is being referred to so I propose that they are renamed to contain reference to the metropolitan borough in line with WP:NCCAT and the lead text that some of the categories already have. The renaming should also take place per WP:UCN as the common name for the metropolitan borough is The Metropolitan Borough of Wirral whereas the common name for the peninsula is The Wirral. Raywil (talk) 15:53, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just thought I'd also add that the renaming would also follow the current categorisation over on commons.[1] Raywil (talk) 02:29, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The council uses the name "Wirral Borough Council" on its website, so "Wirral Borough" could be the common name. Cjc13 (talk) 15:09, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It could, however, I've lived in the borough for the past sixteen years and have never heard it referred to by that name in any other context. The council themselves are known for further confusing the issue by branding themselves as "Wirral" without any unambiguity for the common people between the peninsula and the borough. Raywil (talk) 19:20, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Would use of "Wirral (borough)" be sufficient ? I note the other subcategories of Category:Metropolitan boroughs just use the simple name without "metropolitan borough of" although some of the articles use the longer form. Cjc13 (talk) 12:45, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename but either to the form "Borough of Wirral" or "Wirral (borough)". Formally it may be a metropolitan borough, but the distinction between them and other unitary authorities is now purely historic. However, actual usage should be followed; we should apply a doctrinaire mass rename to all MBCs. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:30, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that "Wirral (borough)" gets rid of the ambiguity that would still be present if the name without "Metropolitan Borough of" was used. On the other hand, I still think "Metropolitan Borough of Wirral" (or at least what this article becomes if it were renamed in the future as suggested), would be better for consistency. Thoughts? Raywil (talk) 21:56, 4 March 2011 (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. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 07:57, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Electrochemistry journals (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Category containing just two journals. No reason why these cannot be included in the Chemistry journals category. This category can be recreated if and when more articles on this kind of journals are created. Crusio (talk) 12:06, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Another journal will be added.--MagnInd (talk) 12:39, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wow, then we have three... Sorry, I am not impressed. --Crusio (talk) 12:41, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • How many articles in this category would you consider satisfying for start? And drop the wow sarcasm!--MagnInd (talk) 12:48, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Is there a rule concerning minimal number of articles in a category required for a category to be not considered underpopulated? Or are the proposal of these kind (to nominate categories with 2 articles at start for deletion or emtying a not empty category and then proposing it for speedy deletion) just tendentious edits?--MagnInd (talk) 18:21, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Check again, I didn't nominate that for speedying. And as for "tendentious" (and some of your edit summaries), it's always nice to see how differently people interpret WP:AGF). --Crusio (talk) 11:05, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – 'Journal of Applied Electrochemistry' is perfectly categorised as an electrochemistry journal. (In any case, the other parent Category:Electrochemistry needs to be included in the nom.) Occuli (talk) 22:00, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdraw nom. category now contains 5 good journals, still not much, but similar to other cats and much more than the original paltry 2. --Crusio (talk) 11:05, 28 February 2011 (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: upmerge to Category:American rappers and Category:American musicians of European descent. Timrollpickering (talk) 18:08, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note Several entries were already in subcategories of Category:American musicians of European descent so they have not been added to the parent. Timrollpickering (talk) 18:20, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:American rappers of European descent to Category:White rappers

Nominator's rationale: Rename. It looks like the original intention of this category was to categorize White rappers (Eminem, Fred Durst, etc...) but has since gone on to include people with partial European heritage (Mike Shinoda, Snoop Dogg, J. Cole). I'm not sure to what extent "White rapper" is a defining characteristic, but it gets enough coverage in music media... and Race in hip hop. Would not be opposed to simply deleting it as a category though. Bulldog123 12:01, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This category has been deleted multiple times as Category:White rappers.--Mike Selinker (talk) 02:51, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Mike Selinker (for reference, the original discussions appears to have been here), but are we certain that deleting (instead of upmerging) will not remove any articles from the 'American rappers' and 'American musicians of European descent' trees? -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 08:06, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good point. Changing my vote to upmerge.--Mike Selinker (talk) 16:29, 6 March 2011 (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 to Category:Presidents by university or college in the United States without prejudice to a future discussion about the name of that category. Timrollpickering (talk) 11:09, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Category:Chancellors by university in the United States with Category:American university and college presidents either to that name or preferably to the new name Category:Presidents by university or college in the United States.

Nominators rational In the category heading for Category:American university and college presidents it explicitly states that some people who fill this function actually hold the title of either rector or chancellor. In addition the article List of leaders of universities and colleges in the United States (an outdated and non-comprehensive list) states "This page contains a partial listing of leaders of American universities and colleges, who are usually given the title president or chancellor." If we do a review of the use of these two terms we find that the University of California has a president, while universities organized this system such as the University of California, Los Angeles and the University of California, Berkeley had chancellors. Yet the California State University system has a chancellor while universities such as California State University, Long Beach or California State University, Fresno have presidents. The University of California system is repeated by the University of Colorado system, the University of Nebraska system, the University of Illinois system, the University of Wisconsin System and the University of Massachusetts, while the Cal State System is used by City University of New York, State University of New York, University of Alabama System, the University of Texas System and the University of Maine System. The University of Michigan has a president but the subordinate University of Michigan Dearborn has chancellor, with the same being the interaction between the titles of the president of the University of Minnesota and the chancellors of such universities as the University of Minnesota at Duluth, although the University of Minnesota at Rochester has a head who has the title of provost. Similarly the University of Houston System has a chancellor who serves as the president of the main campus. Then there is Liberty University where Jerry Falwell, Jr. is both chancellor and president. It seems clear that in the United States there is no universally recognized difference between a chancellor of a university and a president of a university.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:44, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Another possible category name would be Category:Chancellors or presidents by university or college in the United States. This might be the best reflection of the reality of the way things are, but it does seem a little unruly of a name. Still this is in many ways best treated as a holding category and so maybe having it be accusate is more inportant than having it be expected in name.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:46, 26 February 2011 (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. Timrollpickering (talk) 09:10, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rename Category:American university and college presidents to Category:Presidents by university or college in the United States

Rename Category:Alfred University presidents to Category:Presidents of Afred University

Rename Category:Angelo State University presidents to Category:Presidents of Angelo State University

Rename Category:Baylor University presidents to Category:Presidents of Baylor University

Rename Category:California State University, Fresno presidents to Category:Presidents of California State University, Fresno

Rename Category:California State University, Sacramento presidents to Category:Presidents of California State University, Sacramento

Rename Category:Centre College presidents to Category:Presidents of Centre College

Rename Category:Duquesne University presidents to Category:Presidents of Duquesne Uniersity

Rename Category:Florida A&M University presidents to Category:Presidents of Florida A&M University

Rename Category:Illinois State University presidents to Category:Presidents of Illinois State University

Rename Category:Jackson State University presidents to Category:Presidents of Jackson State University

Rename Category:Marshall University presidents to Category:Presidents of Marshall University

Rename Category:University of Notre Dame presidents to Category:Presidents of the University of Notre Dame

Rename Category:University of South Carolina presidents to Category:Presidents of the University of South Carolina

Rename Category:University of Tennessee presidents to Category:Presidents of the University of Tennessee

Rename Category:Texas Tech University presidents to Category:Presidents of Texas Tech University

Rename Category:University of Tulsa presidents to Category:Presidents of the University of Tulsa

Rename Category:United States Air Force Academy Superintendents to Category:Superintendents of the United States Air Force Academy

Rename Category:Utah State University presidents to Category:Presidents of Utah State University

Rename Category:Washington College presidents to Category:Presidents of Washington College

Nominators rational. The renaming of the parent category will put it in line with the names of applicable parent categories such as Category:People by university or college in the United States and closely related categories such as Category:Faculty by university or college in the United States. The sub-category renaming will make the various sub-categories all have names with the same format. It also helpd to put this positions titles first since they involve unique positions of the specific leader of the education institution.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:18, 26 February 2011 (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 rename. Timrollpickering (talk) 18:01, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:German television networks to Category:Television networks in Germany

Nominator's rationale: Rename. There are many television networks outside of Germany which use the German language. This needs to be renamed to match its contents, television networks of Germany. Further, there are television for ethnic Germans, which are not necessarily in German language or Germany either. The current name is exceedingly ambiguous 65.93.15.125 (talk) 07:15, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose every sister category use the "Fooian television network" format. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 14:47, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The parent category is Category:Television in Germany. The sister category is Category:Television stations in Germany. I hardly see why we should use ambiguous names, when the parent uses unambiguous names. 65.93.15.125 (talk) 20:26, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support this and the similar ones below. The various sibling categories should be renamed too. Occuli (talk) 21:31, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. German is normally taken to mean German nationality, eg Category:German sportspeople, rather than language. There is already a separate Category:German-language television networks. Therefore I see no need to change the category on the basis of ambiguity. Also networks based in Germany may now broadcast in other countries, particularly through satellites, so "Television networks in Germany" is not an appropriate description. Similarly for the similar categories below. Cjc13 (talk) 14:14, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment "German" is also commonly taken to mean the language, or the ethnicity. Hence Pennsylvanian Germans, German Swiss, Austria being a German-speaking country. "of" can replace "in" if that is your preference. 65.93.15.125 (talk) 03:25, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are also the Volga Germans, the Danubian Saxons, and many other cases of "Germans" outside of Germany. My father speaks of the "Germans" he knew as an LDS missionary in Brazil, but many of them had never lived in Germany, but they had a clear ethnic identity none the less. There is a reason the parent category is Category:Television in Germany and not Category:German television and it is because we seek to make category names clear, and especially in cases like German (but also Spanish, Chinese, Greek, Turkish, French and several other cases) the nationality/ethnicity/race/language/culture possible meanings means that more precision is needed in naming.John Pack Lambert (talk) 08:55, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Where German is used in a category title without clarification, it relates to the country of Germany, as that is the primary usage, see for instance Category:German people by occupation. If it relates to the language, it would say so as in Category:German-language television networks, Category:German-language occupations etc. (see Categories that start with German). Cjc13 (talk) 12:37, 2 March 2011 (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 rename. Timrollpickering (talk) 18:01, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Chinese television networks to Category:Television networks of the People's Republic of China

Nominator's rationale: Rename. There are many television networks outside of PRC which use the Chinese language. And there are television networks inside PRC which are not Chinese language, therefore, this needs to be renamed to match its contents, television networks of PRC. Further, there are television for ethnic Chinese , which are not in Chinese language or PRC either. And there is more than one China, the other being the Republic of China. The current name is exceedingly ambiguous 65.93.15.125 (talk) 07:11, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose every sister category use the "Fooian television network" format. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 14:47, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There are Two Chinas. "Chinese" does not specify which China it means. Even South Korea's category is not called "Korean". 65.93.15.125 (talk) 20:27, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose as per German category above. Cjc13 (talk) 14:15, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment "Chinese" is not normally taken to mean Chinese nationality, rather it is taken to mean Chinese ethnicity. Our article China is on the civilization, not either of the two countries named China. 65.93.15.125 (talk) 03:24, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • In naming of categories "Chinese" is normally taken to mean People's Republic of China with Taiwanese for "Republic of China", as in Category:Taiwanese television series. Cjc13 (talk) 16:04, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support The "Chinese Television" name has the added problem of in some way or other forcing a position on the ROC and its status, which is the type of POV actions we should avoid in category names. Is an English-language television network in Shanghai to be included in this category? What about a Chinese-language television network in Singapore? John Pack Lambert (talk) 09:00, 2 March 2011 (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 rename. Timrollpickering (talk) 18:01, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Russian television networks to Category:Television networks of Russia

Nominator's rationale: Rename. There are many television networks outside of Russia which use the Russian language. This needs to be renamed to match its contents, television networks of Russia. Further, there are television for ethnic Russians, which are not necessarily in the Russian language or Russia either. The current name is exceedingly ambiguous 65.93.15.125 (talk) 07:08, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose every sister category use the "Fooian television network" format. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 14:47, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The parent category is Category:Television in Russia. The sister category is Category:Television stations in Russia. I hardly see why we should use ambiguous names, when the parent uses unambiguous names. 65.93.15.125 (talk) 20:28, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose as per German category above. Cjc13 (talk) 14:15, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Russian ethnic and Russian language networks are found in the former Soviet Union, outside of Russia, so I don't see this close association in Television. It would be more closely assiociated with the Ethnic Group. 65.93.15.125 (talk) 03:29, 28 February 2011 (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 rename. Timrollpickering (talk) 18:01, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Spanish television networks to Category:Television networks of Spain

Nominator's rationale: Rename. There are many television networks outside of Spain which use the Spanish language. And there are television networks inside Spain which are not Spanish language, therefore, this needs to be renamed to match its contents, television networks of Spain. Further, there are television for ethnic Spanish, which are not necessarily in Spanish language or Spain either. The current name is exceedingly ambiguous 65.93.15.125 (talk) 07:06, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose every sister category use the "Fooian television network" format. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 14:47, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The parent category is Category:Television in Spain. The sister category is Category:Television stations in Spain. There are more Hispanophone people outside of Spain that in it. There are Spanish networks in the United States, all across Latin America. I hardly see why we should use ambiguous names, when the parent uses unambiguous names. 65.93.15.125 (talk) 20:29, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose as per German category above. Cjc13 (talk) 14:16, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment "Spanish" is not normally taken to mean Spanish nationality. 65.93.15.125 (talk) 03:23, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• In the US there is Unavision which is in general use refered to as the "Spanish television" or "Spanish television network" or actually most likely "the Spanish channel". In fact because of the general use of Spanish to refer to the whole collection of people who speak Spanish and things associated with them, in my experience if I want to say someone is from Spain I call them "Spainard". Thus if you really want to keep this is Fooian television networks, you need to at least change is to Spainard television networks.John Pack Lambert (talk) 09:04, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is spelt Univision and is included in Category:Spanish-language television networks in the United States, a subcategory of Category:Spanish-language television. Cjc13 (talk) 16:10, 6 March 2011 (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 rename. Timrollpickering (talk) 18:01, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Portuguese television networks to Category:Television networks of Portugal

Nominator's rationale: Rename. There are many television networks outside of Portugal which use the Portuguese language. This needs to be renamed to match its contents, television networks of Portugual. Further, there are television for ethnic Portuguese, which are not necessarily in Portuguese language or Portugal either. The current name is exceedingly ambiguous. 65.93.15.125 (talk) 07:05, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose as per German category above. Cjc13 (talk) 14:16, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Considering that Portuguese is more closely associated with Brazil than Portugual, I don't see what you mean. 65.93.15.125 (talk) 03:26, 28 February 2011 (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 rename. Timrollpickering (talk) 18:01, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:French television networks to Category:Television networks of France

Nominator's rationale: Rename. There are many television networks outside of France which use the French language. And there are television networks inside France which are not French language, therefore, this needs to be renamed to match its contents, television networks of France. Further, there are television for ethnic French, which are not necessarily in French language or France either. The current name is exceedingly ambiguous. 65.93.15.125 (talk) 06:56, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose every sister category use the "Fooian television network" format. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 14:47, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The parent category is Category:Television in France. The sister category is Category:Television stations in France. French is widely spoken in Belgium and Switzerland. Canada has many French television networks. I hardly see why we should use ambiguous names, when the parent uses unambiguous names. 65.93.15.125 (talk) 20:30, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose as per German category above. Cjc13 (talk) 14:16, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment "French" is most definitely not more closely associated with the nationality. Especially considering the English-speaking country called "Canada", where it most definitely is not more closely associated with France. It is more closely associated with the language. 65.93.15.125 (talk) 03:27, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support change. There is also the factor of French Switzerland, French speakers from Africa and many others. Still I think the French-Canadian issue means we have to accept that French is not just in France.John Pack Lambert (talk) 09:07, 2 March 2011 (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. Timrollpickering (talk) 17:57, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:History books on religion (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: effectively duplicates Category:History books by religion Green Giant (talk) 03:30, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE The category was also subject to a speedy rename to Category:History books about religion (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) - which has been processed. Timrollpickering (talk) 14:10, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Books on/about something are different than books by something. This is in keeping with Category:Non-fiction books and Category:Books which differentiate between books by country and books about countries, for example. MRDXII (talk) 03:50, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – it is Category:History books by religion which should be debated, as 'by religion' is a bizarre way to subcategorise history books (the vast majority of which espouse no religion). Occuli (talk) 20:43, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree that 'by religion' is what should be debated rather than 'on religion'. However, I can see history books being 'by religion' being useful because history is never written from a neutral standpoint and one could find it useful to categorize based on the religious bias of the author. I.e.: a Creationist's view on the history of the world being only 6000 years old vs. a secular scientific history of the world; Christian, Jewish, and Islamic histories of the Middle East; Muslim, Hindu, and Buddhist histories of the Indian subcontinent;Jewish histories of Europe, particularly the Holocaust, rather than Christian histories; etc. MRDXII (talk) 01:43, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This is a bit tricky but I understand MRDXII's argument as well as Occuli. I think some sort of precedent needs to be set. I would argue that Category:History books by religion be deleted and Category:Jewish history books be placed under this category being debated.--NortyNort (Holla) 02:50, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, the precedent I'm using in going through and trying to clean up Category:History books into subcategories by subject and qualitative subcategories is the distinction further up the categorical branch in Category:Books between Category:Books by country and Category:Books about countries. As to Category:Jewish history books, like I stated above, I'm in favour of keeping both Category:History books by religion and Category:History books on religion as useful distinctions rather than deleting one. However, part of my cleaning up Category:History books is going through the subcategories and checking whether the articles in them are in the appropriate place and since Category:Jewish history books is currently the only subcategory of Category:History books by religion, if once I (or someone else) look over the articles contained within and decide all of what's in there should be moved into, say, Category:History books on Judaism as a subcategory of Category:History books on religion, then I would say Category:Jewish history books and Category:History books by religion should be deleted on grounds of being empty. MRDXII (talk) 04:27, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment   My only concern was that the subcategories (Category:History books about Christianity, Category:Books on Hindu history, and Category:Jewish history books) appeared to be categorised in separate categories instead of one category. I understand what MRDXII is doing, and since the rename has deleted Category:History books on religion and replaced it with Category:History books about religion, I would like to request deletion of Category:History books by religion. If at some point it is found necessary to have these categories, there is nothing stopping editors from recreating them, but it seems counter-productive to keep empty categories in case they are needed sometime in the future. Green Giant (talk) 14:10, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: The category was speedily renamed to Category:History books about religion. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 06:00, 6 March 2011 (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 as nominated, the scope of the category may be revisited later. Timrollpickering (talk) 17:54, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Islamic rule in India (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Propose renaming Category:Islamic rule in India to Category:Islamic rule in the Indian subcontinent. When we talk about "Islamic rule in India," we don't mean the modern-day Republic of India which only came into being since 1947. Rather, we're talking about the Indian subcontinent which consists of modern-day India, as well as Pakistan and Bangladesh. Most of the Muslim invaders and rulers who ruled 'India' ruled modern-day Pakistan too (and went through areas of it). We already have articles named such as Islamic rulers in Indian subcontinent, Muslim conquest in the Indian subcontinent and Muslim nationalism in South Asia which collectively refer to the whole region. Hence, the name of this category has ambiguity to it and should match. Mar4d (talk) 01:21, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment "Indian subcontinent" or "South Asia" ? Why Indian subcontinent instead of South Asia ? 65.93.15.125 (talk) 07:19, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Because we're talking about "India," which in historical context, means the Indian subcontinent and includes Pakistan and Bangladesh. South Asia is different because it also sometimes includes Afghanistan, Nepal and the Maldives which are irrelevant. Mar4d (talk) 13:38, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Maldives and Ceylon are also part of the Indian subcontinent, as are all the Himalayan kingdoms south of the divide, including Nepal and Bhuttan and Sikkim. 65.93.15.125 (talk) 20:31, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Read the definition again on the page. It "generally comprises" of India, Pakistan and Bangladesh and may include Sri Lanka, Maldives, Nepal, Bhutan etc. The latter countries are more often classified as "South Asia" than as the Indian subcontinent. This category is not talking about all of South Asia; it's only talking about India which, as I just said, in historical context consisted of the present-day Republic of India, Pakistan and Bangladesh. Mar4d (talk) 03:52, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indian subcontinent is the continental land area of the Indian plate. Countries that exist on that above water section of the plate are on the Indian subcontinent. This political stuff has nothing to do with the real "Indian subcontinent". "South Asia" on the other hand is a political term. 65.95.15.144 (talk) 04:49, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Mild support The use of India to mean the whole subcontinent in historical contexts is very well established & it would certainly not be appropriate to rename all the categories that use it. Here it probably is, as Islamic rule was partly concentrated in modern Pakistan & Bangla Desh. Johnbod (talk) 01:56, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment So is the nominator arguing we should specifically exclude articles about Muslims holding power over Sri Lanka or Nepal from this article. I am not 100% sure, but I am pretty sure that the Mughals at one point or another controlled parts of modern Nepal. Even the question of Afghanistan is tricky. The Mughal Empire, and the Sur Dynasty and the Durrani Empire all have their origins in Afghanistan but spread to ruling large chunks of land beyond the Durand Line. I would say "Islamic Rule in South Asia" is a better name.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:46, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just changing the name of a category does not change the contents. Why do you think this category does or should cover "Islamic rule in Afghanistan" (ie virtually all Afghan history for the last 1400-odd years)? Johnbod (talk) 05:17, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My main point is that dividing articles along the Durand line is inherently arbitrary. Anyway your comment clearly ignores the history of Nuristan, and that the Mongol invaders were not Muslims when they arrived in Afghanistan. I mainly think it should be broader because I have mentioned above for much of the period very generally from 1200 to 1800 there were Empires that incorporated large portions of India and arge portions of Afghanistan.John Pack Lambert (talk) 08:47, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing arbitary about using modern borders for historical categories - we do it all the time, as the alternatives are impractical. Currently the category does exclude Afghanistan-only articles like Islamic conquest of Afghanistan for example, which is not part of the tree leading to this category. This argues against changing the name at all. If the scope of the category is going to be changed, who will do the work to change the contents to match? Johnbod (talk) 13:48, 3 March 2011 (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: speedy delete. Call me a wet blanket if you will, but I'm closing this discussion early and deleting this as a G7. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:45, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who think this category should be deleted (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: As hilarious as I find this category (and I even added myself to it for purposes of this nomination), it really isn't appropriate or useful. Wikipedia:User categories says that joke user categories are not permitted. B (talk) 00:03, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Give them their wish - Joke category which has extensive precedent for deletion. VegaDark (talk) 04:37, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Ask and you shall receive.--NortyNort (Holla) 02:42, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Deny them their wish! Nah, seriously Delete. Timrollpickering (talk) 23:41, 27 February 2011 (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.