< June 29 July 1 >

June 30

Category:User htz

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: G7'd. The Bushranger One ping only 20:33, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: It seems that the category is based on a hoax/joke. I can't find any evidence that there's such a thing as the Heptç language and "htz" is not an ISO 639 code. Pichpich (talk) 21:54, 30 June 2012 (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.

Category:Latin-alphabet representations

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. The Bushranger One ping only 00:58, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose renaming Category:Latin-alphabet representations to Category:Representations of the ISO basic Latin alphabet
Nominator's rationale: Rename. The article "Latin alphabet" is about the alphabets used to write the Latin language. These have less than 26 letters. The category content is about methods to represent the 26 letters of the ISO basic Latin alphabet. Indiana State (talk) 17:18, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: Some of the articles in that category cover more than the 26 base letters or have extensions that do so, some only cover them un(i)cased. Therefore putting “ISO basic” into the category name, and thereby a name proper, is overly specific (and also unduly long). — Christoph Päper 18:31, 1 July 2012 (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.

Category:Sephardi Jews topics

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, with an understanding that this is an uncommon naming structure and is open to immediate reevaluation. An alternative proposal might have better success.--Mike Selinker (talk) 14:33, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: At first I wanted to have this category deleted, but after looking at the interlanguage links I think it may only need to be renamed. With its current name, but perhaps even still if renamed along the line of its interlanguage correspondents, it stands out as an oddity in the category hierarchy, and looking at the categories contained in it, it's hard to see a clear parentage, at least to me. To people well versed in Jewish matters things may be clearer. Also looking at the category's parents gives little clue of a clear relation. meco (talk) 16:58, 30 June 2012 (UTC)(added second category for Ashkenazi Jews topics to nom. __meco (talk) 19:57, 30 June 2012 (UTC))[reply]
Indeed. I missed that one. I just added it to the nomination now. __meco (talk) 19:57, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And Category:Mizrahi Jews topics. I agree with all Black Falcon's remarks. Also Category:Sephardi Jews (a people cat) should be a subcat of Category:Sephardi Jews topics. Oculi (talk) 00:59, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Right. I've added the third category also. __meco (talk) 10:02, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
2. "Sephardic Jews" is pleonasm. A Sephardi is a Jew by the definition OED. Sephardi is a noun in English. Since category names should be in plural, it is Sephardim.
Concluding: Rename into ...: Mutatis mutandis for the other two categories here, I propose: Categoy:Sephardim, Categoy:Ashkenazim Categoy:Mizrahim. -DePiep (talk) 10:10, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. IZAK (talk) 19:41, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, cutting out the word topics from the title(s) is good naming practice. We do not name articles "This page is about the sun", we use "Sun".— Preceding unsigned comment added by DePiep (talk • contribs) [1]
You miss the point DePiep. Being simplistic does not help. The nominated categories perform a serious function if you will bother to get into them you will see they serve as super-parent categories for important parent categories as well as providing a category "haven" for issues related to the subject that would not fit neatly into any other "Jews" or "Judaism" sub-categories. You are attacking something that is helpful merely because you don't like the way its phrased. Note that WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a good enough reason to destroy perfectly good work that's been built up over many years. IZAK (talk) 06:05, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Reads like a contradiction. If they are out of step, why not change that? -DePiep (talk) 11:06, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion here has evolved with at least one problem clear: the word "topics" should be cut out per WP:CATNAME. Why would you not do that? -DePiep (talk) 11:06, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
re: keep implies Category:Sephardi Jews topics, not Category:Sephardi Jews as you seem to think. So do you propose that change? -DePiep (talk) 11:06, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your persistent attacks on me for being ignorant and that I should "meddle in something he has more competence in" is utterly uncalled for. You may have not the slightest acquaintance with the CfD process or you are acting out of bad faith. There is no requirement of a nominator to have intimate knowledge of a subject in order to bring categories here, and as for my caveat of not being an expert on Jewish subjects, this is being pounded on by yourself for absolutely no rational reason. My contention is that these categories end with the word "topic", something which make them stand out as an eyesore in Wikipedia's category structure. I have also pointed to, and others have agreed, that there seems to be a lack of apparent connection between categories and members. So these things should clearly be discussed. Your vitriol is not constructive. __meco (talk) 07:17, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
RE: I concur with the two points meco (nom) raises here. IZAK is going off-arguments in this discussion (I experienced the same), and the usefull part of the discussion has lead to at least one clear problem & solution: cut off the topic word from thetitles. -DePiep (talk) 11:10, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
RE black falcon: essentially good new names, except that now it add another repetition: saying "people who are Jews who are Jewish people from region X". :-) I'd say create Category:Sephardim people, as subcat in Category:Sephardim.— Preceding unsigned comment added by DePiep (talk • contribs) [2]
I think the name should retain the term "topics". I don't think our primary concern should be grammatical or aesthetic. We should be helping the reader to find what they are looking for. Contained in these Categories are a variety of types of material, not necessarily conforming to constraints that are objective. Meco has argued that our naming scheme "stands out as an oddity" and that these Category names "stand out as an eyesore in Wikipedia's category structure." Is this our primary concern? The reader presumably has at least a rudimentary sense of the material they are sorting through. I don't think they will find off-putting names that best lead them to articles they might be looking for. Our first aim should be for organizational clarity, in my opinion. Bus stop (talk) 11:36, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Bus stop, exactly my point. Well put. IZAK (talk) 05:55, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Eh, IZAK, exactly which of your eight (a)-(g)-points above you refer to? You write: exactly my point: To me not even one matches it. So, which point is it IZAK? And why cannot you expain it yourself then? (23:40, 5 July 2012 User:DePiep).
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.

Category:Free Zone Wikipedians

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. The Bushranger One ping only 00:53, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This user category is intended for Wikipedian adherents of Scientology who practice outside the Church of Scientology (see Free Zone). The category was created nearly seven years ago and still contains only one member: a user who has not edited in over six years. Further, I can think of no reason to not expand (perhaps explicitly via category description) the scope of Category:Scientologist Wikipedians to include both those who practice within and outside the Church, particularly in light of the fact that the parent category itself contains only two members. -- Black Falcon (talk) 06:33, 30 June 2012 (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.

Category:Eastern European Neopagan Wikipedians

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. The Bushranger One ping only 03:24, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I could find no indication that Eastern European Neopagan(ism) is a distinct religion or religious movement and not just an original concept. The few online references to "Eastern European Neopagan(ism)" that are not Wikipedia mirrors use the phrase merely to refer to Neopaganism in Eastern Europe. Thus, this category appears to be an unnecessary intersection of Category:Wikipedians by religion and Category:Wikipedians by location and should be upmerged. -- Black Falcon (talk) 06:16, 30 June 2012 (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.

Category:Markets

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 "Retail markets" versions.--Mike Selinker (talk) 14:39, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose renaming Category:Markets by region to something
  • Propose renaming Category:Markets by city to something
  • Propose renaming Category:Markets by country to something
Nominator's rationale: Rename or Delete. Markets is ambiguous. Are you talking about Category:Fish markets, Category:Flea markets, Category:Food markets, Category:Night markets, public markets or stock markets? If worth keeping, maybe a rename to something on the order of Category:Retail markets by region? Note that there are many subcategories here that will need to be looked at and nominated if these are changed. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:53, 30 June 2012 (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.

Category:Economies of World War II

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. The Bushranger One ping only 00:54, 16 July 2012 (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.

Category:Albums produced by Tommy Oliver (musician)

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. The Bushranger One ping only 00:55, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only one entry. Precedent is that producers have to have multiple solo credits to warrant categories. I can't verify that Oliver has had any other production credits, and his article is at AFD. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 01:52, 30 June 2012 (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.

Category:Access to Knowledge movement

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. The Bushranger One ping only 00:56, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Access to Knowledge is the name of a particular organization. Not all of the entries of this category are specifically tied to this organization, even if they share traits. I propose that this be renamed to something generic, or otherwise if it is to remain, then reliable sources need to be somewhere connecting the category's contents to the movement. Blue Rasberry (talk) 00:34, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The term A2K / A2K movement is widely used, by campaigners, academics and at WIPO. This is made clear on the Access to Knowledge movement page

See for instance: [3]

Access to Knowledge (A2K) is the umbrella term for a movement that aims to create more equitable public access to the products of human culture and learning. The ultimate objective of the movement is to create a world in which educational and cultural works are accessible to all, and in which consumers and creators alike participate in a vibrant ecosystem of innovation and creativity.
These goals are of interest to a broad coalition of consumer groups, NGOs, activists, Internet users and others. However for many of them, coming to grips with the issues involved in the A2K movement can be daunting. These issues, including copyright and patent law reform, open content licensing, and communications rights, often involve legal and technological concepts that even specialists find difficult.
Or also at [4]:
The A2K (Access to Knowledge) movement takes concerns with copyright law and other regulations that affect knowledge and places them within an understandable social need and policy platform: access to knowledge goods.
There is also a literature about Access To Knowledge (see links off Access to knowledge movement) and it is also referred to in the Berlin Declaration on Open Access to Knowledge in the Sciences and Humanities and a draft treaty presented to WIPO. [5]
On the other hand there is the A2K Network [6] which is part of Consumers International but this itself defines itself as the result of a discussion on the topic ("This Web site was launched in 2009 as part of the Global Consumer Dialog and Public Education Network on Access to Knowledge (A2K) Issues")
Note: I've added most of this to the Access to knowledge movement page itself where it was missing. Hope that helps.Jim Killock (talk) 11:51, 8 July 2012 (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.
More