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:Historians of U.S. states. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:14, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Historians of the United States by state ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Redundant to Category:Historians of U.S. states. All relevant categories this cat is in have been added to Historians of U.S. states; all subcategories (no articles; it's a container cat) have also been added to Historians of U.S. states pbp 23:21, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Category:Historians of U.S. states which expresses the purpose more specifically. The name of the nominated cat could be understood in other ways. – Fayenatic London 23:49, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge Why is this split out? Aside from maybe Texas, this isn't relevant. Benkenobi18 (talk) 04:19, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• DElete -- the one artilce in the subject is already in the target so that there is no need to merge. I can see a theoretical disticntion between the two names, one being about historians who write about the whole US, split by the state where the live and work, but I do not think that would make a useful category. The present target is probably as good a target as we will find for those who write about the hisotry of individual states. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:53, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per Benkonobi18.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:30, 13 November 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.

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: SNOW keep. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 20:32, 18 November 2012 (UTC)}[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Josh24B ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Purpose unclear, not being keep up to date (Socks from Oct & Nov not addded) NE Ent 21:20, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Purpose for it's creation was to remove it from Special:WantedCategories. When I do clean-up work on that special page, for the sock categories the standard solution to having a large number of socks in a red-linked category is to just create the category. Someone went to the trouble of tagging all the socks, and that shows a need for the category, IMHO. I don't have a strong opinion against deleting the category, but I would ask that it not be deleted with the large number of socks still in it. I'm not sure if there is a way to tag socks without them appearing in a category, but if there is, then it should be employed. If there is not, then the socks may need to be un-tagged. If neither of these is a valid option, then I would oppose red-linking a category with 15 items in it, which would just put it right back on Special:WantedCategories - TexasAndroid (talk) 21:38, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I really don't have a problem with it per se, but it's misleading because it's incomplete and the purpose wasn't clear. Are there lots of categories like this? That is, incomplete lists of sockpuppets? NE Ent 22:15, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Incomplete" lists? I have no idea how one would figure out such a thing. There are 5.737 subcategories in Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets and 6,662 in Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets. That sets an upper limit on the number of "Incomplete" ones. Beyond that, I really have no idea how one would figure out a percentage of those as complete or incomplete. - TexasAndroid (talk) 22:56, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – its purpose is to collect together suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Josh24B and any others should be added when found. Oculi (talk) 00:13, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Oculi, and per WP:SMALLCAT as part of a series under Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets. If the nonminator is concerned that it is not uptodate, then the solution is simple: WP:SOFIXIT. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:39, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Isn't the list just a subset of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Josh24B?
• Is a problem that it's incomplete?
• Why does the creator the list give a different reason for its existence above?
• The nominator doesn't really care one way or the other and, given no reply for 5 days to his query on Category_talk:Suspected_Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Josh24B thought perhaps it was just a leftover piece of wiki-bits. NE Ent 03:05, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• This is not a list; it is a category. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:03, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This is an administrative category. No need to delete just because it's small. Benkenobi18 (talk) 04:21, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: If it's small and incomplete, you add it to it. You don't delete it pbp 19:41, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep it clearly is fulfilling its purpose. It is actually larger than lots of other categories I have seen.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:32, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Lots of categories with fewer than fifteen members get kept at CFD, and the purpose is clearly to collect sock accounts. Nyttend (talk) 05:06, 17 November 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.

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, without prejudice to creation of Category:South American newspaper editors. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:25, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Latin American newspaper editors to Category:Newspaper editors by nationality

Nominator's rationale: Latin American people are not categorized by occupation (see Category:Latin American people) with the exception of Category:Argentine or Uruguayan vedettes which should definitely be scrapped) Pichpich (talk) 20:44, 12 November 2012 (UTC) Pichpich (talk) 20:44, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. The splitting of nationality categories to a lower level is inherently problematic.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:20, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:South American newspaper editors. Category:Newspaper editors is currently split by continent. It is potentially useful to build journalism categories by continent; e.g. Category:African journalism is under construction, shows promise, and part of it was recently kept at CFD Sept 26. – Fayenatic London 09:19, 23 November 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.

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:Ministers of the Victoria (Australia) state government. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:16, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Upmerge Category:Current ministerial offices in Victoria (Australia) to Category:Ministerial offices in Victoria (Australia)
• Nominator's rationale we generally avoid using "current" in category names.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:19, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question:Since your target doesn't exist, do you mean to rename, or upmerge to Category:Ministers of the Victoria (Australia) state government? --Qetuth (talk) 02:19, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Upmerge to Category:Ministers of the Victoria (Australia) state government. I did not realize that this category was so strange in its naming, I wrongly figured it had just stuck current in front of a category that existed without the current limit.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:42, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge to Category:Ministers of the Victoria (Australia) state government then - looks sensible from a tree perspective, but I'm not sure if that cat might need a rename itself in future: when I saw it I assumed it was for bios, not for the positional articles. No other state has equivalent to compare to. --Qetuth (talk) 22:33, 19 November 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.

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 existing names. (None of the categories were tagged with Template:Cfr! Please remember to do this when proposing that a category be renamed per the instructions at WP:CFD.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:42, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Russian Muslims to Category:Muslims from Russia

• Category:Russian imams to Category:Imams from Russia
• Category:Russian Islamists to Category:Islamists from Russia
• Category:Russian Sufis to Category:Sufis from Russia
• Category:Russian Sunni Muslims to Category:Sunni Muslims from Russia
• Category:Russian former Muslims to Category:Former Muslims from Russia

Nominator's rationale: These names are ambiguous as they confuse ethnic Russian converts and other peoples of Russia who are traditionally Muslims. So these should be changed to less ambiguous and more accurate names.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 17:49, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep In this case we are using Russian as a nationality identifier. Russian is primarily used as a nationality identifier, and most heavily used for people associated with Russia since 1991. We should also have Category:Soviet Muslims. This is a clear siter to Category:American Muslims, Category:British Muslims, Category:German Muslims, Category:Russian Christians, Category:Russian Latter Day Saints and so forth. These categories are about nationality, not ethnicity.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:10, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Prcedural note' Neither the main category nor any of its subcats have been tagged.
• Comment I have created Category:Soviet Muslims and Category:Imperial Russian Muslims and moved the relevant articles to include these categories as well or in exclusion of the Russian one. Possibly more people could be moved to the Soviet one in addition to the Russian one. The thing is that in many of these articles about ethnic Tatars especially, the article in the first sentance describes the person as Russian. This is a by nationality category and many of these people are clearly of Russian nationality. On the other extreme was Abraham of Bulgaria who was a Volga Bulgar living long, long before Tatarstan was incorporated into Russia, so the description of him as in any way Russian is just plain off. What next, will St. Paul of Tarsus be put in Category:Turkish Christians because he was born and raised in what is today Turkey?John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:37, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Nothing ambiguous about it. "Russian" is a nationality. -- Necrothesp (talk) 23:01, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep "Russian" is a nationality is is British, German, etc. as pointed out above. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:33, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral. Sadly, the convention of ppl-by-nationality categories is to use the adjectival form, so I can't support this nomination. I would support a nomination which started with Category:Russian people, because at least it would try to consistently remove the ambiguity.
  However, I will not oppose this nomination, because even though the adjectival form for nationality categories is a widespread convention, it is a bad one which leads to ambiguity and or POV terminology in many cases. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:10, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Russian is a nationality. I do not think we should be splitting categories by Imperial/Soviet/post-Soviet unless they get over populated. I will accept that there may be a problem over people whose descendants became Russian citizens due to Russian conquest, but the best solution will be to edit out inappropriate national statements and to categorise them accordingt to more specific ethnic or national categories. It may be that this will mean that they go into a category that has a parent that is inappropriate to them, but that cannot be helped. We have a longstanding principle that the alumni of an institution that was subsequenly merged or renamed are treated as alumni of the successor. I think a similar principle needs to some extent to be applied here.
• Comment We need different Soviet categories. Soviet is clearly different than Russian. The Soviet Union included millions of people living beyond the reach of Russia in any sense. Russian is being used to identify people connected with the modern nationa state. While it can be used for the Russian Empire as well, we need to differentiate those because we need to be clear we are using it as a nationality and not an ethnicity identifier. The alumni analogy does not work. It would work in the case of Dahomey becoming Benin, and works with a continued existence of Germany, but the Soviet Union encompassed areas that were clearly not Russia. It also allowed for a movement of peoples in a way that meant that when it collapsed in lots of people relocated, many in fear for their lives, because they were outside ethnics in the area. The nationality of the people is Soviet, and they should be so identified. There may be cases where it works to also identify them as Russian, but to assume everyone in the Soviet Union can be called "Russian", which seems to have been done in some categorization (I can not tell you how many artlces I have come across that essentially said "Oleg Barishnakov was a Soviet skier", then told of his one olympic competition, and are then categorized under "Russian skiers" when Russian was not even mentioned in the text, nor was his birth place <or birth year, which is how I found most of them, going through [[:Category:Year of birth missing (living people)>, but I digress) and so we should have more Soviet categories than we have. No other nationality needs a minimum for splitting. Soviet is an acceptable nationality identifier, calling people from 1918-1991 "Russian" is problematic because too many people incorrectly use that as a synonym of Soviet. What next, will people want to categorize all soldiers for the United Kingdom in World War II as "English soldiers"?John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:36, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not seeing the problem here. One could be both Soviet (i.e. was a citizen of the Soviet Union) and Russian (i.e. came from the Russian Republic), just as one can be both British (i.e. is a citizen of the United Kingdom) and English (i.e. comes from England). Neither Russian nor English need imply nationality or ethnicity (although they can), but simply place of origin. Yes, there is certainly a problem with "Russian" and "Soviet" (and indeed "English" and "British") being seen as synonymous, but that's an issue of ignorance not of poor terminology here. People who came from the Russian Republic during the Soviet Union should be categorised as both Russian and Soviet. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:12, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename Russian is an ethnicity and a nationality, wrt the naming, therefore ambiguous. -- 70.24.250.26 (talk) 06:22, 15 November 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.

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) 02:23, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Wikipedia featured widescreen desktop backgrounds ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: I don't see this as being particularly helpful and it was soft-redirected a year and a half ago. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:40, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Doesn't seem to have any current use. Speedy was declined a year and a half ago because it was a featured topic category - is this still an issue? --Qetuth (talk) 02:33, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete; this isn't amazingly helpful as a redirect. Note that the speedy in question was on the grounds of the category being empty, but since it's being used as a redirect rather than as a category, C1 (empty category) really wasn't applicable. Nyttend (talk) 05:08, 17 November 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.

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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:18, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Artemis Records albums ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: No article for the label. Label article speedied twice, so I'm not sure if it's notable. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:33, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: The second deletion of the article was for a UK label which appeared to be non-notable. Before that, it was about an earlier US label; the deleted article lacked reliable sources, but claimed that Artemis was the #1 U.S. independent label in terms of market share from 2001 to 2003.

The essential statements claiming notability are also included in the userfied article on the label's founder, currently at User:Tvgv25/Danny Goldberg, which includes corroborating evidence from better sources e.g. LA Times search and Bloomberg.

Given the scale and significance of the output, it looks as if the article could be re-created and the category kept. – Fayenatic London 23:45, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I have now restored and rescued the article Artemis Records. – Fayenatic London 23:01, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: 50 articles, part of an established system, reason for deletion is now moot. --Qetuth (talk) 02:25, 17 November 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.

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) 00:47, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Chaplain General to the Forces to Category:Chaplains General to the Forces

Nominator's rationale: Rename. All the articles in this category are about individual Chaplains General to the Forces (the chief chaplain of the British Army). It is a similar category to Category:Chaplains of the Fleet and Category:RAF Chaplains-in-Chief, which cover the chief chaplains of the Royal Navy and Royal Air Force respectively. This renaming seems logical and uncontroversial to me, but a speedy cfr was opposed. I have to say I'm utterly confused as to what the opposer is arguing! -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:56, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support: Seems logical --Brigade Piron (talk) 12:39, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- categories are normally expressed in the plural. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:04, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support; categories for "articles of type X" should be plural; only categories for "articles related to topic X", like the Enver Hoxha category being discussed down below, should be singular. Nyttend (talk) 05:04, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:43, 19 November 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.

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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:20, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Atheism in Uruguay ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Only contains one subcategory which only contains one article--several of the sister members of that subcategory do not have a containing parent like this. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 10:15, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:SMALLCAT as part of a series under Category:Atheism by country, and populate. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:41, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response SMALLCAT doesn't apply because there isn't a large scheme of these, as I pointed out above. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:41, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not so. You didn't mention Category:Atheism by country. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:59, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Response I did in my nomination. There is a scheme like that, but the sibling categories are made up of more than just one subcategory with one article. Until/unless you can find more, there's no reason to take every child of Category:Atheists by nationality and add a container category just to fit another scheme. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:13, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • If you are referring to a particular category or category tree, then provide a link to it so that it's a clear what you are referring to. You persistently refuse to take a few seconds to provide the links which clarify your intent, despite repeated requests, and despite the fact that most other nominators do so. So if other editors don't read your rationales in the way you hope they would, you can only blame your own deliberate lack of clarity, which at this stage is tendentious.
          On the substantive issue, the important point here is that category schemes like this work through consistency, which is broken if we rip out parts of tree because someone wants yto apply an arbitrary threshold. The fact that some of other members of Category:Atheists by nationality do not have a parent in Category:Atheism by country is grounds for creating those missing Category:Atheism in Foo categories, not for deleting this one.
          As JPL points out below, it would be quite possible to write a head article atheism in Uruguay, so the lack of a head article is not an issue. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)
          • Response I'm honestly sorry that it seems like you can never understand what I'm saying here. As far as I can tell, you are the only one to whom my messages aren't communicated and I can't tell why or what I can do to remedy it. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 10:21, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • Which part of "take a few seconds to provide the links which clarify your intent" is so hard for you to understand? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:50, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
              • Please stop I feel like this last comment is not civil and you're being hostile to me. I do the best I can to do good work on this encyclopedia and the simple fact that you don't understand me sometimes isn't warrant for you berating me. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:17, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                • Justin, please don't try to cast your refusal to clarify your intent as someone else's comprehension problem. I can guess what you may mean, but when you don't specify what you mean the result is often ambiguous.
                  You wrote that you "can't tell why or what I can do to remedy it" ... which is why I ask you again which part of "take a few seconds to provide the links which clarify your intent" is so hard for you to understand? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:25, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Response I understand myself and other users generally do as well. I've posted to CfD hundreds of times and I cannot recall a single instance where someone else didn't understand my nomination and I'm certain that there's not one where another user chronically doesn't. If you are the only person who finds me unintelligible over and over again, then I don't know how to remedy this issue. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:07, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The remedy is very very very simple. If you refer to an article or a category or any other type of page, then include a link to it so that there is no room for doubt about what page you are referring to.

I have pointed this out to you dozens of times, so your claim that you "don't know how to remedy this issue" is blatant nonsense. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:20, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It is clearly possible to write an artlce Atheism in Uruguay. The fact that no one has should not lead us to delete this category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:34, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete but only because it is empty (the sub-cat is now empty). I support BHG's request to the nominator to be more specific about parent/sibling/sub categories by linking to them and to examples that support his point. I recently picked an example at random in a CfD, and it turned out to be an exception, so I was wrong about the point I was making, but at least it was traceable. – Fayenatic London 09:35, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as the sub-cat now contains an article. – Fayenatic London 19:27, 23 November 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.

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

The result of the discussion was: no consensus to rename. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:12, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Luxembourgian people to Category:Luxembourgish people Category:Luxembourger people
• Category:Luxembourgian culture to Category:Luxembourgish culture
• Category:Luxembourgian law to Category:Luxembourgish law
• Category:Luxembourgian society to Category:Luxembourgish society

Nominator's rationale: Rename. See talk page for WikiProject Luxembourg. Evidence backing this includes Googlefight. Sub-cats can either be added here or speedily renamed afterwards. – Fayenatic London 09:05, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: for the record, this will overturn an old CFD in 2007. – Fayenatic London 23:20, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Luxembourgish, except for people and its subcategories which by convention should use the demonym and be Category:Luxembourger people. --Qetuth (talk) 11:59, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you; I have amended the nomination. I was wrongly thinking that demonym meant only the word used as a noun, but I see that it also means the adjective. – Fayenatic London 14:09, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It should not be "Luxembourger people", the denonym is indeed Luxembourger, but in this case the adjective should be used (it is describing the "people"). Alternatively, it could be called Category:Luxembourgers. This is quite a rare problem faced by our friends at WikiProject Philippines where the adj/den. are different (i.e. "Filipino" v "Philippine") - usually they should be the same (i.e. English). --Brigade Piron (talk) 20:55, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed it back, then. "English" is not an example where the noun and adjective are the same; English is only an adjective, the noun is Englishman. British is an adjective, and the noun is Briton. Luxembourger is like Englishman and Briton, then. We don't use them in categories (except for Ancient Britons), so we won't use Luxembourger either. – Fayenatic London 21:37, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry then, my mistake and withdrawn: I thought from my basic searching that Luxembourger was more like Filipino than Englishman in its use. As a more familiar sounding word (to me), I would definitely not want to be responsible for Category:Englishman people --Qetuth (talk) 11:49, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename: This is long overdue! --Brigade Piron (talk) 20:51, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Please no adjectives for references to countries. Category:People_by_nationality contains inconsistent/ambiguous categories. "Democratic Republic of the Congo people‎", "French Polynesian people" (Are there also Australian Polynesian people?), Frankish people?‎ Are they part of German people? Can German people have Russian citizenship, like maybe the Dalmatian people have Croatian citizenship? The whole category could benefit from clarification by restructuring. Renaming w/o roadmap is waste of time. ChemTerm (talk) 00:00, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I take it that your objection stems chiefly from the "people" category. Would you also be against these changes in other categories? --Brigade Piron (talk) 12:42, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Depends on the changes, if it would be moving towards nouns I would likely support them. ChemTerm (talk) 12:49, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's possible to have Australian Polynesians; if you're an American with Tahitian roots, some people will call you a "Pacific Islander American", and if Australians follow the same style of designating minorities (I have no clue whether or not they do), those descended from Nieueans and Nauruans might be "Australian Polynesians". Nyttend (talk) 05:02, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. Firstly, if we going to implement a change as widespread as this, we need a better source than Googlefight. Preferably lots of reliable sources. The lack of sources was challenged in the previous discussion, and it's very disappointing to see a new nomination without such proper sourcing. A Google Books search give 8,960 hits for "Luxembourgish", and 6,160 hits for "Luxembourgian". That's close enough to make either acceptable.
  I also support ChemTerm's opposition to the use of the adjectival form of country names in category titles. If we are going to do a renaming, we should rename to the noun format. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:15, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The US government acknowleges both Luxembourgian and Luxembourgish Link- HOWEVER - no-one from Luxembourg would ever say "Luxembourgian" (see here). My evidence for this includes the websites of the national airline of Luxembourg (look which adjective they use in this random example "Luxembourgish" tourists), the national tourist board (i.e. "Luxembourgish" Moselle) and Embassy of Luxembourg in Washington ("Luxembourgish" citizens). Given the etymology of the word (from the French "Luxembourgeois" or in the native language "Lëtzebuergesch" = both closest to the -ish form) and the preference of the project which after all is responsible all Luxembourg-related articles I think it can be take that (a) Luxembourgish is a valid alternative, and (b) this alternative is preferable to Luxembourgian, which is only ,if ever, seen in US English, particularly taking into account that the style guide states that British English is to be used in its articles. Were this discussion about Luxembourg (as an adjective) which is sometimes seen in British English, I think there might be more of a case. (Languages) However, given the preferences for Luxembourgish on the wikiproject, I would be interested to know what objection you could have to this. --Brigade Piron (talk) 12:30, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for submitting a disappointing nomination. I was only trying to help following the request from the WikiProject. I took it as read that WP:LUX had done due diligence already, and just tried Googlefight for a Q&D confirmation, which seemed a clear enough result to me. – Fayenatic London 17:43, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment and RFC - As BHG is supporting my opposition to the adjectival form, maybe it would now be good to work out how the naming could be. How about "people from Luxembourg" along the lines of "people from X Province" found in "Category:People by province in Afghanistan" and many similar. So there could always be a match between the name of the article for geographic entity in question. ChemTerm (talk) 12:48, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • See Category talk:People by nationality#Category:FOOian people. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:28, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: As I had never heard the word Luxembourgish, I would have liked the noun forms Category:People from Luxembourg, Category:Culture in Luxembourg, Category:Law in Luxembourg and Category:Society of Luxembourg even though they don't follow the pattern of their siblings. However, it turns out that there is a reason for not using those: they are ambiguous. The page Category:People from Luxembourg says:

• Rename to Category:People from Luxembourg (country) and related names. Category:Luxembourgian emigrants to the United States should be renamed Category:Immigrants to the United States from Luxenbourg (country) per the form of Category:Immigrants to the United States from Northern Ireland.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:50, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are "People from Luxembourg" really the same as "Luxembourgish people"? I think that the first category would exclude immigrants living in the country, particularly significant in Luxembourg which has one of the largest immigrant population (as a percentage) in the world. I'd be interested to know your thoughts on this.--Brigade Piron (talk) 08:04, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And a German citizen living in Luxembourg would fall into "Luxembourgish people"? "People from X" is widely established, only on a country level and above it does not exist. This is inconsistent. ChemTerm (talk) 19:16, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename as per nom. Evidence given here indicates that both adjective forms exist in English, and that both are used with about the same amount of frequency, but the one that would be more acceptable to people from Luxembourgh themselves should be preferred all other considerations being equal. Mayumashu (talk) 01:17, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment "People from X" is not limited to people born in a place. If you prefer we could do Category:People of Luxembourg. I have always been told of=from, so I assume they have the same meaning. However people may feel that of implies a different qualify of connection. I would assume though for the case of "from" the people would at least have to be permanent residents for their connection with the place to be notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:51, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you look through Category:People by place you will find "Fooian people" and "People from Foo", but no "People of". "People of" is currently only used for descent and for historical eras, not for places of origin. – Fayenatic London 21:53, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment we do have Category:Tatar people of Russia which is clearly a people by place category. The of is identifying there place. We also have Category:Jews in Ottoman and British Palestine, so some categories use in. The people by place is all over the map.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:42, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment we also have Category:People of the Mughal Empire and Category:People of British India. There is also Category:Christians of the Kingdom of Hawaii.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:58, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Actually a general look at the Category:People by nationality and period shows that there is a large trend when placement within a nation is not felt to work with a direct adjective before people to turn it into a "people of" cat. Some include Category:People of medieval France and Category:People of Rupert's Land and Category:People of the Republic of China.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:12, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I was the original poster of the CFDS request; as a member of WP:LUX and as a Luxembourger/ian/ish/person from Luxembourg, I had never heard of Luxembourgian outside of Wikipedia. WP:LUX stated that Luxembourgish is the correct form, and I was simply trying to uniformise the format. The ensuing discussion striked me as odd, as there are numerous other categories with the adjective form of a country, such as German politicians or American film actors. In my mind, and per WP:LUX guidelines, Luxembourgish was the adjective for Luxembourg, and not Luxembourgian. The rest of the discussion focuses on the actual content of the category; as a Luxembourgish actor is not necessarily an Actor from/of Luxembourg. But after having done some research, I found an interesting source: Inventing Luxembourg: Representations of the Past, Space and Language from the Nineteenth to Twenty-First Century by Péporté, Kmec, Majerus and Margue. Margue, in particular, is a very respected source, as he is dean of the University of Luxembourg. The book mentions:

Is it 'Luxembourgish' or 'Luxembourgian' or simply 'of/from Luxembourg'? Since linguistic studies consistently use 'Luxembourgish' to refer to the language, this term has been used throughout this book. The adjective 'Luxembourgian', however, is used to describe other things pertaining to Luxembourg. Thus, people are called 'Luxembourgian' (adjective) or 'Luxembourgers" (noun). In addition, the adjective 'Luxembourg' may be used when referring to official matters: the Luxembourg constitution, the Luxembourg state etc.

None of the authors are, I believe, native English speakers, but they do carry weight as a source, as there never has been any official position; I may actually be tempted to suggest reverting Luxembourgish to Luxembourgian. This was just my rational behind the CFDS and subsequent research findings; Scotchorama (talk) 09:58, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would take the fact that people have to discuss the matter and explain their rationals in the book to mean that there is no consensus on the matter. I would thus say we should go to using Category:People of Luxembourg since that way we avoid taking a side in what is an undecided dispute on the best form.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:55, 24 November 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.

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) 02:22, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rename Category:Law enforcement history to Category:History of law enforcement per convention. Target is currently a redir. I am topic banned so I cannot complete this CfD. Notification needs placing on the category. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 05:35, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy rename per WP:C2C, cf. e.g. the contents of Category:Legal history by issue. Now tagged. – Fayenatic London 21:48, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:53, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per FL. Also happens to better match the naming convention of most of its contents. --Qetuth (talk) 01:26, 19 November 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.