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. Kbdank71 13:36, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Regional Airline Association to Category:Regional Airline Association members

Nominator's rationale: Merge. Merge into the category with the name that clearly describes the content. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:33, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom as seemingly duplicative category. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:22, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the article about the association hasn't been written, membership in the association cannot be but trivial. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:45, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

The result of the discussion was: merge both to Category:Jat clans to match article (Jat People does not exist). Kbdank71 13:40, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Jat people tribes to Category:Jat gotras

Nominator's rationale: Merge, these seem to be duplicate categories Ka Faraq Gatri (talk) 23:27, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category creator User:James smith2 notified Ka Faraq Gatri (talk) 23:38, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The main article appears to be Jat People. Gotras is not an English word. Accordingly reverse merge or better still merge both to something like Category:Clans of Jat People. Note I am English (not Indian) and known nothing of the subject. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:04, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree with Peter kingiron that we should merge it into Category:Clans of Jat People as this we be more appropriate for the English Wikipedia. Best regards.--James smith2 (talk) 12:49, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes, merge 'em, but the term is evidently just 'Jat clans' (cf: Jat clans). -- Fullstop (talk) 18:55, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

The result of the discussion was: no consensus. Kbdank71 13:46, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Lists of ambiguous human names to Category:Biography disambiguation pages

Nominator's rationale: Merge, Modernly, disambiguous pages may be categorized two ways. The first way is by placing the {{disambig}} template on the disambiguous page itself to add the page to Category:Disambiguation. The second way used by 300+ WikiProjects is to use "|class=Dab" in a WikiProject template on the disambiguous talk page to place the article in a subcategory of Category:Disambig-Class articles. In September 2005, {{Hndis}} was created to populate Category:Lists of ambiguous human names. However, {{Hndis}} duplicates the efforts of {{disambig}} for the article page and the efforts of Category:Biography disambiguation pages for the article talk page. Merge proposed: (1) All article talk pages of articles listed in Category:Lists of ambiguous human names be tagged with {{WPBiography|class=Dab}}, (2) all {{Hndis}} tags be replaced with {{disambig}}, and (3) Category:Lists of ambiguous human names be deleted. GregManninLB (talk) 16:16, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• What he says Sounds very sensible, but then I never understand template-talk. Johnbod (talk) 18:58, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose unless TFD for {{hndis}} is conducted first. I think this is the wrong way to go about this. I'm sure it's not the intention to short-circuit the TFD process, but I think it would be a mistake to not take it to TFD first. — Bellhalla (talk) 20:05, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • previous CFD here (where current consensus name was established) (March 2006)
  • previous TFD for {{hndis}} here (March 2006) — Bellhalla (talk) 20:11, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Agree with nom under condition that "(2) all {{Hndis}} tags be replaced with {{disambig}}" not be done. After all, its only the category that hndis puts things into that needs to be changed, and the template doesn't need to be deleted completely to do that. Besides, it wouldn't hurt if the disambig-style notice continued to read "human name." Also, think of the paroxysms that WikiProject Anthroponyms would go into hndis vanished. :) -- Fullstop (talk) 00:09, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• This is a technical issue, which is hardly appropriate to a CFD discussion, since it is really about a template, not a category. However I consider that "hndis" is a useful template, which should be retained, partly because we index most people by surname, not forename. I also think it should be useful for identifying biographical articles (of which there are a lot) from others. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:12, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

The result of the discussion was: keep. Kbdank71 13:02, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Ship disambiguation to Category:Disambig-Class Ships articles

Nominator's rationale: Merge, Modernly, disambiguous pages may be categorized two ways. The first way is by placing the {{disambig}} template on the disambiguous page itself to add the page to Category:Disambiguation. The second way used by 300+ WikiProjects is to use "|class=Disambig" in a WikiProject template on the disambiguous talk page to place the article in a subcategory of Category:Disambig-Class articles. In January 2006, {{Shipindex}} was created to populate Category:Ship disambiguation. However, {{Shipindex}} duplicates the efforts of {{disambig}} for the article page and the efforts of Category:Disambig-Class Ships articles for the article talk page. Merge proposed: (1) All article talk pages of articles listed in Category:Ship disambiguation be tagged with {{WikiProject Ships|class=Disambig|importance=NA}}, (2) all {{Shipindex}} tags be replaced with {{disambig}}, and (3) Category:Ship disambiguation be deleted. GregManninLB (talk) 15:49, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - {{disambig}} is not appropriate for ship disambiguation articles as they are not dab pages per se, but are actually set index articles. --Kralizec! (talk) 16:51, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I agree, it's a common mistake that these pages are just disambiguation pages, they are not as as Kralizec! had pointed out they are set index articles, and use a different set of guidelines to the generic disambiguation pages. Whatever happens {{Shipindex}} should certainly not be replaced with {{disambig}}. Benea (talk) 17:50, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose unless TFD for {{shipindex}} is conducted first. I think this is the wrong way to go about this. I'm sure it's not the intention to short-circuit the TFD process, but I think it would be a mistake to not take it to TFD first. Also, this would have been very appropriate to discuss at WikiProject Ships before a nomination was made. — Bellhalla (talk) 20:06, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • previous TFD (as part of a blanket TFD for several similar templates) for {{shipindex}} here (December 2006) — Bellhalla (talk) 22:04, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose as per Kralizec!, Benea and Bellhalla state all reasons why this should remain in use. --Brad (talk) 19:30, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per the above comments. Parsecboy (talk) 19:37, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - nominator has not addressed the basic point that these are not disambiguation pages, this nomination was flawed from the beginning, based as it was on a misunderstanding. Benea (talk) 19:41, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose — I concur with the other commentors. A couple of years ago we went to the trouble of distinguishing all these pages from disambig pages, for good reason. —WWoods (talk) 21:42, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - what they said. Shipindex is not disambig pages. Jinian (talk) 16:43, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - Category:Ship disambiguation contains set index articles, not disambiguation pages; a merge to Category:Disambig-Class Ships articles would be inappropriate. A more accurate name for Category:Ship disambiguation might be in order to prevent this type of misunderstanding in the future, but I can't think of an elegant name at the moment. Maralia (talk) 03:27, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

The result of the discussion was: speedy move. — CharlotteWebb 15:16, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Westchester County New York, legislators to Category:Westchester County, New York legislators

Nominator's rationale: Move for correct punctuation. Russ (talk) 14:36, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy move. Implausible typos are supposed to go in the speedy section. --erachima talk 14:37, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:Stradivari violins, feel free to create the cello cats whenever. Kbdank71 13:35, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Stradivarii to Category:Stradivari instruments

Nominator's rationale: Move from speedy, original reason was "to correct misspelling; change to more descriptive name" Kbdank71 14:22, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Notified creator with {{subst:cfd-notify}} --Kbdank71 14:25, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support clearer title. (I'm also the category creator.) --erachima talk 14:31, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom, or better, rename to Category:Stradivari violins in which case I will set up a new Category:Stradivari cellos, allowing both to go under the Category:Individual violins and cellos cats. I don't think an intervening Strad instruments cat is needed, & the consort/quartet can go in both. Johnbod (talk) 19:03, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per Johnbod. With the offer to do the split, this makes the most sense. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:20, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per Johnbod's suggestion. One question though: should it be Category:Stradivari violins or Category:Stradivarius violins? (which was the term we discussed in the previous CFD for this category) - Cgingold (talk) 22:26, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I left a note asking for input on this at Talk:Stradivarius. Cgingold (talk) 06:09, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think Category:Stradivari violins; Stadivari was the family name. It's a Stradivarius, the Vegaswikian Stadivarius, several Stradivarii, or a Stradivari violin - I think! Johnbod (talk) 01:52, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

The result of the discussion was: rename. Kbdank71 13:10, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:WikiProject PlayStation articles to Category:WikiProject PlayStation

Nominator's rationale: It is not just articles, and it will be the same as all of the other VG WikiProjects. MrKIA11 (talk) 17:18, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom.--Lenticel ^(talk) 11:33, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note - the category has not been tagged, nor has the project been notified that this proposal for renaming has been made (as opposed to an earlier suggestion on the project talk page that the category should be renamed). Bencherlite^Talk 08:07, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now I did both. MrKIA11 (talk) 12:21, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kbdank71 13:36, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This wasn't tagged until today, so I'm relisting it for further discussion. --Kbdank71 13:36, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notified creator with {{subst:cfd-notify}} --Kbdank71 13:43, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

The result of the discussion was: keep. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 10:15, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:American propaganda films ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: This is a non-defined category, used largely in an inconsistent fashion for POV pushing. If we go by WP's own defition of propaganda, we have: "Propaganda is a concerted set of messages aimed at influencing the opinions or behavior of large numbers of people. Instead of impartially providing information, propaganda in its most basic sense presents information in order to influence its audience." Well that's probably a huge percentage of movies, every single documentary, and every commercial you've ever seen on TV. Yet there are less than a dozen movies in this category, and trying to add others inevitably ends up in a edit war. Recently Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, has been repeatedly added and removed from this category. Those who want it included point to reviews calling or comparing it to propaganda. Those opposed say critics calling it propaganda doesn't make it de facto propaganda any more than calling it the worst movie of the decade actually makes it the worst movie of the decade. The inconsistent application of this is very obvious if anyone tries to add it to a Michel Moore movie or An Inconvenient Truth, both of which have been widely described as such by detractors and critics. When it's applied to movies people don't like, "propaganda" is referred to as a neutral descriptive term, when applied to movies people do like, it's ful of negative connotations and POV. I think the latter are basically right whatever movie it's applied to. The best that can probably be done for this category is to rename it "American films that have been called propaganda," but I'm not sure how useful that is either. R. fiend (talk) 12:59, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Preliminary comment: In December 2006, three former sub-cats of this category -- Category:Left-wing American propaganda films, Category:Right-wing American propaganda films, and Category:American Vietnam War propaganda films -- were taken to CFD, and all three were deleted because they were being used as a way of labeling films with a strong POV as "propaganda".

Now, there really are films that can objectively be characterized as "propaganda films", and there are a goodly number of categories for such films. It's possible that we may need to restrict this one to use as a "container category" for such sub-cats. And/or we may need to restrict this (and other categories for propaganda films) to films made by governments or government agencies. Cgingold (talk) 13:46, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: while the category's inclusion criteria is necessarily subjective (as are those of many other categories), it is not necessarily partisan. Where there exist reliably sourced, non-partisan expert opinions (e.g. of film critics) to support inclusion in the category, it would appear to be compliant with WP:V. I would also note that there is no basis for assuming that only governments make propaganda movies. I would further note that if the nominator's reasoning were valid, it would necessitate the deletion of the entire Category:Propaganda films tree, not just this geographical subcategory of it (which the nominator just happens to be involved in edit-warring to remove Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed from). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 15:36, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I actually would support such deletion, except that there are certain films that are undeniably propaganda, (the works of Goebbels come to mind) and they seem to rest in more clear subcategories. But the whole propaganda issue is waist deep in POV, and in need of substantial clarification. Besides, I fail to see a large substantial difference between this category and the deleted Left-wing, Right-wing cats. Perhaps they are a little more arbitrary, but not greatly so. -R. fiend (talk) 16:09, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Then your reasoning is logically incoherent. Many Nazis would probably have (and many Neo-Nazis would probably still) argue that "the works of Goebbels" were merely explicating (what they would consider) a profound truth. Politics, the realm of propaganda, is rife with people denying the supposedly 'undeniable'. Therefore any subjective classification must be on the basis of reliable, non-partisan expert opinion. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 17:09, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep WP:POINTy nomination: Editor did not like the classification of one film Expelled: No Inteligence Allowed here, so decides to delete an entire category. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 16:41, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• keep Disagreement about individual films being in the category is not a reason to delete the film. Furthermore, propaganda is not inherently a negative descriptor. One obvious example in this category is Don't Be a Sucker!. JoshuaZ (talk) 18:03, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep there are numerous excellent American propaganda films, Mrs. Miniver being an example. Many of them are wartime films but not necessarily government films, and it's a notable genre of filmmaking. Political preferences should be set aside, the crucial issue is well sourced expert opinion from film critics or film historians. . . dave souza, talk 19:31, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep Personally I'd prefer it be limited to films made in conjunction with the US government or a US political organization. That might be overly strict, but I think otherwise it could conceivably include everything from Peace on Earth (1939 film) and Let's All Go to the Lobby to Wal-Mart: The High Cost of Low Price and When the Levees Broke.--T. Anthony (talk) 00:25, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep relevant category, useful, and defined by propaganda film. Paper45tee (talk) 23:50, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A slight problem with that. Namely the article is under dispute and it's even tagged as "may need to be rewritten."--T. Anthony (talk) 07:40, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No it is not under dispute. The editor who added the {{pov}}-template nearly a year ago has never edited the article before or after, and made only one talkpage edit (in which he objected to the idea of restricting the topic to "government-sponsored" films, as that would automatically exclude Farenheit 9/11. As this restriction, and thus any dispute is not currently present, I am removing the template. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 05:17, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Hrmph - because loaded words like "propaganda" lead to edit wars, and if we can avoid that then we should. Also, most wartime films (to include cultural wars) are propaganda anyway. And, as T. Anthony already pointed out, its an iffy definition and bound to involve double-standards at some level. I'm sure the DoD wouldn't call 'Top Gun' a propaganda film, but thats what it was. Baaaad Russkies. Gooood fighter pilots. Call 1-800-USNAVY now. -- Fullstop (talk) 06:38, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

The result of the discussion was: rename. Kbdank71 13:11, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Railway stations in Canada by compnay ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Speedy Rename. Typo. (compnay -> company). --Kevlar (talk • contribs) 10:44, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy rename as nom: Is there not a quicker procedure for this? Peterkingiron (talk) 22:15, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

The result of the discussion was: rename. Kbdank71 13:12, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Anti-racists to Category:Anti-racism activists

Nominator's rationale: Pretty much any contemporary public figure with something to say on the matter is against racism. Being an anti-racist is common to the point of triviality. What this category actually comprises, or should comprise, is individuals who devote careers, or at least a significant amount of time, to combating racism. I think my proposed renaming better encapsulates that. Biruitorul (talk) 05:52, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom - I couldn't agree more. This is so obvious I'm amazed it wasn't taken care of the first time this category was renamed. Cgingold (talk) 08:19, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom to narrow down the scope and that make the cat workable. Dahn (talk) 10:46, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per all and precedents for similar cats. Johnbod (talk) 13:49, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• rename to show that the 'anti' is with the idea of racism. Hmains (talk) 00:14, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename 'nuff said above. -- Fullstop (talk) 06:41, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Maralia (talk) 03:28, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. Kbdank71 13:12, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Five more plant categories created by User:Polbot. Specific reasons to follow. - IceCreamAntisocial (talk) 05:45, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:Upuna - monotypic genus, contains only one species. Useless cat. Delete and upmerge to Category:Dipterocarpaceae (family).
• Category:Maclura - genus containing two species. Delete and upmerge to Category:Moraceae.
• Category:Frangula - obsolete genus, species treated as Rhamnus now. Delete and upmerge to Category:Rhamnaceae.
• Category:Cercocarpus - genus containing five species. Delete and upmerge to Category:Rosaceae.
• Category:Malus - this is the apple genus. We already have Category:Apples. Since each member of Malus is called by the common name "apple" it is appropriate to put all Malus in Category:Apples & delete Category:Malus for being redundant.

Thanks! Cheers, IceCreamAntisocial (talk) 05:50, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all per nom. Delete the bot too. Johnbod (talk) 11:20, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• 'Delete all per the nom - the categories really are useless! The Helpful One ^(Review) 22:28, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

The result of the discussion was: rename all. Kbdank71 13:13, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming

• Category:Khmuic people to Category:Khmuic peoples (see article Khmuic peoples)
• Category:Dravidian people to Category:Dravidian peoples

Nominator's rationale: these category pages list (sub)groups of peoples belonging collectively to a larger ethnic/linguistic group (a peoples), and not individual people with a particular ethnicity Mayumashu (talk) 04:33, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

The result of the discussion was: rename. Kbdank71 13:14, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Branches of Han People to Category:Subgroups of Han Chinese

Nominator's rationale: to match the article Subgroups of Han Chinese Mayumashu (talk) 04:22, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. Johnbod (talk) 10:36, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

The result of the discussion was: no consensus. Kbdank71 13:50, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Massacres by country to Category:Massacres by location

Nominator's rationale: Rename. New name would more accurately describe the category. Old name is ambiguous because "massacres by country" could suggest that these massacres were committed by these counties, instead of in these countries, which is what is intended (as the names of the subcategories demonstrate). The old wording is of course derived from Wikipedia's naive, presentist bias towards categorization of historical topics by existing national boundaries; we can't fix that here, but this would be a baby step in the right direction. —Kevin Myers 04:21, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I certainly concur that this category needs renaming. I've been giving this some thought over the last few days (as an outgrowth of the CFD for Category:Massacres by Americans), but hadn't yet settled on a suitable name for it. What I would really like to do is come up with a pair of similarly-structured category names, one for this category and the other for a counterpart category that will serve as the parent super-cat for the "Massacres committed by Xyz" categories (two of which have now been created). Cgingold (talk) 09:16, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

The result of the discussion was: no consensus. Kbdank71 13:50, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Massacres committed by the United States to Category:Massacres committed by United States military personnel

Nominator's rationale: Rename. A country doesn't commit a massacre; people do, and often in violation of the laws of that country. Presumably this longer name better describes the intention of the category. —Kevin Myers 03:52, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I don't disagree with your basic take on this, Kevin. As you know, I had suggested a category of this name in the course of the (still-running) CFD for Category:Massacres by Americans, and after it garnered support I went ahead and created it (along with Category:Massacres committed by Japan). I would, however, suggest a slight modification of your proposal, to Category:Massacres committed by United States military forces, just to be sure that the occasional mass killings by individuals who happen to have been "US military personnel" don't get lumped in with the intended contents of the category. Cgingold (talk) 09:00, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this and Category:Massacres committed by Japan, and do not rename. There is no need to categorize massacres by country. Categorization gives the impression that the massacres were sponsored, authorized or encouraged by countries rather than by the persons who committed the crimes. Additionally, most (if not all) in Category:Massacres committed by Japan were committed during the time of the Empire of Japan. Categorization by location is adequate. Are we also going to categorize by race, religion, sex, ethnicity of victims and perpetrators? --Dual Freq (talk) 22:43, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• 'Delete, as per Dual Freq. Judgmental words like "massacre" don't work in historical context. -- Fullstop (talk) 23:56, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep - Our users need a category including only massacres committed by United States personnel, whether military or otherwise. Currently, the only way to find this is to look at every article in the "Massacres" category (which could take dozens of hours), something that is highly unsatisfactory when the category solves this problem. Badagnani (talk) 16:34, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It could take dozens of hours to search the articles for Category:Massacres committed by women or Category:Massacres committed by Presbyterians, but that doesn't mean we need to categorize by race, religion, sex or ethnicity of victims and perpetrators. The current category has 3 items in it and none appear to be officially sanctioned by any central authority. The United States did not authorize the acts, individual, rogue elements, did. Categorization gives the impression that the massacres were sponsored, authorized or encouraged by countries. The same goes for the rest of the countries. We don't need a Category:Massacres committed by the Byzantine Empire, Category:Massacres committed by the Zulu Kingdom or Category:Massacres committed by (insert country name from now back to the beginning of recorded history). One could spend dozens of hours looking for those too. There is no need to assign blame/responsibility via a category. --Dual Freq (talk) 03:40, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

The result of the discussion was: keep (Foo people sounds good to me, personally. It keeps people from doing things like calling Peterkingiron a Britisher. Great Britainer? United Kingdomer of Northern Irelandisher and Great British? Whatever, you've all spoken.). Kbdank71 13:25, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming/merging

• Category:Tuvans to Category:Tuvan people
• Category:Manchus to Category:Manchu people
• Category:Iranis to Category:Irani people
• Category:Parsis to Category:Parsi people
• Category:Sherpas to Category:Sherpa people

Nominator's rationale: people by ethnic groups, see Category:People by race or ethnicity and recent alike nominations Mayumashu (talk) 04:15, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose because the nominator #1) is incorrectly assuming that "Iranis", "Parsis", "Sherpas" etc are adjectives, and hence need to be followed by a noun. #2) is incorrectly assuming that these are not terms already in common use in the English language #3 is incorrectly assuming that these are actually "ethnic groups" by some formal definition, and not by editor's arbitrary definition of "ethnic group." #3) is assuming that "race", "tribe", "ethnicity" and "nationality" (Greek ethnous) are all co-eval (if at all either apply); #4) is attempting to apply an uncolloquial construct to the English language; along the lines of the Robbie Burns is not "Scottish", he's a "Scottish person." #5) is unaware that such a rename would in at least two of the four instances would cause a conflict with other articles #6) is unaware that there is continuous and bitter nationalism to contend with and that a rename would only aggravate the problem, #7) is assuming that all those categories contain only biographies. #8) There is absolutely no reason why one has to get convoluted when a short name will do. #9) the nominator is in such a hurry to get everything uniform that he/she failed to check the other parent categories of at least three of those categories -- not to mention that the text at the top of two of those cats make clear that the definition of those groups hinges on religious affiliation. #10) that the 'Manchu people' has a big fat banner on the top (since 25 July 2006!!) saying that cat is deprecated in favor of 'Manchus' But what I really don't get is why some editors can't leave well enough alone. -- Fullstop (talk) 18:06, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

reply #1) each seems to be a properly formed adjective, check the Merrian-Webster online dict, for instance #2)I don t dispute at all that these are common terms (my comments on the recent alike nominations that I have made for subcat pages of Category:People by race or ethnicity clearly indicate this) the reason for the nomination is to have a universal naming pattern. why is it Category:Italian people and not Category:Italians? both grammatically correct used commonly (to the contrary, certain adjective forms have less commonly used noun forms - French is an adjective whose noun form is? should it be Category:Britons and not Category:British people #3) nothing of this nomination or any alike ones that I ve made suggest in any way this?? #4)again, Robbie Burns is both Scottish and a Scottish person #5) please indicate the articles. #6)I don t know what place these comments have here. #7)even if articles other than biographies are contained, how does this deter from the renaming?? #8)I agree with you. however, in the case of people, both for nationalities and ethnicities, given the problem British, French, and a few others present adjectives seem preferable to denonyms #9)religious affiliation can be a defining feature of an ethnic group (eg. Jews/Jewish people). #10)the article page Manchus begins, "The Manchu people". Mayumashu (talk) 00:31, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

a) All of the above are nouns. 'Manju' is a proper name, and the others have a genetive suffix: -n in Turkic, -i in Indo-Iranian, -pa in Tibetan. These words with the suffix of appurtena can also be adjectives, but without context the default is a noun (like a "of Pakistan" is a Pakistani and "of Bengal" is a Bengali, but a person "of Nepal" is a Nepalese). Besides, the pluralization with -s makes it clear that we aren't taling about a language. Indeed, the -pa in "Sherpa" explicitly denotes "person of."
Even in the English language, Freddie Mercury was a Parsi and Tenzing Norgay was a Sherpa. Nothing wrong with those phrases. The articles and their lemmas reflect this as well.

No one's asserted that for these particular groups of people use of the plural noun is less correct than the adjective + people. As you later acknowledge your awareness of, this nomination is (just) about having a universal naming scheme or not

b) For the previously mentioned conflicts see hatnotes of the respective articles.

c) Tuvans, Manchus, Iranis, Parsis, and Sherpas are not French or British. There is neither any need to make everything "uniform," nor is what is good for the goose necessarily also good for the gander.

We fundamentally disagree on this, it seems clear to me.

d) While religious affiliation can be a defining feature of ethnicity, your 'Jewish people' example falls flat: 1) there is no other word for a follower of Judaism, 2) 'Jewish people' is not an ethnicity, 3) The category 'Category:Jewish people' redirects to 'Category:Jews' and the article for 'Jewish people' redirects to 'Jew'. Both short forms are perfectly fine. And the ones you want to rename are all fine too.

?? A Jew is a Jewish person, that is someone ethnically Jewish and practicing Judaism. Again, I agree, the shorter naming is perfectly fine here and in 99.5% of cases - this nomination is about the 0.5% (British, Dutch, English, French, and possibly Chinese and other -ese ending names).

Huh? I don't know which nomination you are referring to with "this nomination" but it can't possible be this nomination which is not "about the 0.5% (British, Dutch, English, French, and possibly Chinese and other -ese ending names)." -- Fullstop (talk) 04:20, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If it weren t for that 0.5%, I wouldn t have made this nomination. I have no problem, again with plural s other than that it can t be done for 100% of namings for people and I m seeking universal naming. Mayumashu (talk) 05:19, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but your aesthetic sensibilities are not a valid reason, nor was that part of your original rationale for rename. And that too only so that the nominated categories can be made to match the "0.5%" for which -s pluralization is not possible. Sorry, doesn't wash. -- Fullstop (talk) 07:14, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

e) The reason why the 'Manchu' article begins with "The Manchu people" is because 'Manchu' is singular. Exactly like every other *-nym that can be pluralized with a simple -s. That the editors chose to go with a definite article + "people" is an arbitrary editorial decision and indicates nothing. -- Fullstop (talk) 14:06, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose, keep as is; there is no requirement in English that such names end with the word 'people'; instead, other categories should be renamed to remove 'people' Hmains (talk) 20:04, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

what then should be done with French and British in noun forms? Mayumashu (talk) 00:31, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing should be done! If/When appropriate it will already have been done. Wikipedia has been around for enough time for demonyms/ethnonyms to have settled. That 'British people' isn't 'Britishers' or 'Britons' is presumably because someone chose the former over the latter two. Arbitrarily perhaps. But what does it matter? 'French' and 'British' are not on the table here.

And just because some ethnonyms/demonyms need a "people" suffix doesn't mean that all do. Inversely, that most ethnonyms/demonyms don't need a "people" suffix doesn't mean that all don't.

But why are you insisting that there be "a universal naming pattern" anyway? Neither does the English language need to be stuck into a corset, nor does WP need "a universal naming pattern," nor would demonyms/ethnonyms exactly qualify as the best example to apply uniformity to (because, by definition, they are loan words). -- Fullstop (talk) 14:06, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: As I've said in a bunch of related CFDs, I suggest that we give serious consideration to using the word "individuals" instead of "people" in those categories that need additional clarity. Cgingold (talk) 20:47, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose proposal - Keep as is except "Manchu People" which should be reverse merged. "People" is a wholly uneccessary suffix. The use of the adjective as a noun in this context is a normal English usage, except perhaps in politically-correct idiocy. The British is an acceptable term "Britisher" is an extremely ugly Americanism. If the term should exist at all it should be the comparative "more British. We do not talk of the inhabitants of the USA as Americaners, when the usual term is Americans. Anyway that question does not arise from the nomination. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:27, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

The result of the discussion was: not tagged until today, relisted on may 9th. Kbdank71 13:30, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Game show card games ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Category is redundant, is not accurate (listing segments from a game show; not gameshows themselves), and seems to have little potential for growth. Modor (talk) 04:07, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - the category is not tagged for discussion. Otto4711 (talk) 12:55, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Now it is tagged for deletion. Munci (talk) 13:23, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 10:29, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:WP Pakistan AoA ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Has to be deleted as the page was later decided to be called Category:WP Pakistan AaA Arun Reginald (talk · contribs) 04:03, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I'm sure it can get deleted based on the fact that it has no articles in it and never has as well it seems it was a typo. Munci (talk) 23:55, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this as well as the new category. This is a bad precedent to set, I don't think we want to see hundreds of similar categories popping up. Better to simply keep a list somewhere on the WikiProject's subpage. Additionally, "WP" is an incorrect convention, the new category, if kept, needs to use "WikiProject". VegaDark (talk) 01:28, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both, per Vegas. "Adopt an article" should also be spelled out. Johnbod (talk) 01:30, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

The result of the discussion was: relisted on may 16. Kbdank71 13:40, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Educational institution disambiguation ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Suggest merging Category:Educational institution disambiguation to Category:Disambig-Class school pages

Nominator's rationale: Merge, Modernly, disambiguous pages may be categorized two ways. The first way is by placing the {{disambig}} template on the disambiguous page itself to add the page to Category:Disambiguation. The second way used by 300+ WikiProjects is to use "|class=Dab" in a WikiProject template on the disambiguous talk page to place the article in a subcategory of Category:Disambig-Class articles. In May 2006, {{Schooldis}} was created to populate Category:Educational institution disambiguation. However, {{Schooldis}} duplicates the efforts of {{disambig}} for the article page and the efforts of Category:Disambig-Class school pages for the article talk page. Merge proposed: (1) All article talk pages of articles listed in Category:Educational institution disambiguation be tagged with {{WPSchools|class=Dab|importance=NA}}, (2) all {{Schooldis}} tags be replaced with {{disambig}}, and (3) Category:Educational institution disambiguation be deleted. GregManninLB (talk) 03:21, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. My concern is that Category:Educational institution disambiguation contains entries that are not called Schools in places other than the USA. An example is Furness College which points to a Further Education College and a University College in the UK. Neither of these are called Schools in the UK. There could well be others. So, whatever the problem here is, I support a solution that does not put all these articles in a category with "School" in its title. --Bduke (talk) 04:45, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Those pages not called "Schools" can have their talk pages tagged with {{WikiProject Education|class=Dab|importance=NA}} instead of {{WPSchools|class=Dab|importance=NA}}. That will place the talk page in Category:Disambig-Class education pages. See Talk:Furness College as an example. GregManninLB (talk) 05:15, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Makes the whole structure easier to follow and cuts down on the proliferation of schools categories. No real drawback if done conscientiously. Adam McCormick (talk) 06:30, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. Kbdank71 13:30, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Post-funk albums ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete This is a non-existant genre which only exists on the one article which is in this category. Munci (talk) 03:20, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:White Russian emigration. Kbdank71 13:33, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Russian White Emigration to Category:White Russian emigrants

Nominator's rationale: improved word order, use of a lower case 'e', and that most pages listed are of emigrants and this rename would link well for Category:Russian emigrants (and there is no Category:Russian emigration) Mayumashu (talk) 02:36, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment. I see now that White Russian can mean Belarus. An alternative renaming (therefore) could be Category:White émigrés, to match White Emigre (which itself should be renamed White émigré - something with my keyboard I can t do). Mayumashu (talk) 02:44, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• keep reading the articles in the category always is helpful. This category is about the the emigration of White Russians (opponents of the Communist Red Russians in the Russian Revolution). It includes not only articles on people but also on the emigration events and organizations. Renaming it to a people category name makes no sense. Hmains (talk) 02:58, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Hmains. This category is about the Russian White Emigration, so it seems like a fairly on-point category name already. It's not just a people category for White Emigres, and it's not a category for all emigrants who are Russian and white, which the proposed name could be interpreted as meaning. White Emigres were not all Belarusian. (Belarus used to be called "White Russia". These are completely different issues, involving problematic literal translations of the Russian language, where "bela" or "belaya" (Белая) literally means "white". The confusion between "White Russians" meaning civil war anti-communists and "White Russian" meaning Belarusians is one reason Belarus is called Belarus now and not White Russia.) And "White Emigre" is a proper noun title, not a generic term (is there any other group that are usually called "white emigres"?). So any category for individuals should be Category:White Emigres (or Emigrés). Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:16, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment if sentiment is to keep the cat page as is (about the emigration and not as a list of the emigrants of that wave), and to keep the proper noun form (which I favour as well) then how about the alternative Category:Russian 'White Emigration' for a little more clarity Mayumashu (talk) 04:10, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Category:White Russian emigration. "Russian White" is odd and unhelpful. Johnbod (talk) 11:18, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• comment I change from 'keep' to 'rename to Category:White Russian emigration' as the best for this this collection of articles Hmains (talk) 20:07, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I d support this too. Mayumashu (talk) 00:34, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with that too, as the only other commentor so far. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:23, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support last proposal - There certainly is an ambiguity with Belarus (but the term White Russia for it is obsolete). Fortunately there are no (or few) black (skinned) Russians, so that problem does not arise. If there is a problem as to the scope of the category, then a short headnote can be provided describing with its intended content. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:35, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 10:22, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Don't you believe it! ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Classifying Tom & Jerry episodes by a famous phrase used in the episode doesn't seem to be a good way to go. Granted, the phrase is classic, but we don't classify Seinfeld episodes by the ones in which Jerry says, "Hello, Newman ...". Notified creator with {{subst:cfd-notify}} Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:26, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - nonsense category, thoroughly unencyclopedic. Otto4711 (talk) 13:11, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, obviously. Could probably speedy this without complaints. VegaDark (talk) 01:31, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

The result of the discussion was: rename. Kbdank71 13:34, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Blacks and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to Category:Mormonism and race

Nominator's rationale: Merge. These categories are, for the most part, co-extensive. There are few prominent issues involving Mormonism and race that don't (1) involve the LDS Church, and (2) involve Black people. Right now there doesn't seem to be a good rationale or larger scheme purpose for the subdivision. If put together, there would still only be 17 total articles on the topic of Mormonism and race. If kept, most articles need to be transferred into the subcategory. Notified creator with {{subst:cfd-notify}} Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:17, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.