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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:51, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Drukpa Kagyu Lamas to Category:Drukpa Kagyu lamas

Propose renaming Category:Canadian Lamas to Category:Canadian lamas

Propose renaming Category:American Lamas to Category:American lamas

Propose renaming Category:Bhutanese Lamas to Category:Bhutanese lamas

Nominator's rationale: "Lama" is used as a generic here, not a specific title (e.g. Panchen Lama.) —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:53, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- This is correct capitalisation. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:40, 22 December 2010 (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. I can't argue with the fact that these categories contain only diocese subcategories. However, some contents were removed that were not dioceses, so this close should not prejudge against the creation of categories to contain the diocese categories and similar non-diocese contents.--Mike Selinker (talk) 08:11, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Religious sees in Scotland to Category:Dioceses in Scotland

Propose renaming Category:Religious sees in Ireland to Category:Dioceses in Ireland

Propose renaming Category:Religious sees in Ukraine to Category:Dioceses in Ukraine

Nominator's rationale: Per agreement of Dec 8th concerning a similar proposal to re-name Category:Religious sees in the United Kingdom to Category:Dioceses in the United Kingdom. Laurel Lodged (talk) 22:51, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Untagged. Nominated categories need to be tagged with Temple:Cfr. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:35, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notice. Nominated categories tagged with Template:Cfr. Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:19, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• rename per nom. I've removed the Irish presbyteries from the categories as they are not diocese equivalents. Mangoe (talk) 03:32, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose for now. I missed the discussion on Religious sees in the United Kingdom, but I think it was a mistake to rename it to the less inclusive term of diocese. In most cases, an Episcopal see is a diocese, but that is not always the case, since some religious sees are non-territorial, and it appears that orthodox patriarchs generally do not use the term "diocese" even for territorial sees; for example, the Serbian Orthodox Church uses the term "eparchy",. We do not yet have an article on the Eparchy of Britain and Scandinavia, but it is not helpful to narrow these categories to exclude such articles as and when they are created. Also, we do have articles on two Ecclesiastical provinces in the UK; are those not also a form of see? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:34, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• In Anglicanism they are not. I think there are reasons to make the division by communion only and ignore political boundaries, along the lines that you give, but in that case the category should be deleted, not kept as is. And again, the articles in question are about dioceses, not sees. Mangoe (talk) 04:39, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment -- The Anglican church in England is made up of territorial dioceses. The two provinces would in other churches be called archdioceses. The Church of Scotland does not have dioceses and so no sees. In Ireland, both the Anglican Church of Ireland and the Catholic Church have dioceses, sometimes with the see in the same city (e.g. Armagh). While there is a technical distinction between the diocese and the see, the two are essentially duplicates. Technically, the diocese is an area of territory; the see is where the bishop takes his title from, but unless we are to use "sees" to categorise cities that have a bishop, I cannot understand why we need both. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:48, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Query. If the Church of Scotland does not have dioceses then why does every article in the Category:Dioceses of the Scottish Episcopal Church begin with "Diocese of xxx"? Also, I note that every memeber of the Roman Catholic Church in Scotland also begins "Roman Catholic diocese of xxx". Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:24, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because the Church of Scotland is Presbyterian, whereas the Scottish Episcopal Church is Anglican. Mangoe (talk)

Ah! Pardon my ignorance - I assumed that the two were synonymous. In any case, the point is moot as the Church of Scotland is not a member of the category. Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:24, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No worries; it throws off everyone who doesn't know the history. Mangoe (talk) 19:50, 23 December 2010 (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. Everyone here agrees something must change, but there's disagreement over what it should change to. There's no inaccuracy in the proposed title, as the article clearly states that the buildup happened after the UK was formally created. So I'm matching the article title. Those who want that to change should propose it there.--Mike Selinker (talk) 08:05, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Napoleon's invasion of England to Category:Napoleon's planned invasion of the United Kingdom

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Per title of main article, and to clarify that it was a planned invasion. Tim! (talk) 22:11, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Query What about the French invasion of the Kingdom of Ireland as part of the 1798 rebellion? Ireland was not in th UK until 1801. Laurel Lodged (talk) 22:57, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Category:Napoleon's planned invasion of Great Britain. The articles in this category all relate to the planned invasion of Great Britain, and not the separate French force sent to assist the 1798 rebellion in the Kingdom of Ireland. The period covered covered spans 1798 to 1805, during the Kingdom of Great Britain was abolished on 1 January 1801 and became part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, although it mostly refers to the period after the outbreak of war in 1803, until 1805. Using "United Kingdom" in the name would be misleading, because it does not cover England before 1801, and because it would imply that that Ireland was part of its scope, which was not the case. Even though the Kingdom of Great Britain no longer existed after 1801, the geographical entity of Great Britain most accurately conveys the area covered. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:17, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Kingdom of Great Britain was not abolished, it just merged with Ireland, or rather changed name when it annexed Ireland. McLerristarr | Mclay1 15:27, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are a variety of view on what happened in 1801, from union to annexation. But AFAICS, none of those views disagree the fact that before 1801 there was a Kingdom of Great Britain, and afterwards there was a differently-named entity ... and this discussion is about names. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:51, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• REname per BHG. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:50, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Napoleon's planned invasion of the United Kingdom to match corresponding article. It doesn't matter if Napoleon had only invaded Dover, it would still have been an invasion of the United Kingdom. McLerristarr | Mclay1 15:27, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • If he had landed in Dover in 1798 or 1800, it would not have not an invasion of the United Kingdom. Why exclude the years before 1801? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:51, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • According to the article, he started planning in 1803. If the article or article title should be changed, a requested move should be proposed there. Until then, the category should match the article. McLerristarr | Mclay1 16:30, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Napoleon's planned invasion of Great Britain per bhg. There is no reason a category must slavishly have and match a single main article. Johnbod (talk) 18:01, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's even less reason for having two different names for exactly the same thing. Consistency is the most important thing here. McLerristarr | Mclay1 13:25, 24 December 2010 (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. --Mike Selinker (talk) 08:08, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Beat Generation events to Category:Beat Generation

Nominator's rationale: Merge, unnecessary subcategory with only two articles, and rather unlikely to ever grow more. postdlf (talk) 20:50, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. Enough, already. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:48, 20 December 2010 (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. I'll add that I was also influnced by the current discussion about the abuse of WP:DASH on the MOS talk page. Clearly there is still an issue on how to apply this. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:14, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Close to 48 hours after I posted these changes, some users objected, so I'm taking it here. This is a straightfoward matter of implementing WP:DASH and has been a speedy rationale used on dozens of categories. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:44, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Huge list: I need advice on what to with these. I am not going to go through all of them to tag; that's excessive even for me. They are all in the form of "X aircraft YEAR-YEAR" with a hyphen rather than endash per WP:DASH. They should probably be in the form of "X aircraft (YEAR–YEAR)", but at the very least, the hyphens should be replaced. Can these be tagged by a bot? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:56, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• My advice: Don't bother tagging. Since it's just an en-dash change, leave it here till the 48 hours pass, and then put the entire list of categories on Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Working/Large (and tell User:Cyde that you've done so). I might not add the parentheses, because of the very careful changes you will have to make to Template:Airnd and all the others of its type.--Mike Selinker (talk) 02:27, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose such a large change for what is a trivial reason, cats have worked fine for years and nobody in the real world would notice the difference. MilborneOne (talk) 15:58, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - All this change will do is make things harder for editors with absolutely no real world benefits.Nigel Ish (talk) 16:05, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Nigel and Milbourne. And even if they were to be renamed, the current cats should be kept as redirects. Lugnuts (talk) 17:51, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename. This is a simple set of fixes that brings it in line with Wikipedia naming guidelines.--Mike Selinker (talk) 17:55, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all – it is indeed a simple set of fixes, to comply with WP:DASH. No objection to redirects being left from the hyphens. Occuli (talk) 18:07, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - WP:DASH is just a guideline not policy and in the real world most users would not know or care what the difference is. Far more important things for bots and people to worry about. Not even sure it is available on english keyboards. - MilborneOne (talk) 22:30, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename. Good gosh, not this again. I thought this was settled. Yes, categories now follow WP:DASH; this was painfully hashed out over many months when finally we arrived at a consensus that we should use endashes but retain redirects from the use of hyphens. We all need to get over this issue—if some users think the difference is trivial, then let those who think it is not implement the change. If anyone is upset by it, just retain category redirects from the hyphenated version. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:40, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Strongly oppose Doesn't anyone give some thought to ease-of-use? The emdash is NOT readily avialable on keyboards and having to copy-paste category names and/or article titles that needlessly use it; and see the log for Dec 19 about the impact of ill-considered hyphen-to-emdash category changes on Category:Regional districts of British Columbia subcategories, which overrode ALL existing cited sources - which all use the hyphen; but the speedy-change retionale was 'to harmonize Wikipedia's appearance standards" - but that's no reason to override official and/or most-common usage. I completely and totally oppose this as needless moving about of deck chairs, and making things hard for people actually writing articles just to make the design element happy. Retaining category redirects isn't sufficient when OFFICIAL NAME USAGES are at stake; and as noted, this is not a RULE, it's a GUIDELINE.Skookum1 (talk) 22:46, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response How is this a problem? If you're editing using HotCat, then it will redirect to the proper name. If you're editing using an edit box, the "Wiki markup" and "Insert" dropboxes are right below and both of them have ndashes (not that these are not mdashes.) Who is put out by this? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:57, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am. I do a non-trivial amount of editing using a non-Javascript-enabled browser, so the only way I have of inputting anything not on my keyboard is copy-and-paste. --Carnildo (talk) 00:47, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't want to copy-and-paste, then just use hyphens. As with any other category redirect, a bot will then fix it for you. In any case, how many editors are routinely using non-js browsers? There are so many tools available through javascript that I woukd be surprised if it was more than a small minority pursuit. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:44, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would add that these proposed changes have nothing to do with official name usages. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:20, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - well put Skookum I agree and I am still not sure why it has to change it is not policy and this sort of change ensures that this is an encyclopedia anybody can edit but not with a normal keyboard! MilborneOne (talk) 22:53, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Skookum's points have no bearing on this cfd as no official names are present, and are thus ill-put (as opposed to ill–put or ill—put). I have a perfectly ordinary keyboard and have no difficulty producing en and em dashes at will. There is a nice script User:GregU/dashes.js to assist those with refractory keyboards. (So we should use 2000–2001 [en-dash] throughout articles, in article names but not in category names??) Occuli (talk) 02:22, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're quite wrong, official names have been affected in the case of the BC regional districts, and what's happened is that proper names using the hyphen have been changed to dash forms, which no source, official or otherwise, uses. Blanket application of hyphen=>dash has resulted in this, and it's not right. See Talk:Alberni–Clayoquot_Regional_District#Requested_move.Skookum1 (talk) 20:10, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Strongly oppose It's not a matter of how easy the change is to implement (simple "search and replace", no doubt). Why should contributors have to search for whichever dash it is on the keyboard, when there's a hyphen there, easy to use and hardly distinguishable from whichever one this change suggests? If it is policy, change the policy, not the category names. --TraceyR (talk) 07:43, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Probably for the same reason users should have to push the shift key at the same time they press a letter when the letter is the beginning of the sentence. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:31, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The visual (as in affecting reading/comprehension) difference between "Bob" and "bob" is marked. For "-", "–" and "—" I'll the average reader can neither discern (short of picking up a ruler) nor explain the difference. 82.70.225.100 (talk) 10:32, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • So it's OK to be sloppy or incorrect, as long as the average reader won't care. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 10:38, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • The counter arguement to that is "So it's alright to have categories that the majority of editors will not be able to use as long as it conforms to some obscure typesetting convention". The majority of editors do not know the difference between hyphens and the various types of dashes and will not know how to enter em-dashes or en-dashes (and the pop-down edit boxes don't always work - particularly when Java isn't installed or playing up). What this change will mean is that a lot of incorrect redlinked categories will be added to articles, or that people won't bother to add categories. As I said earlier, an entirely unnecessary and harmful change.Nigel Ish (talk) 11:08, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Calling it "some obscure typesetting convention" is a subjective assessment of its importance. It's far easier to just consistently follow a convention once it's been adopted by consensus rather than re-assessing it anew every time it affects categories that particular editors care about. (Incidentally, creating an en-dash on my keyboard is as easy as making a capital letter—you push one button and the hyphen key and it produces an en dash. Any user can figure out how to do it easily.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:50, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • (response to Olfactory) Note that not everyone has a Mac - the equivalent "cheat code" on a PC (ALT-0150) is somewhat less easy to remember(and needs a numeric keypad - which may be a problkem if you are using a laptop or similar, and Edittools doesn't work on IE if you have refTools enabled.Nigel Ish (talk) 10:07, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• It is hardly a "harmful change", and I'm not anticiplating any "Man killed in Wikipedia-related hyphenation incident" headlines. The existing names would become redirects, so there wouldn't be any redlinks as a consequence.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:24, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• But those en-dashes are so ... pointy and dangerous. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:46, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• This whole matter is further proof of the 'maturity' of Wikipedia; the emphasis has moved away from production (i.e. content creation) and towards administration. It's inevitable, I suppose, but rather sad. Surely there are more important things to do on Wikipedia than to enforce a guideline (not policy) which adds nothing to the quality of the content, makes no difference to the general reader but makes life a bit harder for those making useful contributions. Just my two cents. --TraceyR (talk) 17:18, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong support all, provided {{category redirect}}s are created in every case for the old hyphenated names. Endashes are not just typographically correct for date ranges; they are also easier to read, and we are building wikipedia for readers rather than for editors.
  I strongly some opposed some such changes in the past, but then the 55 sub-cats of Category:MPs of the United Kingdom House of Commons, by Parliament (which I use many times a day) were changed while I was away. I then found that in practice it works just fine.
  Using HotCat, the endashed-names pop up just the same as another category name, and are applicable just as easily. And on the rare occasions when the category names are typed in manually, it doesn't matter if the hyphenated form is used, because bots routinely monitor that sort of thing and apply the trivial fix.
  So I really think that understandable fears of the editors who oppose this change are simply mistaken. Try it, and you'll find that in practice the endashed categories are easier to read, and are not in any way difficult to apply or to maintain. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:02, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - we don't have dashes on our keyboards, but hyphens. We should use what is readily available on a keyboard without resorting to html codes etc unless there is a very good reason, which there isn't here. Mjroots (talk) 05:40, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many keyboards do have dashes, users just don't know how to type them. Mine is at option+hyphen. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:42, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • We haven't all got MACs! Mjroots (talk) 13:13, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's funny—you are the one that suggested we all have the same keyboards, not me! You said "we don't have dashes on our keyboards". I said, "Many keyboards do have dashes". Who is assuming their own situation applies to all? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:21, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Like Mjroots, I don't have a dash on the keyboard of my Linux box. Like Mjroots I objected strongly to a switch to endashes until the set of categories I use every day were endashed ... and then I found that my objections were completely mistaken.
          I'm clearly not the only editor to have had this experience: many hundreds of categories have already been renamed to use endashes, possibly thousands, and if the fears expressed in this thread were based on experience of using endashes categories rather than fears about what might happen, there would already have been an almighty ruckus about this. But there has been no ruckus; the many existing endashed categories are working just fine.
          The Manual of Style has been stable for as long as I can recall in its stipulations at MOS:DASH, and the objection by Mjroots is effectively an objection to the MOS. This is not the place to change the MoS. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:07, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Obvious rename all – This should never have been rejected at speedy. This is a policy which will not changed no matter how loud a few editors scream. A dash is different to a hyphen and we cannot use a hyphen just because it's easier. McLerristarr | Mclay1 15:15, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment To put this proposed renaming in perspective against the current usage of of endashes in categories, I have asked at WP:BOTREQ whether someone can use the tools to see how many categories already use endashes. Whatever the figures, it will be useful to have a comparison. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:38, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some figures. In response to my request at WP:BOTREQ, User:Dispenser has posted to say that there are currently 3,794 categories which use at least one endash. I have just run the test myself using this handy tool, and got a list of categories with 3,796 entries. If you want to verify this, you can follow the link to run the test yourself. (The script just generates a list. To count the lines you'll need to copy-and-paste the list onto a text editor (or on unix use wc -l ).
    Given that the endash is already in use in so many categories, why do the editors who oppose this renaming believe that using an endash will cause so many problems? AFAICS, if this really was a problem, there would have been an outcry long ago in relation to the 3,796 categories which already use the endash. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:46, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Given these figures, it would appear relevant also to count the number of categories which use a hyphen. If only 3,796 use the endash and on the aircraft project alone 2,304 use a hyphen, there would appear to be many, many more categories on WP which use the hyphen. Surely it would be more efficient to change the minority using the endash to use a hyphen. Am I missing something here? --TraceyR (talk) 22:05, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are missing MOS:DASH. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:29, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

	Hyphen	n-dash
Overall usage	64,863	3,801
Date ranges [0-9]{3,4} *– *([0-9]{2,4}|$)	3,001	1,660

I don't care, just stop the drama. — Dispenser 04:00, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's irrelevant how many categories do not have dashes. It just means more categories were created by lazy editors or people who are unaware of WP:MOS. McLerristarr | Mclay1 04:08, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support rename to conform with WP:MOS. Tassedethe (talk) 22:12, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The MOS talks about "guidelines", using "common sense" and provides for the possibility of "making exceptions". I did a quick check on the number of category names containing a hyphen (or a minus sign - I gather that they differ) i.e. not the number of hyphens in all the category names: there would appear to be 64,692 such categories (including the aircraft categories fingered for change). I have no idea how many of these 'ought' to be replaced by endashes (whatever 'ought' is deemed to mean in the contect of this proposed change). A few are e.g. "0-8-2 locomotives", a few more are e.g. "20th-century boondoggles" etc. 'Ought' they to be changed too? Given that the proposed change would add just a few pixels to the length of a hyphen (or is this a minus-sign on my keyboard "-"?) i.e. make a barely perceptible change for the reader, but would make life (unnecessarily) a bit more difficult for contributors, surely it would be more sensible (i.e. make common sense) to change the minority of category names containing endashes to use a hyphen and change the guidelines to make an exception (for category names only). --TraceyR (talk) 23:03, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you think that the difference between and endash and a hyphen is not worth bothering about, then please feel free to propose a change to MOS:DASH. The stable consensus so far is that it does make a difference.

As to whether it makes life more difficult for editors, please see my post above. In practice, it doesn't make life any more difficult. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)

• Strong oppose Making this change would make things difficult for editors here without making things simpler for readers. Yes, MOS says to use the dash, but it's not always optimal to copy/paste a name. MOS is optional at certain times; let's follow a policy that's been around far longer than MOS and keep these names easily typeable. Nyttend (talk) 00:50, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Response How would it be more difficult? HotCat will resolve the hyphens to endashes and a bot will come by the change them if you don't use that script. Where is the difficulty? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:51, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• There is no policy to use a hyphen instead of a dash in category names. Many, many, many categories use dashes in the correct place. McLerristarr | Mclay1 03:35, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – The main argument against following the guidelines that we normally follow is that it's easier to enter a hyphen than a dash. That, however, is no excuse. Hyphens and dashes are different. It's easier to type a full stop rather than a question mark. McLerristarr | Mclay1 03:34, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment one of the original objections was that it works fine as is and why change it when nobody would notice, nobody has a problem with the correct use of dashes in articles but the need to change thousands of categories just because a guideline says it is right for articles. Also remind that not all editors use fancy scripts so please dont assume that everbody has hotcat or other fancy tool. Bit dissapointed about the comment This is a policy which will not changed no matter how loud a few editors scream - it is only a guideline not policy and remember whatever the result of this discussion we all have a right not to agree and attempt to change consensus. If the supporters of the guideline consider that all categories should follow it then why is this request for a change not universal, if you are going to set a bot for two or three thousand then why cant it check and change every category? Also remember that related to the listed categories are templates like Template:Airntd I presume that the bot want change them and we will have to correct them all by hand, or are the supporters of the change going to correct them all for us! MilborneOne (talk) 13:01, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • HotCat is easily available to all users. You can't use that as an excuse. Dashes can be entered using the bar under the "Save page"-type buttons. It's not difficult. McLerristarr | Mclay1 14:23, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nobody is saying it is not difficult but again you assume that users have or want to use HotCat. I doubt that HotCat can correct templates like Template:Airntd, really need convincing that bot/hot cat etc will update all the related templates. MilborneOne (talk) 15:08, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm saying it's not difficult. Everybody has HotCat – you just have to turn it on in your preferences – but if you don't want to use it, then that's your choice. I have no idea if a bot will be able to update templates, but editors can if it's necessary. The categories should be moved in blocks to allow editors and bots to go around correcting things that need correcting. Moving as many as nominated at once is too much of a task. In that respect, I agree with some of the objections. In fact, if these categories had been put through speedy in smaller bunches, it would have been a lot easier and avoided a lot of objection. McLerristarr | Mclay1 15:19, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - As noted, this is a trivial change that really makes no change in appearance whatsoever - but will require massive changes to complicated category navigation templates, that will be broken until the changes are made. WP:DASH may be applicable, but so is WP:COMMONSENSE. Also, I am very dissapointed at the "Everybody can use HotCat, just enable it" comments - many editors don't want to use automated tools like HotCat and shouldn't be forced to use them in order to edit. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:04, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  If you don't want to use HotCat, then don't use it. Seems a bit masochistic, but it's your call. So just enter the cat names with a hyphen, and a bot will fix it. No big deal.

  I am astonished by your assertion that templates will be hard to update. Do you have an example of these templates where changing a hyphen to an endash will cause nightmares? In the meantime, the redirects will still work, just as happens with any other category renaming.

  WP:COMMONSENSE does indeed apply. These renamed categories will join 3,800 which already use the endash, without causing the doom-laden scenarios you predict. So why the drama over these categories? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:33, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  HotCat is not the only way of adding categories with dashes. It is extremely easy to write with dashes in Wikipedia. I'm seriously getting tired of people objecting for basically being too lazy to do things properly. McLerristarr | Mclay1 04:47, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note to closing admin. There was a decidedly non-neutral notification of this discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft (see this edit). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:46, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For the sake of accuracy: the notification of this discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft was decidedly neutral. You must have been referring to the reply to the notification. --TraceyR (talk) 21:40, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For the sake of accuracy: the diff you posted refers to the speedy nomination. The first link posted there to this discussion was in the diff I posted above, which begins "I have opposed what is a trivial change to three-thousand aircraft categories".

That's the notification of this discussion, and it is not neutral. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:17, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. This is a change that will increase the amount of work done by everybody, with negligible benefit. --Carnildo (talk) 02:30, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Umm, the only extra work is a) the move, which is done by the bots, and b) a one-off update to templates. Do you actually have any reason why the the MOs should be set aside, when it works fine for 3,800 similar categories? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:55, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  There's the move, which is done by bots, there's the update to templates, there's the subsequent bot activity when somebody who can't type an em-dash adds a category to a page, there's the additional RC/watchlist traffic this generates, there's the increased difficulty of reverting miscategorization (someone incorrectly adds a hyphen category to a hundred pages, a bot changes it to an em-dash, and you can no longer use rollback to undo it), and I'm sure there are other things as well. --Carnildo (talk) 00:10, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  This is all fear-of-the-unknown stuff. There is no need to speculate in this way about what editors fear might happen, because we already have lots of actual experience of what happens with the existing 3,800 endashed categories, and it does not bear out these fears. Their existence has not caused the problems you fear. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:54, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, it has caused the problem *I'm* talking about, which is changing official names to conform to Wikipedia misinterpretations of their nature/mutability. Even without that (big) problem, the notion that bots are out there to pick up from those of us who are "lazy" for not wanting /bothering to learn the special keying required by someone else's insistence on typographical changes is a bit of an unwonting expectation, also rather imperious and dismissive - "high-handed"; but it also suggests that Wikipedia's servers are going to be doing "catch up", requiring more processing power, also the creation of redirects etc.....which reminds me of justifications about template "improvements" which make more work for both contributing editors and the servers; in that discussion I was told coders have been given a green light to use as much space/power as needed....but the result was that articles using a lot of those templates wouldn't fully load, and that contributors/article content are not granted as much license, and are still faced with length-limitations, and having to deal with those length issues while incorporating the lengthier templates. There should be a Wiki-guideline WP:If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Making more work and adding to the learning curve for contributing editors , all so as to "improve" the interface is all style over substance; substance should be more important; given the fundraising appeals to keep th servers runing, it seems very foolish to make changes which lead to more load on those servers, and also more load on contributing editors. "Wiki" means fast, remember? Making the work slower, even at an extra five seconds a page, adds up over tens of thousands of articles.......I see a lot of wiki-energy spent arguing over terminology, template formats and other non-content-but-all-surface agendas, and a lot of it I see makes work (by way of extra steps).....contributing should be made easier, not more complicated....this isn't about fear, it's about practicality, and open-ness. Creating new style formats unnecessarily is a make-work project. And not very "wiki" - fast).Skookum1 (talk) 05:21, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Skookum, this is nothing to do with a hyphen or a dash in an official name. It has to do with a hyphen or dash in a date range. I wish you would stop trotting out the red herring of this involving a "changing [of] official names". That's a completely different issue—I know it's a bit of a hobby horse of yours, but it's simply not terribly relevant to this discussion. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:55, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  There's nothing "unknown" about it. I see that exact list of issues every time there's a difference between human usage and bot-enforced style, eg. plain vs. dated maintenance templates. In the case of things like signatures on talkpages or dates on maintenance templates, I feel the benefit outweighs the cost. In this case, I don't. --Carnildo (talk) 01:21, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  There are hundreds of categories that use en-dashes and none have presented the significant or minor problems of the type you are worried about. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:00, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Sure, go ahead (or don't). I used to be adamantly opposed to this idea in the past, for reasons already mentioned above. Right now, though, I think any further discussion is a colossal waste of time. Both sides have their advantages and disadvantages which have been addressed over and over again. Nothing has changed since the last time we discussed this except for some of the players. So either make the change or don't, but let's get on with something important. --Kbdank71 17:13, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Obvious support - Priority #1 is the readers. Convenience of editing comes a very far 2nd. Readers benefit from us following a style manual rather than unprofessionally using a hodge-podge of standards. The dash was chosen in the MOS because it is regarded as typographically accurate and easier to read. Since the use of category redirects obviates all the editor effort concerns, I can't see that there's any real case to oppose this. "It's harder for editors" is factually wrong (they can use the hyphen, a bot will correct it). "No readers will notice" is incorrect. "It's a trivial change" is arguable, but it's not an arbitrary one, it's simply moving to a pre-agreed standard. TheGrappler (talk) 04:28, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: administrative close: the December 10 discussion is still on-going and has not been closed yet. Let's do one proposal at a time. If the nominator wants to suggest a new proposal in the open discussion, that could be done, but let's not have multiple ones open for the same category. Also, don't forget to use Template:Cfr or Template:Cfm. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:30, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Nontrinitarian denominations to Category:Antitrinitarianism

Nominator's rationale: Merge. The contents of both overlap to a large degree. However, Antitrinitarianism as the broader definition, encompasses not just denominations, but also the theologies and the "isms" that lie behind the denominations. I see no reason to have denominations as a child of Antitrinitarianism as the two would always want to be read together. Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:23, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. It would be more appropriate to remove the specific denominations from Category:Antitrinitarianism as they should only be in the child category Category:Nontrinitarian denominations.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:29, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose – Category:Nontrinitarian denominations is a subcat of Category:Christian denominations whereas Category:Antitrinitarianism is not, so another upmerge would be required. But as Antitrinitarian redirects to Nontrinitarian, why do we have Category:Antitrinitarianism at all? (We have had quite a few of these Nontrinitarian cfds recently. Is there some endpoint in sight?) Occuli (talk) 13:56, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• PS It is most surprising to find that the same nominator has 2 open cfds proposing different fates for the same category. Even more surprisingly it has not been tagged even once. See Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2010_December_10#Category:Nontrinitarian_denominations. Occuli (talk) 20:41, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I was not aware that the Dec10 cfd was still open. I got a notice saying that a move per the agreement had taken place. I took this to mean that the decision had been made and had gone against me. It was for that reason that I advanced this later proposal to cure the problems that the first adverse finding would have entailed. Sorry if my info was incorrect and that I may have confused matters even more - not my intention. Laurel Lodged (talk) 22:47, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Found that discussion here Laurel Lodged (talk) 23:13, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• PPS My own view is that Category:Antitrinitarianism (which includes non-denominations such as Council of Venice) should be renamed to Category:Nontrinitarianism, parent of Category:Nontrinitarian denominations (which should be left in peace), and any denominations in Category:Antitrinitarianism should be moved into the subcat. Occuli (talk) 21:13, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Reverse Merge Nontrinitarianism appears to be the appropriate parent article and the Category:Nontrinitarian denominations would appear to be a better match. Alansohn (talk) 18:11, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• New proposal. I hope that user Authority Tam will not mind, but I've done a cut 'n' paste on his contribution on the Nontrinitarianism talk page. It seems like a very sensible solution that mind be an end state.

  "Rename "Category:Antitrinitarianism" to "Category:Nontrinitarianism"; 2. Retain Category:Nontrinitarian denominations; 3. Move specific denomination articles into Category:Nontrinitarian denominations.
  See Category talk:Antitrinitarianism#Candidate for merging.

  Laurel Lodged (talk) 22:40, 20 December 2010 (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. Copyvio is not a CfD issue.--Mike Selinker (talk) 08:14, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:AFI 100 Years series to Category:AFI 100 Years... series

Nominator's rationale: Per main article. I'm not deeply invested in the three periods-style ellipsis, but the two should match. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:52, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alternate proposal: Delete cat. and articles as copyvio. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:57, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. Not sure about copyvio - there is a pertinent comment at Talk:AFI's_100_Years...100_Stars#Permissions (for those superior beings who have access to OTRS). Occuli (talk) 11:05, 20 December 2010 (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: Withdrawn (category became populated after the CfD, therefore no reason for the CfD to continue). Sven Manguard Wha? 06:31, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:South Korean professional wrestlers ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Empty category. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:51, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• No it isn't. postdlf (talk) 20:54, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was when I CfDed it. (It also was when I declined it at AfC/R.) That being said, it isn't empty now, so I withdraw the CfD. Cheers, Sven Manguard Wha? 06:29, 21 December 2010 (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/rename both into Category:Partition (politics).--Mike Selinker (talk) 08:31, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Division of countries to Category:Partition

Propose renaming Category:Partition to Category:Partition (politics)

Nominator's rationale: Merge, then rename. First I propose merging these two essentially duplicate categories. Then, I suggest renaming to match Partition (politics) since Partition is ambiguous. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:31, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Merger. As regards rename, suggest Category:Partition (territorial), as being more appropriate. JackJud (talk) 10:40, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are there any plans to propose moving the article? There is little sense in having the article and the category be different. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 10:49, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I had overlooked the fact that the main article is called Partition (politics). Although I believe that this is somewhat of a misnomer, I agree that there little sense in these circumstances in having the article and the category with different names. In view of the number of links to the article, unless another user feels strongly on the issue and is willing to move the article and deal with the links, I support the renaming, as nominated. JackJud (talk) 14:30, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't disagree with your rationale for the better name. But I agree we should rename to match the main article and then move the category later when/if the article gets renamed. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:02, 24 December 2010 (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. By pure vote count, it's 2:1 in favor of deletion. And what swings it all the way over is the deletions of the corresponding "people" category and its variants. The other anti-religion categories might be similarly dealt with.--Mike Selinker (talk) 02:22, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Antisemitic organizations ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Please discuss. I'm curious to get a read on what others think about the appropriateness of this category. (Note that Category:Antisemitic people and endless variants have been repeatedly deleted.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:28, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Delete: As I said at Category talk:Homophobia, we don't put articles there on organizations whose sole purpose is opposing LGBT rights; I see no reason why the same should not be true for organizations opposing the rights of Jews (this would also apply to all other anti- categories). Roscelese (talk) 05:16, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: In the past I've supported such a category IF there was sufficient sourcing in the article, just to remove people/organizations from the general category. However, given the poor sourcing, or biased use of sources, in a few recent articles I've looked at that was used to accuse people/organizations/etc. of bigotry, I can see it's a bad idea. Let the articles speak for themselves and hopefully be improved; but don't let the category label some group on the basis of possibly false or exaggerated info. And even if current entries are very solid, once category exists all sorts of things that shouldn't be there might creep in unnoticed. CarolMooreDC (talk) 13:36, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as an appropriate defining characteristic of the groups included and an effective aid to navigation. Alansohn (talk) 18:12, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Since there are antisemitic organizations, the category makes sense, although I would rather see it broken down by country. The problem is the criteria for inclusion. Many organizations have antisemitic elements and many organizations have been accused of antisemitism. How do we set and establish criteria for inclusion? While the New Black Panthers are included in the list, and they do express antisemitic views, the SPLC lists their ideology solely as "Black Separatist". The ADL lists them as an extremist group, and calls them "the largest organized anti-Semitic and racist black militant group in America". TFD (talk) 23:51, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that the criteria issue seems to be the most difficult part of considering this category. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:21, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, also whatever neutrality issue keeps people and organizations out of cat:homophobia (and to a lesser degree some other anti- cats). Roscelese (talk) 02:18, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the two work together. The reason that setting the criteria is difficult is because it's very hard to formulate neutral criteria. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:27, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the bottom line is that it's all about who's watching/participating in talk on talk pages of the categories. Obviously people who want to be free to label others antisemite are editing in greater numbers on that category's talk page; obviously people who don't want others being labeled homophobic are editing in greater numbers on that category's talk page. It's not about neutrality or balance or BLP but about the numbers of editors and their POVs. That's why I gave up on trying to get the same policy applied to all such categories regarding bigotry. CarolMooreDC (talk) 13:16, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I created the category, but intended that it be used only for openly antisemitic organizations, not for organizations which have merely been accused of antisemitism. If any of the organizations on the list are not openly antisemitic, I suggest they be recategorized. --GCarty (talk) 13:06, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The problem being that some WP:RS define antisemitism as smears/lies vs. Jews and far more other WP:RS (many of them paid activists and writers for advocacy organizations or extremely partisan writers) define it as this plus any criticism of the state of Israel or analysis of organized Zionist activity any place on the planet. CarolMooreDC (talk) 21:33, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I am aware that Wikipedia has a problem with partisan Zionist activist editors, but I felt that I had to add Category:Antisemitic organizations because I had previously added Category:Anti-Muslim organizations and Category:Anti-Catholic organizations. I also think Category:Anti-Protestant organizations ought to be added to, but I haven't got around to it yet. --GCarty (talk) 09:47, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete i looked through the SPLC hate map and they do not use the term antisemitism to categorize groups, although they do describe groups as antisemitic.[1] Antisemitic groups can always be categorized as something else, e.g., neo-nazi. TFD (talk) 16:57, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Unfortunately, there are others than just Nazis that are anti-semiotic--antisemitism has many directions Hmains (talk) 05:35, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• keep These articles and subcats used to just be in Category:Antisemitism where they would presumably return if this organization cat were deleted. It think it would be better that they be grouped in a category of their own for navigation and management. The sourced contents of the articles govern whether articles are placed into any of these categories. If category name is not so good, would Category:Organizations supporting antisemitism or Category:Organizations espousing antisemitism be any better? Hmains (talk) 05:35, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • If it is deleted because of POV problems, for instance, then we would not want to return them to Category:Antisemitism. That wouldn't really do anything to solve the problem. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:01, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete. All the problems identified with Category:Antisemitic people and its variants apply here too.
  The label "anti-semitic" is a subjective value judgement whose application is hotly-disputed, and Carolmooredc helpfully notes above how some usages of it are much more sweeping than would be accepted in other scholarly contexts. For example Merriam-Webster defines it much more narrowly as hostility toward or discrimination against Jews as a religious, ethnic, or racial group. So the dictionary says that a political comment such as "organised Zionism in the diaspora is frequently uncritical of Israeli war crimes" is not anti-semitic, but large numbers of Jewish writers would disagree.
  Subjective terms always make bad categories, but the problem is particularly severe in cases where there such widely divergent interpretations are widely used, and multiply so when the label concerned is as potent as "antisemtic".
  Using even a contentious a term like this in the text of an article is relatively straightforward, because per WP:WEIGHT its use can be attributed and explained, allowing the reader to assess who is making the judgement and why ... but that is impossible with a category. A category is a binary switch: either it is applied or it is not, and once it is applied the word "antisemtic" appears in the category box at the bottom of the page without any reference, qualification, or nuance ... and the same applies when viewing a category listing. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:57, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete (nom). I'm convinced by those who have argued in favour of deletion here. I wasn't sure to start out with, but I agree that we are dealing with the same sort of problem experienced with the people category. It's a bit less acute because there are not the same BLP problems, but it is problematic nonetheless. And don't return these to Category:Antisemitism. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:01, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. See also Category:Anti-Muslim organizations a POV fork of Category:Anti-Islam sentiment created by the same person, which should also be deleted. - 90.221.144.212 (talk) 22:22, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The potential of being "problematic" is not much an argument for deletion. There are organizations described by RS's as "Antisemitic" and its a notable intersection.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 04:57, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • How about that it is problematic? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:52, 29 December 2010 (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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 08:29, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:FIDH to Category:International Federation for Human Rights

Propose renaming Category:FIDH member organizations to Category:International Federation for Human Rights member organizations

Nominator's rationale: Rename. I propose expanding the (French-language based) abbreviation to match International Federation for Human Rights. FIDH redirects there. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:18, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. --vgmddg (look | talk | do) 23:47, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to match corresponding article. McLerristarr | Mclay1 15:20, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: delete all.--Mike Selinker (talk) 08:28, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Professional wrestlers by generation ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Second generation professional wrestlers ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Third generation professional wrestlers ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Fourth generation professional wrestlers ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. I believe this is overcategorization. Generally, we don't categorize people by what their parents, grandparents, or great-grandparents were or did. There are no other categories that I can find that categorize people by being a second-, third-, or fourth-generation anything. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:10, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – I share the nom's beliefs re this departure from the norms of categorisation. Occuli (talk) 11:10, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. There's plenty of independent coverage on second and third generation wrestlers and seems to be a significant aspect of professional wrestling in general.
• [2],
• [3]
• [4]
• [5]
• [6],
• [7]

How does WP:OVERCAT apply here? Afterall, there are lists of athletes by generation/relation. 72.74.221.51 (talk) 15:05, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lists, but not categories? postdlf (talk) 21:39, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:38, 27 December 2010 (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. There does not seem to have been any support for "powerhouses", and the nominator revised the nomination to propose "generating stations". That gathered some support, but the case for a rename is based on the assertion that Canada has its own consistent terminology for these items, justifying an exception from the convention of Category:Hydroelectric power stations by country. However I see no consensus that there is a consistent terminology across Canada, and several objections to creating any exception to the convention of convention of Category:Hydroelectric power stations by country. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:15, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Hydroelectric power stations in Canada to Category:Hydroelectric powerhouses in Canada

AMEND Reviewing category contents since beginning, the prevailing usage in article titles and wording is Category:Hydroelectric generating stations in Canada. Subcats and cousin-cats should be renamed also accordingly.Skookum1 (talk) 19:59, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Canada was passed over in a CfD a while ago, which resulted in a change for US categories to "power plant". The most common name in Canada is "powerhouse", especially in names, though in speech "power plant" is very common, and if there's a formal usage, it's "generating station" (also used in some names), NOT "power station", which is decidedly British in flavour, but not Canadian at all. Skookum1 (talk) 03:44, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

subcategories:

• Category:Hydroelectric power stations in Alberta -> Category:Hydroelectric powerhouses in Alberta
• Category:Hydroelectric power stations in British Columbia -> Category:Hydroelectric powerhouses in British Columbia
• Category:Hydroelectric power stations in Manitoba -> Category:Hydroelectric powerhouses in Manitoba
• Category:Hydroelectric power stations in New Brunswick -> Category:Hydroelectric powerhouses in New Brunswick
• Category:Hydroelectric power stations in Newfoundland and Labrador -> Category:Hydroelectric powerhouses in Newfoundland and Labrador
• Category:Hydroelectric power stations in Ontario -> Category:Hydroelectric powerhouses in Ontario
• Category:Hydroelectric power stations in Quebec -> Category:Hydroelectric powerhouses in Quebec
• Category:Hydroelectric power stations in Saskatchewan -> Category:Hydroelectric powerhouses in Saskatchewan

Related categories: (not all tagged yet)

• Category:Power_stations_in_Canada and all subcats of same

Nominator's Note: Looking through the various categories, while "powerhouse" is common, "generating station" is equally common and in some provinces seems more the established standard. Saskatchewan entries are titled "power station" but I was unable to access SaskPower's website just now to see if that's the term they use, or if those articles might have been, perhaps, written by a Briton or by someone harmonizing with British name-formats. "Generating station" is relatively common in BC, where I am, though on consideration I've only seen it for Burrard Thermal Generating Station and Gordon M. Shrum Generating Station (the one attached to W.A.C. Bennett Dam. All others I can think of are "powerhouses" - though as noted in speech "the plant" or "the power plant" is common. Maybe this should be by a province-by-province basis; "generating station" is more common in Ontario and N&L, and "powerhouse" in BC, with that anamolous "power station" in Saskatchewan.Skookum1 (talk) 04:04, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I am neutral on the issue. There is little consistency between provinces or even within a given province or utility. The SaskPower example at [8] uses both Hydroelectric Station and Power Station. --M@sk (talk) 04:20, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. If I'm not mistaken "power plant" is probably the most common in Alberta. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:22, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment As I said, it may be more appropriate to use the prevailing usage in each province, with "power plant"/"powerhouse" or "generating station" for the national categories.Skookum1 (talk) 04:36, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment For Saskatchewan, SaskPower's web-site primarily uses Power Station for Natural Gas and Coal based stations while using Facility for wind farms. Stations in the province built/operated by other companies use various titles. Energy Centre is another one popping up. --M@sk (talk) 04:59, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Quebec, at the very least. As a lifelong Quebecer who has toured in the innards of LG-1, I have quite simply never heard the phrase hydroelectric powerhouses. I do believe we say "power stations" here. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:51, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment Look in Category:Hydroelectric generating stations in Quebec - those that have plant-names are "generating stations". Spoken English in Quebec may vary, also with gas-fired or non-hydro sources; but as with spoken English in BC where "power plant" is common, even when the name is "powerhouse" (as many are - though hm maybe in some cases like Wahleach the formal name is "Wahleach Generating Station", I'll look into it....). I'm not fixed on "powerhouse" which I'm gathering is a BC-ism, other than in speech (e.g. in NS they're often called powerhouses, even when oil/coal-fired, though not formally), so I'd be happy with "generating station".Skookum1 (talk) 21:58, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, generating station sounds about right. I'd support that. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:16, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• comment a top level category here is Category:Hydroelectric power stations by country why should Canada become the exception? Hmains (talk) 05:56, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment I agree, Canada should not be an exception from the top level category. If a change were ever to be made, I would support use of "generating station." Plasma east (talk) 17:26, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The category tree from Category:Hydroelectric power stations by country doesn't need exceptions when defining the same things in Canada.--Mike Selinker (talk) 16:34, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Comment The repeated argument in the last few posts that no exception should be made for Canada is not just unfair, it is rather specious, given that an exception was already made for the United States exactly on teh grounds of "national usage". WP:CANMOS calls for the use of Canadian English in Canadian articles (and categories). Sticking with "power station" is an imposition of the British standard on CAnada, even though the prevailing terms in Canada are exactly not that (except in given provicnes, such as Saskatchewan - where hydroelectric stations btw are a rarity, compared to BC and Quebec, for example). It was stated in the original CfD which resulted in the exception being made for the USA that because only one Canadian editor (me) had said anything, Canada could be ignored and the worldwide imposition of the British-English standard would be the norm. Rather parochial, don't you think? The preponderant usage in the Canadian categories, i.e. the article titles themselves, is "generating stations" and it's the Canadian norm; there is no way just because a parent category usese British English that that is global (even if we were once part of the British Empire, but even then we had our own vocabulary and spelling from that of the Home Country). Having this decided for us by non-Canadians is, well.....if you can't see my point about that, you're never gonna get it. Canadian English on Canadian articles and categories, and the contents of the relevant categories are pretty clear about what the prevailing usage is; imposing a foreign English standard on us is "not on" (to use a Britishism). Next you're gonna tell me the article titles and their contents should be changed to match the imposed term "descended upon us" from the Mother-Country category....sheesh. An exception was made for the United States; saying that CAnada doesn't have a right to its own exception and must obey the diktats from afar is.....not very nice, and both highly questionable and objectionable.Skookum1 (talk) 19:57, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: convert to redirect.--Mike Selinker (talk) 08:26, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Neighborhoods in Uruguay ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Category:Neighbourhoods in Uruguay has been created and is used instead of this. The reason for this is to be consistent with the British spelling used in similar Uruguay Categories and topics. Hoverfish Talk 02:50, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, but recreate as a {{category redirect}}. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:41, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete with Redirect to use the more standard UK spelling in this case. Alansohn (talk) 18:18, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment – What's the point of deleting it then recreating it again? We may as well just convert it into a redirect straight away. McLerristarr | Mclay1 15:18, 23 December 2010 (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:Lebanese Ba'athists .--Mike Selinker (talk) 08:23, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Ba'ath Party (Lebanon) politicians ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. There is no Lebanese Ba'ath Party. Rather the two pan-Arab Ba'athist parties (the Iraq and Syria-based ones) have separate branches in Lebanon. Politicians should be categorized in any of those two categories. Soman (talk) 01:14, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. It's a subcat of "Lebanese politicians by party," so I don't think it should disappear - maybe a rename to "Lebanese Ba'ath Party politicians"? Roscelese (talk) 02:54, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. If what nom says is true (and I have no reason to doubt that it is), then something needs to be done with the article Assem Qanso, which states: "He is the leader of the Lebanese Baath party. He joins the Lebanese Baath in 1953. During the Lebanese war, the Lebanese Baath was divided into two hostile groups: a pro-Iraqi group and a pro-Syrian group. Qanso is staunchly pro-Syrian." If this is accepted at face value (the article is unreferenced), it sounds like at least for awhile there was de facto a single Lebanese Baath party that was infighting over which foreign Ba'ath party to favour? And in any case, to categorize someone from the Ba'ath Party who is active in Lebanese politics, this name seems as good as any I can think of. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:15, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: There was a Lebanese regional branch of the undivided Ba'ath Party, after the split both parties have Lebanese branches. --19:17, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
• Suggestion. Category:Ba'ath Party politicians in Lebanon? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:28, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • That could work. Or Category:Lebanese Ba'athists (indicating the ideological orientation rather than party membership). --Soman (talk) 19:17, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd be fine with either; which do you prefer? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:52, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Since no one is answering you, it would seem that Category:Lebanese Ba'athists is better as it could include not only politicans but other of the same group. Hmains (talk) 03:45, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • It's a choice of whether we want it to be a subcategory of Category:Lebanese people by political orientation or Category:Lebanese politicians by party. Currently it's in the latter; if renamed to a general Ba'athists category, it would be transferred to the former. Since the category seems small and needs to be added to, the former might be better as you say. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:58, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • I agree the transfer would be good. Hmains (talk) 01:27, 25 December 2010 (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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 08:21, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Recipients of Rajyotsava Award2003 ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Pointless. Only one person won the award in that year. No point having a category which will only have 1 article in it. Mhiji (talk) 01:00, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - doesn't appear to be part of a larger categorization scheme, and anyway I just speedied the only article that was in it. Roscelese (talk) 04:23, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - there is a (brief) article on Rajyotsava Award, but I think a state-level award is not sufficiently significant. Occuli (talk) 11:16, 20 December 2010 (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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 08:19, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Georgian Russians to Category:Russian people of Georgian descent

Nominator's rationale: Merge. No apparent reason for having both of these two categories. Mayumashu (talk) 00:28, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment is "Georgian Russian" a Georgian national who is ethnic Russian, or a Russian national who is ethnic Georgian, or a citizen of the US state of Georgia who is ethnic Russian? 65.95.14.34 (talk) 06:17, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support in principle according to long precedent, but check that there are no Category:Georgian people of Russian descent in Category:Georgian Russians. Unlike "Georgia" categories, it appears that these ethnic categories do not require the disambiguator Country/US State. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:58, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hand checked and all listed are (indeed) 'Russians' (citizens of Russia or earlier equivalent) with Georgian origins or ancestry Mayumashu (talk) 18:45, 28 December 2010 (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.