Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 September 1: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 00:03, 2 September 2008

< August 31	September 2 >

September 1

NEW NOMINATIONS

Brazilian expat footballers in country

Category:Brazilian expatriate footballers in France - Template:Lc1

Category:Brazilian expatriate footballers in Germany - Template:Lc1

Category:Brazilian expatriate footballers in Japan - Template:Lc1

Category:Brazilian expatriate footballers in Spain - Template:Lc1

Category:Brazilian expatriate footballers in Switzerland - Template:Lc1

Category:Brazilian expatriate footballers in the United States - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: Triple intersection (occupation, nationality, location). The football project supports expats of country, and expats in country categories; but, not this intersection. Neier (talk) 23:20, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Extraterrestrial supervillains

Attempting to define a "supervillain" since the advent of the anti-hero, has become somewhat complicated. Also, this could potentially be a grouping of nearly every alien, since quite often aliens are "superhuman", and if they act in any way adverse to Earth (or whereever "home" is depicted in the fiction in question), then they would be a part of this group. At best, this should be a list. (Note that it's parent Category:Supervillains by origin, is up for discussion in the group nom further down this page.)

Note: The subcats are not included in this nom. - jc37 23:03, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and maybe listify, as nominator. - jc37 23:03, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - while normally we avoid categorizing "heroes" and "villains" both superheroes and supervillains have long been viewed as an exception. Otto4711 (talk) 23:43, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And the issue of "extraterrestrial"? (And of listification?) - jc37 23:50, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Extraterrestrial" means originating somewhere other than Earth. What's the problem? Otto4711 (talk) 23:56, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I meant concerning my comments about it in the nom. See also the discussion concerning Martians below. This one is even worse, because it includes anyone from any planet. They need merely be "superhuman", and a "villain". And since aliens in fiction are most often Earth's adversaries (the other most common theme being "benefactors"), this is not a small category by any means. Even if we split off the comics ones, this still has the potential to grow exponentially. At the very least it would likely include at least half (if not more) of all science fiction characters. - jc37 00:03, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional Atlanteans

Category:Fictional Martians

Category:Fictional Atlanteans

Category:Fictional Martians

These are fairly common themes in comics, if not all literature. However, defining what an Atlantean is, or a Martian is, varies (rather greatly) by presentation. For example, Atlanteans may be mer-folk race; an air-breathing, domed city race; a Journey to the Center of the Earth-style race; an alien race; and so on. (And even various possible combinations of these.) These should be lists so that the types and distinctions can be made clearer. - jc37 23:03, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Listify and delete as nominator. - jc37 23:03, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep both. As long as characters are explicitly identified as "Atlanteans" or "Martians", I don't see a problem here. Any characters that aren't clearly identified as such should, of course, be removed from these categories. Cgingold (talk) 23:30, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Listifying doesn't lose any information, and you gain in that these can be clearly explained both as a theme, and a meme. Look at Martian. How can you claim all these different kinds of beings should be grouped together in a category simply because an author claimed that they were "from Mars"? Fictional "somethings" by planetary origin? - jc37 23:38, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Forgive me, jc, but that's a pretty silly argument. By that logic, how can you possibly claim that all of the millions of life-forms on planet Earth belong together in the same category? :) Cgingold (talk) 23:51, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly - And this is worse than that, since the "ecosystem" of lifeforms on Mars differs with each author. We would never have a single category of lifeforms from Earth, fictional or otherwise. And since in fiction, other planets may be just as populated as Earth (See Krypton (comics), for example), this is a really bad idea. At least with a list, the differences could be noted and compared (See again Martian.) - jc37 23:55, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional ancient Romans

Category:Fictional Aztecs

Category:Fictional ancient Romans

Category:Fictional Aztecs

I separated these two out from the other historical-based characters below, because these are "more common" to appear in comics and other fiction. (Another example would be Vikings.) - jc37 23:03, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Listify and delete as nominator. - jc37 23:03, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional Gypsies

I separated this out from the other historical-based characters below, because, unlike those, this is a group which, when typically depicted do not have a "nation". And they are also fairly common, similar to the nom directly above. - jc37 23:03, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Listify and delete as nominator. - jc37 23:03, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Fictional Roma to match the parent cat. I see no reason to delete this category. Otto4711 (talk) 23:40, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional Celts

Category:Fictional Incans

Category:Fictional Māori

Category:Fictional Mayas

Category:Fictional Celts

Category:Fictional Incans

Category:Fictional Māori

Category:Fictional Mayas

These are similar to the Fictional characters by origin discussion below. The difference being that these are (mostly) historical peoples. (Though RL versions presumably may have descendents today.) This is split off from that nom to prevent confusion, and because these may or may not fall strictly under that nom's criteria. - jc37 23:03, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Listify and delete as nominator. - jc37 23:03, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional Post-Soviets

This is similar to the other "by origin" nominations. An additional issue is that, unlike most of the others, this one is based upon a specific time period. In some ways, this seems little different than "Fictional post-WWII nazis". - jc37 23:03, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and maybe listify, as nominator. - jc37 23:03, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Superheroes by race

Category:Asian superheroes

Category:Black superheroes

Category:Hispanic superheroes

Category:Native American superheroes

First of all, quite often "race" can be a matter of presumption. If an author writes a character speaking in a certain "style", or a colourist uses shading on a character, but without any other notation, or merely based on the character's "style" of name: Does that define the character as someone of such a race? This can be very subjective, and requires notations/citations/explanations. Therefore, this should be a list. - jc37 23:03, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Listify and delete as nominator. - jc37 23:03, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Native American supervillains

Same as the superheroes by race, above. And further the issue of supervillins in another nom above. "Indians" have often been used as the "bad guys" in fiction. See also Cowboys and Indians. - jc37 23:03, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and maybe listify, as nominator. - jc37 23:03, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - that Native Americans have been used as "bad guys" in fiction is irrelevant. The category is for supervillains, which goes above and beyond simple "bad guys." Otto4711 (talk) 23:58, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional multiracial characters

Per all the other "multiracial" noms in the past. We run into the question of at what point do we count whether someone is "multiracial"? And who decides that? Consider also that we're dealing with fiction, and fiction from the past may not define terms the way modern fiction does. (See also Quadroon.) This quite obviously needs references at the very least, both for inclusion, and for defining the inclusionary term itself.

Though honestly, what possible need would there be for this? There would be no overall standard for inclusion (since it varies), and this may not even be clarified by the author.

And here's a fun one: Does Elrond qualify? How about Spock? Since we're talking about fiction, I would presume they do. And now consider how many "half-human" characters are used in fiction, especially fantasy fiction. - jc37 23:03, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete as nominator. - jc37 23:03, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional Eurasians

Subcat of multi-racial, above. This simply has a confusing name. I understand that this is supposed to be concerning Eurasian (mixed ancestry), but this appears to be concerning Eurasian. (Inclusive of all residents of two continents, one of which is the largest in the world!?)

Even if renamed to clarify inclusion, this should still be deleted per the multiracial nom above. - jc37 23:03, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete as nominator. - jc37 23:03, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

9/11

Nominator's rationale: The article September 11, 2001 attacks was recently renamed to September 11 attacks. Following that, the "sub-articles" of that were renamed e.g. Airport security repercussions due to the September 11, 2001 attacks was renamed to Airport security repercussions due to the September 11 attacks. Anyway, the proposal is now to rename all the above categories for consistency inline with the articles. So all instances of "September 11, 2001 attacks" are renamed to be "September 11 attacks" and also all category names end in that, rather than the couple that begin with it e.g. the Images one. See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_September_11,_2001 for further info if needed. Deamon138 (talk) 22:48, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm surprised (and not pleased) to learn of this development. I could understand (and would support) renaming them to "9/11 attacks", since that is very widely used, and is understood to refer only to the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks. Dropping the year but spelling out the month isn't quite the same. Also, was there no discussion of the September 11, 1973 attacks that took place during the 1973 Chilean coup d'état? I don't think I can support this proposal, article names notwithstanding. Cgingold (talk) 23:12, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Cave biology

Rename both, to ‹The template Cat is being considered for merging.› Category:Cave organisms and ‹The template Cat is being considered for merging.› Category:Extinct cave organisms, respectively.

Rationale: The entire contents of both categories are articles about different organisms (living or extinct), whereas the current category-names denote the scientific fields that study such organisms. Notified creator with {{subst:cfd-notify}} Cgingold (talk) 22:31, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename both per nom. This makes sense—it's not that the named categories would be necessarily inappropriate, but the proposed name is what they are in fact being used for. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:59, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: White nose syndrome is in Category:Cave biology, and that isn't an organism. Deamon138 (talk) 22:59, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have a point there -- I did overlook that one. I guess the question comes down to, do we want to keep Category:Cave biology for that single article -- moving everything else to ‹The template Cat is being considered for merging.› Category:Cave organisms -- or do we simply remove White nose syndrome from the renamed category, and leave it at that? Cgingold (talk) 23:20, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Former Bahá'ís

Category:Former Bahá'ís - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: This category had two entries and will likely have only a very few. Cats are for facilitating article browsing. This isn't a particularly useful cat as it covers such a small unrelated group of people. I'm not even sure that one of them was accurately tagged. MARussellPESE (talk) 19:19, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. (1) The category has not been tagged for deletion. (2) The category was manually emptied, making it near impossible for other editors to assess. I've restored the two articles referred to pending this discussion. I've also added parent categories. (3) As for the merits of the category, I would say keep as part of a series of Category:People by former religion. I think that the claim that the category "will likely have only a few", even if true, is kind of irrelevant in this case. There's "few" in Category:Former Zoroastrians, Category:Former Unificationists, and others, but I don't think it's a problem. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Good Olfactory (talk • contribs) 15:04, September 1, 2008 (UTC)
Delete There is only page that meets the requirements of being in the category (the second does not) and thus it does not serve in facilitating article browsing. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 22:33, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't understand the "doesn't facilitate browsing" argument. If I approach Category:People by former religion and see people categorised by former religion, how does it not facilitate browsing to have a category for former Bahá'ís? If there is no category, I won't get any information on any former Bahá'ís. The fact that it "facilitates browsing" seems manifestly obvious to me. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:36, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I agree entirely with Good Ol’factory's comments -- this is part of a larger category scheme. Cgingold (talk) 22:40, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spiritual claimants

Propose renaming Category:Psychics to Category:Purported psychics

Propose renaming Category:Spiritual mediums to Category:Purported spiritual mediums

Propose merging Category:Telepaths to Category:Purported telepaths

Propose merging Category:Remote viewers to Category:Purported remote viewers

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Declaring as encyclopedic fact that these people possess the powers they claim to violates WP:NPOV and probably WP:OR and WP:V. Renaming/merging/moving neutralizes these issues by being factually accurate. In the alternative, some formulation of Category:People who claim to be psychic would be acceptable. This was discussed previously and approved but a later CFD (focusing on whether or not "purported" was sufficiently neutral) got us to where we are now. I contend that "purported" is neutral but if not then "claim to be" certainly is. Otto4711 (talk) 17:52, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename/merge all per nom, since the current category names essentially declare as fact the claims of these individuals. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:02, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, rename/merge as nominated. What about category:Prophets? The sub-cats are generally well-established lists defined within the various religions, but the head category contains some contested purported prophets as well as individuals who were accepted within religions that do not have sub-cats. However, maybe this is not the time to discuss that one. - Fayenatic (talk) 20:39, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose adding Category:Angelic visionaries to this nomination on similar grounds, although these people claimed an experience rather than a power. - Fayenatic (talk) 20:48, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I agree with the goal of this proposal (though I'm not sure we need to rename Spiritual mediums), but I want to be sure we settle on the best possible name (to lessen the likelihood of future CFDs on that score) -- so I'd like to see what people had to say in the previous CFD that focused on the word "purported". Cgingold (talk) 21:06, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to locate it and couldn't. IIRC it was initiated by BrownHairedGirl so she may have a record of it somewhere. Otto4711 (talk) 23:35, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Here is some discussion on the use of the word "purported." I'll keep looking. Otto4711 (talk) 23:51, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom. Also, considering I think the UK is changing the laws surrounding charging money for the services of a "psychic", so that they have to "prove" they aren't committing fraud when they charge money, then we should also follow that lead and ask for similar "proof" to categorize them as such. Deamon138 (talk) 21:25, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose renaming Category:Spiritual mediums (still considering the rest). "Spiritual mediums" are what they are, so there's no reason to call them "purported" -- in fact, that makes no sense at all. Whether they in fact communicate with the dead, etc. is another matter entirely. I would reserve the term "purported spiritual mediums" for, say, undercover police officers pretending to be spiritual mediums -- if you see what I mean. :) Cgingold (talk) 23:46, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Ballet disambiguation

Category:Ballet disambiguation - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: No criteria for inclusion defined. Unnecessary as subcategory of Category:Disambiguation.older ≠ wiser

Comment: I've made Romeo and Juliet (ballet) a disambiguation page within this category to test whether it might be useful. If it's not, then feel free to reinstate that page above as a redirect to the Prokofiev article. Note that the disambiguation page includes the article Romeo and Juliet (Lavery), which is not currently linked from the main article Romeo and Juliet (Prokofiev). - Fayenatic (talk) 17:20, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Dab pages have their own categories. If the project needs additional categories, they should create them. Editors should not override their process. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:29, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please would you expand on that? Sorry, I don't grasp the points you are making. Disambiguation has other sub-categories at the moment e.g. Category:Vehicle disambiguations, so why not this one? I don't mind what the outcome is, I just want to learn to use categories according to consensus. - Fayenatic (talk) 20:26, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - There is no clearly defined process for creating subcategories of Category:Disambiguation, although the category page cautions editors Do not add articles to these sub-categories or create additional sub-categories until you read Manual of Style (disambiguation pages)—most of the sub-categories do not comply with the MOS and will be removed. The problem is that pages in these subcategories risk becoming unmaintained orphans, as the disambiguation project doesn't want them and doesn't recognize them. A small number of the subcategories were created for specific purposes because it was felt the formatting guidelines of MOSDAB were too restrictive. Most of these are a specialized type of page known as set index pages, which are found in Category:Set indices. These are somewhat different in that usually there is an active project that sees the need for a new type of set index, creates templates, determines some standards for consistency, and (hopefully) actively maintains the pages. Other disambiguation subcategories have no such pedigree, and even less likelihood of being consistently structured, formatted or maintained. older ≠ wiser 20:48, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Regional cuisine

Category:Regional cuisine - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: No criteria defined for inclusion, unclear how it fits into the Category:Cuisine hierarchy. older ≠ wiser 16:32, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. (2 articles, one a user page, the other bovine testicles.) The red-linked Category:Cowboy culture contains 6 articles, oddly. Occuli (talk) 21:15, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Films that portray the future

Suggest merging Category:Films that portray the future to Category:Films set in the future

Nominator's rationale: Merge, I just created the latter, not realising that the former already existed. However, the new category name is more consistent with others e.g. Category:Films set in the 2010s. Fayenatic (talk) 13:25, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure. I can think of films like The Terminator which portray the future but aren't set in the future. Hiding T 14:14, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, have you contacted WP:FILM to get their input? And forgive me if you are a participant. Hiding T 14:15, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: That's an interesting and clever point. I have now made Category:Films set in the future a sub-category of Category:Films that portray the future, and would be happy speedily withdraw the nomination, if you think that is best. And no, I have not yet notified WP:FILM. - Fayenatic (talk) 16:32, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I understand the distinction that's being made, but I'm not so sure that it makes for a useful distinction in terms of Categories. I think it's rather too subtle -- and subjective, for that matter -- to serve as a workable distinction that readers and editors will perceive in the same terms. Simply put, the Terminator films (and others) are set in part in the future. Cgingold (talk) 23:37, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Comic book conventions

Propose renaming Category:Comic book conventions to Category:Comics conventions

Nominator's rationale: If the Angoulême International Comics Festival is here, as it should be, we should rename to better reflect that this applies wider than simply comic books but all aspects of the form. I think the new title better reflects the contents and the category structure slowly being implemented in Category:Comics per prior debates.

Rename as nom. Hiding T 13:17, 1 September 2008 (UTC) Hiding T 13:17, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Fairly straight-forward. - jc37 23:48, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Soccer seasons

NOTE: I have not marked all of these for CfR; there are a lot of them, and it will take time. I also have to sleep. I will get them done within 24 hours and if anyone wants to help me, that's great.

Per WP:DASH, all of these need to be changed. Note that the 1987-1988s are actually merges since there are duplicate categories:

complete list (TL;DR)

(hyphen to ndash)

I realize that there are a lot of these and a whole lot more that have not been tagged or suggested (e.g. American football, baseball, and basketball categories.) There are only 24 hours in a day and I would like to nominated them all immediately, but it's simply not possible. Please don't let that in any way stop you from applying this simple style rule to these categories. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:15, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose the use of difficult-to-replicate characters in category names, WP:MOS be damned. Otto4711 (talk) 07:19, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom and WP:DASH. Making an en dash is no harder than making a letter capitalized without using the caps lock button. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:18, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I think I'm with Otto on this one. MoS is not equal to NC. And in reading over the MoS (WP:DASH), it makes it clear that in these situations a redirect should be made. So now we're going to use category redirects? Sounds like a not-so-good idea. If there's something I'm missing, please let me know. - jc37 09:28, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom and WP:DASH. And make category redirects for the hyphenated forms (which I believe to be policed by bots). The alternative is to revise WP:DASH for article and category names. (I agree with Otto about 'difficult-to-replicate characters in category [and article] names' but hadn't thought en- and em-dash were that hard to replicate, partly because they appear in places 1 and 2 of line 1 in the default edit screen. – — …) Occuli (talk) 12:54, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Not so much "difficult to replicate" as "difficult to visually distinguish". — CharlotteWebb 13:20, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename but keep {{category redirect}} for each one. — CharlotteWebb 13:20, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Otto and jc37. WP:DASH does not apply well to category names, and an en dash is difficult to replicate (I'm pretty sure 'en dash' is nowhere on my keuboard). –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:00, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If we take the article UEFA Champions League 2008–09 (which uses en-dash) then surely the category should be Category:UEFA Champions League 2008–09 (and copy and paste suffices, easily accomplished by keyboard). Occuli (talk) 21:24, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose as pointless. WP:DASH should not apply to category names, and it is just an extra thing for people to have to remember every time they add one of these categories to a page. I can see why this would be a good move for an article title, but to force categories to use special characters in their titles is a bit foolish. – Pee Jay 19:51, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: firstly, I'm not at all bothered if WP:DASH is implemented or not, so I won't stand in the way of that, but nor am I particularly agreeable to it either. However, I noticed that we have say, Category:Football (soccer) clubs 1993-94 season going to Category:Football (soccer) clubs 1993–94 season and, Category:1962-63 domestic football (soccer) leagues going to Category:1962–63 domestic football (soccer) leagues. Why not instead rename to Category:Football (soccer) clubs in the 1993–94 season and Category:Domestic football (soccer) leagues in the 1962–63 season? It keeps consistency, and the names work better too imo. So, regardless of WP:DASH, how about that? Deamon138 (talk) 21:54, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Naval battles of the Russo-Turkish War, 1806-1812

Propose renaming Category:Naval battles of the Russo-Turkish War, 1806-1812 to Category:Naval battles of the Russo–Turkish War, 1806–1812

Nominator's rationale: Rename. WP:DASH—Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:42, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose the use of difficult-to-replicate characters in category names, WP:MOS be damned. Otto4711 (talk) 07:19, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Naval battles of the Russo-Turkish War, 1806–1812. The use of the en dash is correct is separating dates, but nom might want to review WP:DASH: a hyphen, not an en dash, in used for "Russo-Turkish" because "Russo" "lacks lexical independence". Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:16, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Napoleonic Wars (1792-1815) stubs

Moved to Stub types for deletion. Her Pegship (tis herself) 16:42, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Naval battles of the Anglo-Turkish War (1807-1809)

Propose renaming Category:Naval battles of the Anglo-Turkish War (1807-1809) to Category:Naval battles of the Anglo–Turkish War (1807–1809)

Nominator's rationale: Rename. WP:DASH—Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:42, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose the use of difficult-to-replicate characters in category names, WP:MOS be damned. Otto4711 (talk) 07:20, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Naval battles of the Anglo-Turkish War (1807–1809). The of use of an en dash is correct is separating dates, but nom might want to review WP:DASH: a hyphen, not an en dash, in used for "Anglo-Turkish" because "Anglo" "lacks lexical independence". Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:13, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:EOKA struggle (1955-1959)

Propose renaming Category:EOKA struggle (1955-1959) to Category:EOKA struggle

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Unnecessary dab. At least replace the hyphen with a dash ( – ). —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:40, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Defunct soccer clubs in the United States

Propose renaming Category:Defunct soccer clubs in the United States to Category:Defunct American soccer clubs

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Consistency with other such categories. See Category:Defunct football (soccer) clubs —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:15, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Consistency is good but I would prefer a reverse rename to "Defunct football (soccer) clubs in [PLACE]". — CharlotteWebb 13:22, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Scotland national football team - Results & Fixtures

Propose renaming Category:Scotland national football team - Results & Fixtures to Category:Scotland national football team results and fixtures

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Caps., etc. I honestly don't know why "fixtures" is in here, but I guess it should stay. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:06, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At a guess for upcoming fixtures? rename per nom. Hiding T 11:11, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: why "Scotland" and not "Scottish"? Deamon138 (talk) 22:34, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People who have died while climbing Mount Everest

Propose renaming Category:People who have died while climbing Mount Everest to Category:To be determined by consensus

Nominator's rationale: Rename to something. This name is problematic for a couple of reasons. First, it's kind of wordy; I'm sure it could be shortened (even taking out the word "have" would be an improvement). Second, as many people, if not more, die descending from Mount Everest than do climbing it. I realise "climbing" here could be interpreted in the colloquial sense and not necessarily the directional sense, but as long as we're renaming it we may as well clear up this problem too. I'm unsure of the best solution, but I propose three here. Feel free to offer other options.

Option 1: Category:Mountaineering deaths on Mount Everest. This mirrors the parent category, Category:Mountaineering deaths.

Option 2: Category:Deaths on Mount Everest. Perhaps "mountaineering" is redundant in option 1, so this option eliminates the word.

Option 3: Category:People who died on Mount Everest. A bit longer; possibly a bit clearer. Notified creator with {{subst:cfd-notify}} Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:30, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Mount Everest mountaineering deaths. (A variation on option #1.) Note that personally I am wondering if the whole Category:Death by country tree should itself die (to be "reborn" as a list), but I'm not sure, and would welcome further thoughts. - jc37 01:59, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree your variant suggestion is a good one too. Re your other musing: the subcategories of Category:Death by country are typically used primarily as parent categories for the variety of "death in Foo" categories—Category:Executions by country, Category:Murder victims by country, Category:Sport deaths by country, Category:People who died in prison custody by country, Category:Firearm deaths by location, etc., etc. Considering the variety of subcategories involved, the parent categories (Category:Human death in Foo) themselves would not be terribly amenable to a list, unless someone wanted to make People who died in Foo (what fun that would be!), but I'm not sure such a list would be terribly useful if divorced from the context of the specifics, which the subcategories provide. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:17, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to one of the two proposed variants of option #1. Options 2 and 3 extend the category's scope to include deaths from all causes (e.g. plane crash). –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 02:47, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Has a plane ever crashed into Mount Everest? I know I could look, but... Rename to option one or variant. Where does "death by chocolate" fit into this category tree? Hiding T 09:43, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Chairman, the great state of California casts its vote... Oh, right. Sorry, forgot where I was for a moment! Ahem, well, as I was saying... I cast MY "vote" for Option 1: Category:Mountaineering deaths on Mount Everest. Cgingold (talk) 05:17, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Deaths on Mount Everest in the tradition of eliminating needless words, words which in this case are seemingly intended to restrict the scope of the category, unnecessarily so due to the ~~lack~~ scarcity of articles affected by their presence or absence. I only see one, 1996 Everest Disaster, being an event rather than a person. However it should definitely be part of this category as it is the cause for a large portion of the known deaths on Mt. Everest, and because the article lists people who died on Mt. Everest but for whom no article has yet been written. Furthermore if anybody has died on Mt. Everest whilst doing something other "mountaineering" I see no reason they should not be included, and the same goes for non-human animals. If a mountaineer's dog is deemed "notable" enough for its own article and happened to die on Mt. Everest, it too should be included. Category over-population is, in this case, a laughable concern. — CharlotteWebb 15:09, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to option 2 Category:Deaths on Mount Everest per reasoning of CharlotteWebb. Currently Marco Siffredi who died snowboarding on Everest is excluded, but would be included in the option 2 rename. ww2censor (talk) 15:29, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I've been pondering the interesting comments from CharlotteWebb and ww2censor, and I think their points are well taken. However, if we were to rename this to Category:Deaths on Mount Everest as suggested, it would have to be removed from its parent cat, Category:Mountaineering deaths -- so that wouldn't make very good sense. If needed, we can simply create Category:Deaths on Mount Everest on its own, to accomodate non-mountaineering deaths. However, I don't see any reason not to use the current category for mountaineering dogs as well as humans, since it doesn't specify "human deaths". And I'm also not sure anybody would raise serious objections to including Marco Siffredi in Category:Mountaineering deaths on Mount Everest, since he must have done some sort of climbing before he got on his snowboard, right? At any rate, that's how it looks from here in the Sierra Nevada foothills. :) Cgingold (talk) 22:56, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Lists of fictional characters by origin

(Split from the group nom below. - jc37 23:45, 1 September 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Category:Lists of fictional characters by origin to Category:Lists of fictional characters by nationality

Rename - This is a grouping of list pages. And I agree that "origin" may be confusing, especially in comics. - jc37 23:45, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional characters by origin

*Note: Discussion moved from Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 August 31. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 01:24, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Fictional characters by origin to Category:Fictional characters by nationality

Category:Comics characters by origin to Category:Comics characters by nationality

Category:Anime and manga characters by origin to Category:Anime and manga characters by nationality

Category:Video game characters by origin to Category:Video game characters by nationality

Added Category:Superheroes by nationality and Category:Supervillains by origin and subcategories per request. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 15:15, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Rename. With a couple of odd exceptions which can be dealt with separately, these categories are for fictional characters by nationality. They aren't being used to categorize for example fictional aliens. For fictional characters, especially comics characters, "origin" has a specific meaning very separate from country of birth. In line with a number of child/sibling categories. Otto4711 (talk) 21:55, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (Weak listify) - First of all there's a question of whether some of those categorised are categorised by ethnicity, rather than nationality. Second, typically, if a character is "active" at a location, that character is presumed to be of that nationality or ethnicity. This is clearly WP:OR. This is something that just simply requires clear references. And that means a list. - jc37 22:00, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, over-categorisation and flawed schemata. How do we define nationality for a fictional character? A work set in the US may not describe the protagonist's birth or nationality, so would we then include the character in an American nationality category? Is Superman American? Christ, I don't even want to get into the ins and outs of how the Kents got a birth certificate in this day and age. Look at the character Psylocke, a character initially depicted as the classic English rose, and now depicted as oriental. What nationality does she have? She likely may have an American passport too, based on residence, I don;t know how long you have to remain the States to be eligible for American citizenship. Wolverine too is a good example, Canadian but I think can claim Japanese nationality through marriage. Where will it end? Yes, we could categorise only where the nationality is asserted in the primary source material, but how will this convolute our articles. From one perspective Wolverine is an American character, the copyright owned by an American corporation which tends to be how nationality is defined for companies; example Burger King was for a time considered British based on being owned by Diageo. So on that standard Wolverine is an American character, but within the fiction he is Canadian. Is he then an American owned fictional Canadian superhero? And how so do we categorise. I think this is pushing the category tool beyond its intended use. Hiding T 22:39, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's pretty clear that these categories are in-universe and that no one is suggesting that characters be categorized by the country/ies in which they are copyrighted. Spider-Man is published (and presumably copyrighted) in India, for instance, but no one has rushed to add Peter Parker to the Indian comics characters category. As for how we determine the nationality of a fictional character, we do so the same way we determine the nationality of a real person - reliable sources. We have reliable sourcing that Wolverine is Canadian, so he is categorized there. I have no idea if he has a claim to Japanese citizenship through marriage; if there's a reliable source that says he does and has claimed it, categorize him there too. Psylocke was and AFAIK remains a British citizen. She became Asian in appearance through some plot contrivance but her change in appearance did not change her nationality to the best of my knowledge. If there's a RS that says her nationality changed, fine, categorize her under that nationality too.
As for Superman, if you really want to know, after they found Kal-El they were snowed in on their farm for several months. Come the spring, they presented him as their natural child and presumably got him a birth certifiacte through the usual means. Otto4711 (talk) 12:59, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I helped write the article on Superman. It was a humorous aside meant to reflect global warming and the growing bureaucracy in obtaining official documents based on fears of abuse by terrorists. As to the clearness of the categories, have a look at Category:British comics characters which contradicts your assertion. There is no clarity in how to use these categories, and the consensus at WP:COMICS has been the opposite of what you aver. As to reliable sources, what constitutes a reliable source? Primary source, which is subject to change and to error? No, it is better, since no-one can agree how to use this tree, to fell it. Hiding T 13:56, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not seeing the problem with the category. It's categorizing British characters, it's parented in Fictional British people and Comics characters by origin. The only issue is the descriptor, which should be changed to match the function that the category is actually serving. Otto4711 (talk) 14:49, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't amend the category to suit your POV whilst the debate is ongoing. This has been discussed at WP:COMICS and the consensus is that the description is right. The categories, if you note, were added later. And the category is not serving the purpose you assert, as a simple glance at all the pages so categorised should tell you. It is performing the purpose I assert, and I would appreciate it if that fact is not changed during this debate. That's out of process. Hiding T 15:00, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What characters currently in the category (other than Bacchus (comics)) are not of British nationality? And while this category may or may not be serving to hold characters created in Britain, other categories are definitely being used to categorize characters by the nationality of the character. A number of them specifically say so in the descriptors (which I trust you will not modify to suit your POV). Perhaps you need to create something like Category:Characters created for Fooian comics instead of relying on these ambiguously-named and confusing categories. Otto4711 (talk) 18:09, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's a sub-category full of them. Oh, and I don't change nothing to gain the upper hand in a debate, but thanks for checking. You could well be right that we need to create something like Category:Characters created for Fooian comics. Given we're discussing our category structure at the minute, or trying to whilst putting out fires at various cfd's, I'll certainly bring your suggestion up. Hiding T 22:09, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And what subcategory is that? And how is the problem not solved by simply removing the subcat? Otto4711 (talk) 23:39, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question - What are you planning to do about the hundreds of subcategories of these parent categories? I appreciate the points being made here but given the existence of all of the subcats deleting the parent cats seems like a bad idea. If someone wants to go through and nominate all of the Fooian characters subcats I'll withdraw this nomination but in the absence of a mass nomination I can't see how deleting these categories does any good. Otto4711 (talk) 23:36, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you list all the categories in one nomination, it tends to cause issues, witness Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_August_20#Intersections_of_fictional_characters_and_occupations. So there's no right way of doing it. How do we square the circle? No idea. We could list each category one by one, and by that process work out what the consensus is, but that might take forever. There needs to be a way of generating discussion about how to use the category tool and how best to structure categories, and what categories are intended for than simply creating them and deleting them. But that's would involve wide input from a large number of Wikipedians which hasn't to date happened on more than a few small instances. This discussion is currently all we've got. I'd say delete all the sub-cats too, unless any of them look to be useful, but that doesn't help either. Maybe the best bet is to keep Category:Lists of fictional characters by nationality and listify the other categories and sub-cats. As an aside, do we have a template for putting on talk pages of lists when the list is created as a result of an afd? Hiding T 23:46, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Otto, if you don't mind the nom expanded, I'll ask someone if they would be willing to tag all the sub-cats which are specific to this intersection. Else, we can just nominate them in a separate nom, or in a group of smaller noms, or whatever. My main concern is clarity. Without clarity (and sometimes even with it), such a nom will devolve into confusion, and no consensus, when there is likely consensus, but not everyone understood the proposition. (Not to mention that a larger group nom often draws more IWANTMINE "voters".) - jc37 23:59, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever people think best. Clearly, these nationality categories need to be handled in a consistent manner. If that means expanding this nom to include all of the subcats that's fine. I'f there's a better way to do it that's good too. Otto4711 (talk) 00:15, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All subcategories are in the process of being tagged. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 01:24, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 02:04, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you : ) - jc37 02:16, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Otto, would you mind if the "Lists of..." cat is split to a separate nomination? - jc37 02:16, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't mind. Otto4711 (talk) 10:06, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - As a rule, the approach that is generally favored is to set up a CFD for a small but representative sample of sub-cats as a "test case", in order to explore the issues that various editors think are pertinent and see if there is a concensus on how to proceed. Cgingold (talk) 03:07, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree with Cgingold. Sometimes I wish we'd just have the debate rather than the debate on how to have the debate. Look, we all know the problem. What do people think the solution is? Hiding T 08:15, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
AFAIK, there is no general "rule" or practice, and such noms are done "every-which-way". At this point, I agree with Hiding, let's just figure this out. - jc37 09:31, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously there's no "rule" that's been spelled out somewhere. I was simply making an observation that I think fairly reflects what has come to be regarded among the more regular participants here as an approach that generally makes sense. Cgingold (talk) 10:59, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arab-Israeli conflict

Propose renaming Category:Arab-Israeli conflict to Category:Arab–Israeli conflict

Nominator's rationale: WP:DASH. Several categories are affected; I am tagging and listing them now, so please be patient.

In the case of all the following categories, I propose fixing the dashes, in three of them (all involving Gaza), I propose switching naming to alphabetical order for neutrality, in one case (Category:Maps of the 1948 Arab Israeli War), I'm adding a dash that does not otherwise exist, in one case I am proposing a rename to the main article/category (Six-Day War):

—Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:38, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename most per nom and WP:DASH. I agree with all except I think Category:Israel-Gaza conflict should be Category:Israel–Gaza conflict and Category:Israel-Gaza Strip border should be Category:Israel–Gaza Strip border, for similar reasons I gave here. The Gaza Strip is not an independent state so it's only fair that Israel goes "first" in these descriptions. (I've fixed a few mistakes—they were obvious typos and the changes conformed to the proposed name on the category page.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:18, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment and question Thanks a lot; I always manage to mess up these mass nominations. I'm a bit confused by your states-precendence criterion: why? How do you determine who gets to go first? If you have the a non-governmental agency (e.g. the UN), an inter-governmental agency (e.g. the EU), a constituency (e.g. Alabama), a state (e.g. Israel), and another entity (e.g. Gaza) who gets to go first and why? It seems like this is much more confusing an implies some kind of priority or hierarchy for states that simply doesn't make sense; it is for precisely this reason (e.g. that states aren't inherently first) that I want to avoid any kind of POV by using alphabetical order. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:51, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Follow-up Also not that "Arabs" go first, whereas they are an ethnicity over "Isralis" who are citizens of a state; is this consistent with what you are proposing? I honestly have no idea how you would determine that. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:52, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - My preference soley relates to a "state" vs. "generally non-recognized state" situation. I'm not suggesting it be applied to "state" vs "ethnicity" or "state" vs. "NGO" situation. It's simply a preference to give member states of the UN primacy over territories that want to be states, but aren't in the UN. But as I said, it's a preference only; I'm not citing any particular rule for it. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:09, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I agree with whatever is grammatically correct. I haven't studied WP:DASH, though, so don't know. I think that Category:Maps of the 1967 Arab-Israeli War should not be changed to Category:Maps of the Six-Day War. Many people not familiar with the ins and outs of the Arab-Israeli conflicts don't know what year that is referring to. I mix it up with the 1973 war. But I don't feel strongly about it either way. I just think that Wikipedia is useful to more people when the year and the warring parties are in the title. --Timeshifter (talk) 01:59, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the use of difficult-to-replicate characters in category names, WP:MOS be damned. Otto4711 (talk) 07:22, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I think I'm with Otto on this one. MoS is not equal to NC. And in reading over the MoS (WP:DASH), it makes it clear that in these situations a redirect should be made. So now we're going to use category redirects? Sounds like a not-so-good idea. If there's something I'm missing, please let me know. - jc37 09:28, 1 September 2008 (UTC) (Restored my comment [1], which was somehow removed? - jc37 23:41, 1 September 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Weak oppose per Otto4711. This scheme would become more of a hassle for users looking up categories than the benefit of being orthographically correct. __meco (talk) 07:56, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Otto, WP:DASH does not apply well to category names. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:57, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 132: / Line 132: @@
 *'''Comment''' - I'm surprised (and not pleased) to learn of this  development. I could understand (and would support) renaming them to "9/11 attacks", since that is '''very''' widely used, and is understood to refer '''only''' to the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks. Dropping the ''year'' but spelling out the month isn't quite the same. Also, was there no discussion of the '''September 11, 1973 attacks''' that took place during the [[1973 Chilean coup d'état]]? I don't think I can support this proposal, article names notwithstanding. [[User:Cgingold|Cgingold]] ([[User talk:Cgingold|talk]]) 23:12, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
-:*Firstly, the original renaming of the mother article was discussed at [[Talk:September_11_attacks]].
-:*Secondly, I was under the understanding that categories have to follow the example of the related article titles?
-:*Also, "9/11 attacks" was considered, but consensus was that it was too informal.
-:*As for the Chilean point, firstly, this point was raised, but not further discussed (I can only assume that most people see the new title as pertaining to 9/11 and not the coup). The way I see it, 9/11 was "attack'''s'''" plural because it happened in multiple locations, whereas (afaik, I could be wrong) the Chilean coup was only an "attack" plural. Also, [[September 11 attacks]] is BY FAR a more common name for 9/11 than for the coup. In fact, according to [[September 11]], it says, "In other places of the world the media also use it as shorthand for other events; for example, the September 11, 1973 Coup d'État in Chile is referred to as "El 11 de Septiembre" or "El once" ("September 11" or "The eleventh" in Spanish) as shorthand for the Coup events; September 11 is also Enkutatash or New Year's Day in the Ethiopian calendar." This suggests that the word "attack" doesn't come into it, as far as the name for that is concerned. This follows the normal Wikipedia policy of having the article that is the most well known of the events at the non-disambiguated title, and the other either at another title (which it is: [[1973 Chilean coup d'état]]) or disambiguated (so from your perspective, it could've been named "September 11, 1973 attack(s)", but 9/11 would've still occupied the non-disambiguated article. Also, the new name follows [[WP:NCE]] as far as I know. Anyway, it has never been the case to disambiguate BOTH events that could take the same name (if of course the current name of the Chile article is less common than "September 11 attacks") if one is significantly more well known than the other. If they are of roughly equal notability then both are disambiguated: consider the top two of the disambiguation page [[George Bush]]). But if one is significantly more notable, then it isn't disambiguated (see [[WP:PRIME]]). Besides, [[September 11 attacks]] was ALREADY a redirect to [[September 11, 2001 attacks]], so the rename changed the location of the page, and has changed NOTHING in regards to the Chilean coup. [[User:Deamon138|Deamon138]] ([[User talk:Deamon138|talk]]) 00:01, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 ====Category:Cave biology====