August 29
Category:British Government Programs
- The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. 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 result of the debate was rename.
After Midnight
0001
19:51, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Propose renaming
Category:British Government Programs to
Category:Programmes of the Government of the United Kingdom
- Nominator's rationale: Rename, Standard naming, spelling and capitalisation conventions.
Tim!
18:31, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Support per nom, a program is something you put into a computer.
DuncanHill
21:03, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Hmm, I've always seen the thing you put into a computer referred to as a "programme" in UKish sources. But that shouldn't be relevant; the category should follow national conventions, so rename per nom.
Xtifr
tälk
22:44, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Rename to match usual standards. Incidentally, Xtifr, my experience is that the usual UK usage is indeed "computer program", as opposed to a "concert programme" or "the Government's legislative programme".
Bencherlite
Talk
12:53, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Rename per nom.
Johnbod
01:40, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Comment The programmes mentioned here are variously described as initiatives, schemes, & programmes. There could be many others added from all manner of government sources, such as the
United Kingdom Climate Change Programme. This cat could become a general bucket for anything that flies out of the UK government's think tanks. Is that what we intend?
Ephebi
14:29, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Yes, I think so. After all, it is hard to remember them otherwise. But this nomination just covers the spelling in any case.
Johnbod
14:31, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Astrophysicists
Category:Films re-edited by the studio or otherwise
- The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. 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 result of the debate was delete.
After Midnight
0001
19:53, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
reply
-
Category:Films re-edited by the studio or otherwise (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
- Nominator's rationale: An odd duck of a category. The header suggests multiple sources and motivations for re-editing: "This category is for films that have been re-edited by the studio (either against the wishes of or at the request by the director), but some of the films seen here have been edited not by the studio, but by either the director or the film's actor (against the director's wishes)." This seems a lot better as part of the
List of films recut by studio, though that too could stand a bit of renaming ("List of studio recuts"?). Delete.--
Mike Selinker
15:34, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:LGBT scholars
- The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. 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 result of the debate was no consensus. Question for anyone still listening: Why couldn't we just recat these 7 or so people into the already existing
Category:Gender studies and
Category:Academics. Do we need a new category? Just a thought in case someone wants to renominate this. After speaking with
Meegs, who pointed out that nobody wanted it kept as is, and there probably wouldn't be a problem with either name, I've overridden myself and changed this to merge to
Category:Gender studies academics.
Kbdank71 15:23, 4 September 2007 (UTC) --
Kbdank71
13:29, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
reply
-
Category:LGBT scholars (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
- Nominator's rationale:
Delete This category is an intersection of sexual orientation and occupation, in a field where such an intersection is not notable. It isn't for scholars in the field of LGBT studies, as shown by its parents -
Category:Academics and
Category:LGBT people by occupation.
Timrollpickering
14:18, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Changed opinion per discussion below.
Timrollpickering
21:51, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Rename to
Category:LGBT academics to match the parent category. A perusal of the category contents indicates that the category is capturing people involved in LGBT studies. That they all seem to be LGBT may or may not be a coincidence. If there is a sudden influx of non-LGBT people involved in LGBT studies then we can revisit the appropriateness of housing the category under the LGBT by occupation parent but that's a matter for the talk page, not CFD.
Otto4711
16:43, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
reply
- That target does not address the abiguity. What would the department or field be called at a university? Our article is called
Queer studies. Despite the awkwardness, I suggest
Category:LGBT studies academics,
Category:Queer studies academics, or a broader
Category:Gender studies academics. We have
Category:Gender studies and
Category:Queer studies, and either could stand an academics subcat. ×
Meegs
22:04, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Rename to
Category:Gender studies academics or one of my other suggestions above, or delete. It should not be retained as a by sexual orientation cat. If it is converted to an academic field cat, it should be removed from
Category:Academics and
Category:LGBT people by occupation, and added to
Category:Academics by subject. ×
Meegs
22:04, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Rename to
Category:Queer studies academics and move from
Category:Academics &
Category:LGBT people by occupation to
Category:Academics by subject &
Category:Queer studies, per discussion above. As
Queer studies is a clearly defined sub-field and has its own category it makes sense to categorise its academics distinctly.
Timrollpickering
21:51, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Comment I note that
Morton Beiser is gay, but not apparently engaged in Queer studies professionally, and
Mary Daly is a radical feminist whose sexual orientation does not emerge from reading her article & much of her website, and who does not seem engaged in LGBT issues. I don't know if any UK university is yet calling its courses/departments "Queer studies" & on the whole, given that possibly only leaves 5 Queer studies academics in the category, it might be better to go for a wider name like "gender studies" for the moment.
Johnbod
22:26, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Rename and rescope to ‹The
template
Category link is being
considered for merging.›
Category:Gender studies academics per John's comments, though if a category were to be created, it should be named ‹The
template
Category link is being
considered for merging.›
Category:Queer studies academics.
Tewfik
Talk
07:37, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Ed, Edd n Eddy
- The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. 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 result of the debate was delete.
After Midnight
0001
14:53, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
reply
-
Category:Ed, Edd n Eddy (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
- Nominator's rationale: Delete - unnecessary eponymous category for a TV series. The small amount of material is appropriately interlinked through text and template and the category isn't warranted.
Otto4711
13:37, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Jewish Roman Catholics
- The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. 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 result of the debate was delete.
After Midnight
0001
12:40, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
reply
Propose renaming
Category:Jewish Roman Catholics to
Category:Roman Catholics of Jewish origin
- Nominator's rationale: This category is now proposed for Speedy Deletion, based on
Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 September 8#Category:Jews who converted to Christianity and see also a subsequent warning to its creator: See
User talk:Kingstowngalway#Jewish converts to Catholicism.
The name of this category is misleading and confusing. There are no universally accepted criteria for such a category. While
Category:Israeli Roman Catholics would make sense (Israel is a state), this one does not because a
Jew is part of both a
religion and an
ethnicity -- not of a state of any kind (see the
Jew and the
Judaism articles that explain this) and thus this category makes the grave error of logic and theology by postulating that one can be a member of two conflicting and opposite religions at the same, which cannot be (only in the imaginations of misinformed people who are not familiar with these grave religious issues.) In addition, the category includes people, such as
Madeleine Albright ("parents, who had converted to Catholicism") ,
Bernard Nathanson ("described himself as a 'Jewish Atheist' "),
Mieczysław Horszowski ("family was of Jewish origin"),
Maria Ratisbonne ("developed a hostile attitude toward all religion"), who were never actively Jewish, were not known as Jews, and surely never practiced Judaism, but were essentially (at "best") secular Jews and in some cases even born and bred Catholics since childhood, so what gives this category the "right" to label them "Jewish" in a "definitive" way?! As it's named now this category probably violates
WP:NOR and
WP:NEO. (By the way, will there be
Category:Hindu Roman Catholics or
Category:Roman Catholic Hindus or
Category:Muslim Roman Catholics or
Category:Roman Catholic Muslims etc etc etc next?)
IZAK
12:22, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
reply
Rename Delete, for above reasons.
IZAK
12:22, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Rename Current name is confusing.
Number
5
7
12:31, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Rename per (original) nom. This category is different and, if renamed, greatly preferable to the deleted one, though (as before) very early Christian figures should be excluded.
Johnbod
12:58, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Delete Note that this appears to be an intersection of Jewish ethnicity with Roman Catholic religion, and as mentioned in
WP:OCAT categories that randomly intersect ethnicity and religion are usually deleted. Also note the prior deletion of
Category:Jewish Christians which essentially the same idea but with a slightly different final religion. See
[1] for that cfd, and also note the very similar cfd discussion currently going on for
Category:Jewish atheists at
[2].
Dugwiki
15:34, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Don't speedy delete based on
DRV precedent from earlier this month. I refrain from an opinion on whether the category should exist.
GRBerry
22:24, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Delete Category:Jews who converted to Christianity was deleted in the past so should this category
it is overcategorization should Jews make the Category:Mormon Jews for Mormons who converted to Judaism or Category:Muslim Jews for Muslims who converted to Judaism absolutely not it is confusing and will no doubt be misinterpretated--
Java7837
17:56, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Kibbutz Dati
- The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. 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 result of the debate was rename.
After Midnight
0001
12:40, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Propose renaming
Category:Kibbutz Dati to
Category:Religious Kibbutz Movement
- Nominator's rationale: Main article has been renamed to
Religious Kibbutz Movement so makes sense for category to follow suit.
Number
5
7
08:05, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Suggested alternative: Rename to
Category:Orthodox kibbutz movement. After all, "religious" is ambiguous, also "movement" is with a small "m"
IZAK
12:43, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Rename per nom, or per IZAK if concensus goes that way.
Johnbod
13:03, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Rename per nom. The organization translates their name to english directly as the article is called. Teh cat is about the organization, not the entity of religious kibbutz. --
Shuki
15:28, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Israel-related deletions.
Shuki
15:35, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Rename per nom. --
Eliyak
T·
C
15:47, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Rename to match lead article is always a good idea. I have my doubts about that capital "M", but that can be discussed on the article's talk page, and, if necessary, changed without waiting five days. Thus, I suggest that the closer check where the lead article has actually ended up when closing, if there's a consensus to rename (which it looks like there will be).
Xtifr
tälk
22:55, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:South Tyrol
- The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. 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 result of the debate was keep (no rename).
After Midnight
0001
12:57, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Propose renaming
Category:South Tyrol to
Category:Province of Bolzano-Bozen
- Propose renaming
Category:Cities and towns in South Tyrol to
Category:Cities and towns in the Province of Bolzano-Bozen
- Propose renaming
Category:Districts of South Tyrol to
Category:Districts of the Province of Bolzano-Bozen
- Propose renaming
Category:Lakes of South Tyrol to
Category:Lakes of the Province of Bolzano-Bozen
- Propose renaming
Category:Monasteries in South Tyrol to
Category:Monasteries in the Province of Bolzano-Bozen
- Nominator's rationale: Rename, South Tyrol was moved to
Province of Bolzano-Bozen.
Suppar
luca
07:21, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Rename all. Obviously the category name should match the article name. —
Ian Spackman
09:52, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Rename all. Per Supparluca and Ian.
Icsunonove
09:22, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Oppose The article was renamed through vote abuse. Votes were held at least three times on the issue with clear majorities in favour of keeping the name "South Tyrol"
[3] . By constantly holding vote after vote, regular participants tired of the issue by the fourth vote, which was held not even half a year after the last one in March 2007. Wikipedia rules state that the most commonly used name in English be used, and that is "South Tyrol" by a large margin next to anything else. Besides, category names do not have to follow article names, it is not a rule written anywhere AFAIK.
Gryffindor
08:32, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Gryffindor is trolling now because his point of view has been overruled by a neutral and multiethnic article title... Check out
Talk:Province of Bolzano-Bozen for some recent examples.. *sigh*
Icsunonove
09:22, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Oppose renaming. The article title itself is still unstable, it's been contentious for many months and its present state is the result of a "vote" that was, as Gryffindor rightly points out, of dubious value. Transferring the same dispute on the category names is just a disruptive way of widening the fracas and opening yet new frontlines of contention. Leave the categories where they are until a true consensus has been established over the articles; until then they do no harm whether they are here or there.
Fut.Perf.
☼
10:09, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Note that the work that was done at the page wasn't just doing more votes. It was a discussion to find a compromise and neutral solution. That, at least to me, is more important than having countless votes where people from all over non-English Wikipedia projects are brought in to give an 'opinion'. Most of the opinions we got were just downright crude. We are in the continuous pursuit of a neutral and fair article location, that is it. Saying it was dubious is really not fair to those who worked on this the past month.
Icsunonove
21:37, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Oppose Official English title of province is
South Tyrol. Who is preventing the article from being so named and why?
Number
5
7
10:36, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Oppose South Tyrol is what it is called in English, and this is an English-Language Wikipedia.
DuncanHill
10:46, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Province of Bolzano isn't English? Interesting. :-)
Icsunonove
20:35, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Comment: while I partly agree with the above personally, I don't think we ought to be duplicating here the discussion that really needs to be resolved first and foremost at the article itself (and which has been ongoing there for a long long while). For the record, both "South Tyrol" (as the traditional name of the historical region) and "Province of ..." seem to be in use in English. Actually, the very link Number 57 gives above contains examples of both.
Fut.Perf.
☼
11:09, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Well, the traditional name of the overall County was Tryol; The term South Tyrol isn't anymore historic than Province of Bolzano.
Icsunonove
20:35, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
reply
- In fact, this wasn't meant to be a discussion about the name of the article. Simply, when the article title was x, the category was x, now that the article title is y, the category should be y.--
Suppar
luca
11:36, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
reply
- That's true, the question is just: is the article going to stay at y? I don't see any amount of stability there right now.
Fut.Perf.
☼
11:57, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
reply
- It is a good point, we can hold off on this discussion until things settle down at the Province of Bolzano-Bozen page.
Icsunonove
20:36, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Comment: Certainly I appreciate the desire for stabilising nomenclature in this seemingly volatile Alpine region. (Or this region of Wikipedia which seems to attract volatile editors.) Nevertheless I do think that that it is confusing for readers when there is a mismatch between article and category names. It seems much simpler to accept as a matter of principle that cats should automatically follow the articles. Discussion on what the names should be—and, which is actually much more important, on how they can be stabilised—can then take place on the article talk page.—
Ian Spackman
04:42, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.