The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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.
Strong Oppose, per Mike. This nomination just makes me cry, cry, cry. If it gets renamed, I’ll have to send that boy named Sue after Mikka. ;-) --
Chicaneo02:21, 20 July 2007 (UTC)reply
OK. Withdrawn. One of the mysteries of English language for me, probably. Still, I feel uneasy when a song has a dozen of owners: lyrics and muscis authors plus ten singers. Whatever. `'
Míkka03:23, 20 July 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:Headhunting among tribal societies
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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.
Nominator's rationale:Rename, the contents are a collection of tribes that practiced headhunting (according to
headhunting, the past tense is appropriate as it has died out everywhere), not general articles related to headhunting by tribal societies as the current name seems to imply. At the top of the category page there are also four articles relating to headhunting. I'm not sure if it needs it if that's all there could be, but if there is the possibility of more articles, they could be gathered into another category
Category:Headhunting, of which this would then be a subcat. If anyone has a suggestion for a less cumbersome name, that would be good too.
Rigadoun (talk)17:20, 19 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Rename: all of the suggestions above seem clearer and better, and category creator has no objection. In order of preference, I would probably say: 1. "Tribal societies that practiced...", 2. "Tribal societies that have practiced..." and 3. "Former...", but I think any of the three either of the two is probably acceptable.
Xtifrtälk 03:44, 23 July 2007 (UTC) Addendum: withdrew my support for the "Former" option because of the comment from Jmm6f488 below.
Xtifrtälk03:32, 24 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Not all headhunters are cannibals and not all cannibal are headhunters. Also not all of the tribes listed are former headhunters some are still active.
Jmm6f48802:27, 24 July 2007 (UTC)reply
I think it would be helpful if Jmm6 could specify which tribes still headhunt. Supposedly there is now none (as a socially accepted practice anyway) in
Sabah, where most come from. I also notice that not all the articles, like eg
Ilongots mention HH at all. Really if it is not in the article they should not be in the category.
Johnbod13:06, 24 July 2007 (UTC)reply
I also added a reference to headhunting in the article about the
Ilongots.
Michelle Rosaldo, who is mentioned in the article, husband
Renato Rosaldo, wrote a book entitled Ilongot Headhunting, 1883-1974: A Study in Society and History. I have not updated the
Sabah article but if you google Sabah and headhunting you will understand why I listed it in the Category.
Jmm6f48804:58, 26 July 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:Camp Lazlo episodes
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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.
Nominator's rationale: Category is a remnant of when multiple episode pages existed; since then, all pages have been merged into a total of about 6 pages; subject matter does not rate multiple categories.
Yngvarr16:43, 19 July 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:Team Rocket
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 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:Modern obsolete currencies
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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.
Nominator's rationale:Rename - See
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 July 13#Category:Historical currencies of the United States. When I mentioned renaming the United States category to match this category, people thought that this category had an awful name. Given the response, it is probably worth renaming this category. The term "modern" is ambiguous anyway, at it is unclear as to how recent the currency must have been in use to be called "modern" obsolete currency. I have no suggestions for a possible rename, but I thought that someone else may have a good suggestion.
Dr. Submillimeter15:32, 19 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Comment - Also, it might be worth sorting currencies no longer in use by century if possible. This would avoid the ambiguity problem with the term "modern".
Dr. Submillimeter15:34, 19 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Comment Having objected to "modern" in the other debate, I must say I don't see a problem here. As I expected, this is a fellow-category with ones for Ancient, Medieval and Circulating currencies. Clearly "modern Greek drachma" is not ambiguous in the way that "modern US dollar" is, as the United States as such does not have a pre-modern period. The
Early Modern Period is a very well-established concept. I see no benefit in sorting by century - the primary categorisation is by country, and this would lead to a plethora of one or two-article categories like
Category:Eighteen-century Portuguese currencies.
Johnbod16:41, 19 July 2007 (UTC)reply
No, of course not! The difference between the cases is explained above: "Clearly "modern Greek drachma" is not ambiguous in the way that "modern US dollar" is, as the United States as such does not have a pre-modern period".
Johnbod11:29, 20 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Comment - Your logic makes no sense. Surely, things such as the
Guatemalan peso, the
Argentine sol, and the
Grenadan dollar have no pre-modern counterparts, yet these are listed as "modern obsolete" currencies. Either the US category should be renamed to match the main category or the main category should be renamed.
Dr. Submillimeter13:43, 20 July 2007 (UTC)reply
My comments have mucho logic. Your sentence above should surely read: "Surely, things such as the
Guatemalan peso, the
Argentine sol, and the
Grenadan dollar have no pre-modern counterparts, so naturally these are listed as "modern obsolete" currencies" (improvement in bold). There would be a problem if the sub-cats for the US, Guatemala, Argentine, were called "modern", because by definition these countries only have modern currencies. But there is no problem including all of these countries in a modern category - so long, of course, as they are not also represented in the medieval or ancient categories. QED.
Johnbod13:59, 20 July 2007 (UTC)reply
For the ones being discussed here. My concern is that many forms of currency are not obsolete in that they still have value and may be legally used. That's why the suggestion in the other discussion to use no longer minted or printed. That is an easy and clear break point. Obsolete here could be very POV.
Vegaswikian21:12, 21 July 2007 (UTC)reply
"Very POV"? Something of an exaggeration, surely? A 1928 $10 Federal Reserve Note could be exchanged for $10 as legal tender, but would cost $300 to buy (says ebay). That formula could be used for the $ sub-category, but it would be more confusing than accurate to rename the global parent
Category:Modern obsolete currencies in that style, in my view.
Johnbod02:02, 22 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Comment - "Historical" has multiple interpretations. In this case, it could refer to currency that has been in use a long time, currency that is no longer in use, or currency that dates from some vaguely-defined older era (such as the 19th century and earlier). Does this answer your question, or were you asking about something else?
Dr. Submillimeter08:49, 23 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Comment and proposal? two problem words: "modern" and "obsolete" (I think we know what currencies are). Modern is ambiguous (or POV); even the pointer to
early modern provided above redirects to
early modern Europe, so has no particular relevance elsewhere (like "medieval", a sister cat of this one is
Category:Medieval currencies, by the way); "ancient" is also subject to interpretation. Categorization by centuries, as proposed above, at least has the beauty of not being ambiguous, but all disused currencies would have to be organized by country and by century - maybe not overkill, but hardly the best user experience - especially if we categorize by when the currency was in use rather than when it went "former" as apparently is the practice now (see
French franc, which is in
Category:Medieval currencies but was evidently still in use at the time of the Euro's introduction, somewhat beyond even the widest definition of "medieval"). Is there a real split that we want to achieve here between eras that century or other definable date cannot substitute for, e.g., if centuries are too limiting, perhaps throwing a few together like
Currencies in use during 1000-1499 or something of the like. Obsolete is not WP's prefered term for ex-things, "defunct" and "former" (I'll leave off "historical" because those are getting re-done all over the place). Here, "former" seems better wordsmithing, so I would think either a series of
Currencies in use during XXX-XXX or even
Former currencies used during XXX-XXX if we want to distinguish those currencies that have gone to that great cashbox in the sky.
Carlossuarez4622:05, 24 July 2007 (UTC)reply
There are several problems with this. Firstly it is rarely a good idea to categorize things of long duration by century - I have described the results above. The franc was first introduced in 1360 odd, discontinued in 1641, brought back after the Revolution & re-organised as the "New Franc" (1 NF= 100 old F) in 1960. Very sensibly all these are covered by one article, like
drachma which deals with both the ancient Athenian and modern Greek drachma. There aren't as many currencies as you perhaps think, and given the primary classification is by country, as it should be, the last thing we want is a load of tiny categories. Ancient, medieval and modern are very often used as global, or at least Eurasian terms - the fact we don't have decent articles with these titles is neither here nor there. I absolutely will not accept that in the correct context, as here, they are "ambiguous". You then suggest a arbitary period, just like dozens that have been voted down here! In terms of adjectives, my order of preference is obsolete first, former, with defunct a definite last. But I think we are drifting away from the actual (rather small) problem here. I've just noticed that I haven't actually !voted yet, so since I think the nominated category name is ok, its Keep.
Johnbod22:41, 24 July 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:State elections in the United States
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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.
Further Note: A sub-category of with similar purpose also has the same format as the current category -
Category:United States Senate elections by state. Other subcategories are in the "state elections" format [the category you mentioned is a sub-subcategory of this one and appears to be an accurate title (dealing with elections solely within California)- though it could probably be merged with
Category:California elections] - their different naming format is justified by their different purpose. --
Tim4christ17talk14:51, 19 July 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:People by United States government agency
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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.
Nominator's rationale: It seems they cover the same area. The first category appears to have been created more recently without knowledge of the other. --
EliyakT·
C10:20, 19 July 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:Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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.
Strong Oppose, per Mike. This nomination just makes me cry, cry, cry. If it gets renamed, I’ll have to send that boy named Sue after Mikka. ;-) --
Chicaneo02:21, 20 July 2007 (UTC)reply
OK. Withdrawn. One of the mysteries of English language for me, probably. Still, I feel uneasy when a song has a dozen of owners: lyrics and muscis authors plus ten singers. Whatever. `'
Míkka03:23, 20 July 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:Headhunting among tribal societies
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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.
Nominator's rationale:Rename, the contents are a collection of tribes that practiced headhunting (according to
headhunting, the past tense is appropriate as it has died out everywhere), not general articles related to headhunting by tribal societies as the current name seems to imply. At the top of the category page there are also four articles relating to headhunting. I'm not sure if it needs it if that's all there could be, but if there is the possibility of more articles, they could be gathered into another category
Category:Headhunting, of which this would then be a subcat. If anyone has a suggestion for a less cumbersome name, that would be good too.
Rigadoun (talk)17:20, 19 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Rename: all of the suggestions above seem clearer and better, and category creator has no objection. In order of preference, I would probably say: 1. "Tribal societies that practiced...", 2. "Tribal societies that have practiced..." and 3. "Former...", but I think any of the three either of the two is probably acceptable.
Xtifrtälk 03:44, 23 July 2007 (UTC) Addendum: withdrew my support for the "Former" option because of the comment from Jmm6f488 below.
Xtifrtälk03:32, 24 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Not all headhunters are cannibals and not all cannibal are headhunters. Also not all of the tribes listed are former headhunters some are still active.
Jmm6f48802:27, 24 July 2007 (UTC)reply
I think it would be helpful if Jmm6 could specify which tribes still headhunt. Supposedly there is now none (as a socially accepted practice anyway) in
Sabah, where most come from. I also notice that not all the articles, like eg
Ilongots mention HH at all. Really if it is not in the article they should not be in the category.
Johnbod13:06, 24 July 2007 (UTC)reply
I also added a reference to headhunting in the article about the
Ilongots.
Michelle Rosaldo, who is mentioned in the article, husband
Renato Rosaldo, wrote a book entitled Ilongot Headhunting, 1883-1974: A Study in Society and History. I have not updated the
Sabah article but if you google Sabah and headhunting you will understand why I listed it in the Category.
Jmm6f48804:58, 26 July 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:Camp Lazlo episodes
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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.
Nominator's rationale: Category is a remnant of when multiple episode pages existed; since then, all pages have been merged into a total of about 6 pages; subject matter does not rate multiple categories.
Yngvarr16:43, 19 July 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:Team Rocket
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 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:Modern obsolete currencies
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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.
Nominator's rationale:Rename - See
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 July 13#Category:Historical currencies of the United States. When I mentioned renaming the United States category to match this category, people thought that this category had an awful name. Given the response, it is probably worth renaming this category. The term "modern" is ambiguous anyway, at it is unclear as to how recent the currency must have been in use to be called "modern" obsolete currency. I have no suggestions for a possible rename, but I thought that someone else may have a good suggestion.
Dr. Submillimeter15:32, 19 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Comment - Also, it might be worth sorting currencies no longer in use by century if possible. This would avoid the ambiguity problem with the term "modern".
Dr. Submillimeter15:34, 19 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Comment Having objected to "modern" in the other debate, I must say I don't see a problem here. As I expected, this is a fellow-category with ones for Ancient, Medieval and Circulating currencies. Clearly "modern Greek drachma" is not ambiguous in the way that "modern US dollar" is, as the United States as such does not have a pre-modern period. The
Early Modern Period is a very well-established concept. I see no benefit in sorting by century - the primary categorisation is by country, and this would lead to a plethora of one or two-article categories like
Category:Eighteen-century Portuguese currencies.
Johnbod16:41, 19 July 2007 (UTC)reply
No, of course not! The difference between the cases is explained above: "Clearly "modern Greek drachma" is not ambiguous in the way that "modern US dollar" is, as the United States as such does not have a pre-modern period".
Johnbod11:29, 20 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Comment - Your logic makes no sense. Surely, things such as the
Guatemalan peso, the
Argentine sol, and the
Grenadan dollar have no pre-modern counterparts, yet these are listed as "modern obsolete" currencies. Either the US category should be renamed to match the main category or the main category should be renamed.
Dr. Submillimeter13:43, 20 July 2007 (UTC)reply
My comments have mucho logic. Your sentence above should surely read: "Surely, things such as the
Guatemalan peso, the
Argentine sol, and the
Grenadan dollar have no pre-modern counterparts, so naturally these are listed as "modern obsolete" currencies" (improvement in bold). There would be a problem if the sub-cats for the US, Guatemala, Argentine, were called "modern", because by definition these countries only have modern currencies. But there is no problem including all of these countries in a modern category - so long, of course, as they are not also represented in the medieval or ancient categories. QED.
Johnbod13:59, 20 July 2007 (UTC)reply
For the ones being discussed here. My concern is that many forms of currency are not obsolete in that they still have value and may be legally used. That's why the suggestion in the other discussion to use no longer minted or printed. That is an easy and clear break point. Obsolete here could be very POV.
Vegaswikian21:12, 21 July 2007 (UTC)reply
"Very POV"? Something of an exaggeration, surely? A 1928 $10 Federal Reserve Note could be exchanged for $10 as legal tender, but would cost $300 to buy (says ebay). That formula could be used for the $ sub-category, but it would be more confusing than accurate to rename the global parent
Category:Modern obsolete currencies in that style, in my view.
Johnbod02:02, 22 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Comment - "Historical" has multiple interpretations. In this case, it could refer to currency that has been in use a long time, currency that is no longer in use, or currency that dates from some vaguely-defined older era (such as the 19th century and earlier). Does this answer your question, or were you asking about something else?
Dr. Submillimeter08:49, 23 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Comment and proposal? two problem words: "modern" and "obsolete" (I think we know what currencies are). Modern is ambiguous (or POV); even the pointer to
early modern provided above redirects to
early modern Europe, so has no particular relevance elsewhere (like "medieval", a sister cat of this one is
Category:Medieval currencies, by the way); "ancient" is also subject to interpretation. Categorization by centuries, as proposed above, at least has the beauty of not being ambiguous, but all disused currencies would have to be organized by country and by century - maybe not overkill, but hardly the best user experience - especially if we categorize by when the currency was in use rather than when it went "former" as apparently is the practice now (see
French franc, which is in
Category:Medieval currencies but was evidently still in use at the time of the Euro's introduction, somewhat beyond even the widest definition of "medieval"). Is there a real split that we want to achieve here between eras that century or other definable date cannot substitute for, e.g., if centuries are too limiting, perhaps throwing a few together like
Currencies in use during 1000-1499 or something of the like. Obsolete is not WP's prefered term for ex-things, "defunct" and "former" (I'll leave off "historical" because those are getting re-done all over the place). Here, "former" seems better wordsmithing, so I would think either a series of
Currencies in use during XXX-XXX or even
Former currencies used during XXX-XXX if we want to distinguish those currencies that have gone to that great cashbox in the sky.
Carlossuarez4622:05, 24 July 2007 (UTC)reply
There are several problems with this. Firstly it is rarely a good idea to categorize things of long duration by century - I have described the results above. The franc was first introduced in 1360 odd, discontinued in 1641, brought back after the Revolution & re-organised as the "New Franc" (1 NF= 100 old F) in 1960. Very sensibly all these are covered by one article, like
drachma which deals with both the ancient Athenian and modern Greek drachma. There aren't as many currencies as you perhaps think, and given the primary classification is by country, as it should be, the last thing we want is a load of tiny categories. Ancient, medieval and modern are very often used as global, or at least Eurasian terms - the fact we don't have decent articles with these titles is neither here nor there. I absolutely will not accept that in the correct context, as here, they are "ambiguous". You then suggest a arbitary period, just like dozens that have been voted down here! In terms of adjectives, my order of preference is obsolete first, former, with defunct a definite last. But I think we are drifting away from the actual (rather small) problem here. I've just noticed that I haven't actually !voted yet, so since I think the nominated category name is ok, its Keep.
Johnbod22:41, 24 July 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:State elections in the United States
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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.
Further Note: A sub-category of with similar purpose also has the same format as the current category -
Category:United States Senate elections by state. Other subcategories are in the "state elections" format [the category you mentioned is a sub-subcategory of this one and appears to be an accurate title (dealing with elections solely within California)- though it could probably be merged with
Category:California elections] - their different naming format is justified by their different purpose. --
Tim4christ17talk14:51, 19 July 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:People by United States government agency
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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.
Nominator's rationale: It seems they cover the same area. The first category appears to have been created more recently without knowledge of the other. --
EliyakT·
C10:20, 19 July 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:Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 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.