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

The result of the discussion was: G7'd. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:33, 4 July 2012 (UTC) reply

• Propose deleting Category:User htz ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: It seems that the category is based on a hoax/joke. I can't find any evidence that there's such a thing as the Heptç language and "htz" is not an ISO 639 code. Pichpich ( talk) 21:54, 30 June 2012 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom. "htz" is not a valid ISO 639-3 language code and I, too, could find no indication that 'Heptç' is a real language. -- Black Falcon ^{( talk)} 06:03, 1 July 2012 (UTC) reply
• DElete -- I note that User:Woodwindfanatic is up for deletion and is the only content other than two htz templates. I suspect the whole business is a hoax. In any event, if this is about a WP user, we do not allow user's to have their own category. Peterkingiron ( talk) 21:38, 1 July 2012 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom Brad7777 ( talk) 19:56, 2 July 2012 (UTC) reply
• Delete per G7, Blocked template creator requested deletion here. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:54, 2 July 2012 (UTC) reply

   Done, this discussion may be closed now — Martin ( MSGJ ·  talk) 11:23, 3 July 2012 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the discussion was: keep. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:58, 10 July 2012 (UTC) reply

• Propose renaming Category:Latin-alphabet representations to Category:Representations of the ISO basic Latin alphabet

Nominator's rationale: Rename. The article " Latin alphabet" is about the alphabets used to write the Latin language. These have less than 26 letters. The category content is about methods to represent the 26 letters of the ISO basic Latin alphabet. Indiana State ( talk) 17:18, 30 June 2012 (UTC) reply

Oppose: Some of the articles in that category cover more than the 26 base letters or have extensions that do so, some only cover them un(i)cased. Therefore putting “ISO basic” into the category name, and thereby a name proper, is overly specific (and also unduly long). — Christoph Päper 18:31, 1 July 2012 (UTC) reply

• Oppose as overly specific. Braille, semaphore and hand signs are not a representation of ISO, they predate ISO by many years. However, ISO could be one of the pages that is listed. The parent category Category:Latin alphabets holds sufficient categories to organise this adequately, including an ISO category. Ephebi ( talk) 07:37, 3 July 2012 (UTC) reply
• Oppose not eveything that goes in this category is ISO. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 23:21, 5 July 2012 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the discussion was: keep, with an understanding that this is an uncommon naming structure and is open to immediate reevaluation. An alternative proposal might have better success.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 14:33, 26 July 2012 (UTC) reply

• Propose something Category:Sephardi Jews topics ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  
• Propose something Category:Ashkenazi Jews topics ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  
• Propose something Category:Mizrahi Jews topics ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: At first I wanted to have this category deleted, but after looking at the interlanguage links I think it may only need to be renamed. With its current name, but perhaps even still if renamed along the line of its interlanguage correspondents, it stands out as an oddity in the category hierarchy, and looking at the categories contained in it, it's hard to see a clear parentage, at least to me. To people well versed in Jewish matters things may be clearer. Also looking at the category's parents gives little clue of a clear relation. meco ( talk) 16:58, 30 June 2012 (UTC)(added second category for Ashkenazi Jews topics to nom. __ meco ( talk) 19:57, 30 June 2012 (UTC)) reply

• Maybe Category:Sephardi Jews and Judaism, to distinguish it from Category:Sephardi Jews...? The word 'topics' in the title is unnecessary and non-standard; we have Category:France (a topic category about France), not Category:France topics. From a more general perspective, I think that this category has been applied a bit too liberally to the various 'Jews and Judaism in X' categories as such categories should not be placed here merely because some Sephardi Jews happen to live in country 'X'. Also, I think that whatever change is applied to this category should also apply to Category:Ashkenazi Jews topics. -- Black Falcon ^{( talk)} 19:23, 30 June 2012 (UTC) reply

Indeed. I missed that one. I just added it to the nomination now. __ meco ( talk) 19:57, 30 June 2012 (UTC) reply

And Category:Mizrahi Jews topics. I agree with all Black Falcon's remarks. Also Category:Sephardi Jews (a people cat) should be a subcat of Category:Sephardi Jews topics. Oculi ( talk) 00:59, 1 July 2012 (UTC) reply

Right. I've added the third category also. __ meco ( talk) 10:02, 1 July 2012 (UTC) reply

• Rename to Category:Sephardi Jews and Judaism etc per Black Falcon's suggestion above. Nearly all the subcats should be removed: eg Category:Jews and Judaism in Germany is not a valid subcat and has other legitimate parents. ( Category:Sephardi Jews and Judaism in Germany would be valid, but probably not large enough.) Oculi ( talk) 11:50, 1 July 2012 (UTC) reply
• Comments. 1. Adding and Judaism is wrong. It suggests a specification (excluding articles on say Category:Sephardi Jews and statehood). Any page about Sephardi Jews and Judaism already can correctly be put in Category:Sephardi Jews. If the specification is needed, it can be created as a subcategory of the main category. (And if it is meant to say: the topic covers the whole of these "Jews and Judaism", including say their statehood, it is a tautology).

2. "Sephardic Jews" is pleonasm. A Sephardi is a Jew by the definition OED. Sephardi is a noun in English. Since category names should be in plural, it is Sephardim.

Concluding: Rename into ...: Mutatis mutandis for the other two categories here, I propose: Categoy:Sephardim, Categoy:Ashkenazim Categoy:Mizrahim. - DePiep ( talk) 10:10, 2 July 2012 (UTC) reply

• Keep All for a number of very good and obvious logical reasons: (a) The nominator admits that he is not "well versed" in this subject, and proves it by not being sure what should be done. He should read up on WP:EXPERT and WP:COMPETENCE before diving into such complex fields that span thousands of years of Jewish history. Try using the {{ Expert-subject}} template next time before jumping in. (b) "Propose something" means nothing. This CFD should be declared null and void because no policy is being cited, it is just a random try-by not worth serious consideration as a CFD, even for renaming purposes. This is not the place to start discussions about topics one admits to know little about. (c) These categories are not merely about Jews but about the broader subject, thus for example, the huge Category:Sephardi Jews is about actual people (just names basically), while the nominated category is about a huger and wider range of topics on this subject, not just related to people but also about other topics. (d) The suggestion to rename to Categoy:Sephardim is ridiculous because "Sephardim" is the Hebrew translation for "Sephardi Jews"! (e) It does not help to simply "expand" by expanding to Category:Sephardi Jews and Judaism because many of the topics have nothing to do with either the Jews as such or with Judaism, but with events and personalities that impacted them that were not necessarily either Jews or part of Judaism. (f) These categories have withstood the test of time on WP from at least 2005 and contain many other categories, with contributions from a variety of seasoned Judaic editors. It would have been far better, given the nominators admitted ignorance of this field, to seek input at WP:TALKJUDAISM or reach out to editors who had worked on these categories for the last 7+ years and started a discussion going rather than run here looking to do things when he does not even know what he wants to do. (g) There are other categories named like this that are very helpful and work just fine, such as Category:Judeo-Islamic topics, Category:Islamic and Jewish interfaith topics, Category:Judeo-Christian topics, Category:Christian and Jewish interfaith topics. Finally, (h) this just proves the dictum if it ain't broke, don't fix it especially if you haven't worked on this system of categorization as it applies to Judaic topics for a long time and know little about it. Thank you, IZAK ( talk) 19:37, 2 July 2012 (UTC) reply

  IZAK, this is still just a discussion about what (if anything) to do, so please let's not shoot the nominator (unless he's into that sort of thing...). :)

  In reply to your points: (a) Starting a discussion hardly constitutes "diving into" or "jumping in" (it'd be different, of course, if the nom had started to empty the category). (b) A CFD does not require a firm proposal to delete, merge or rename; it can just be a request for discussion about such a change. (c) Nothing prevents us from making the biographical category, Category:Sephardi Jews, a subcategory of this one. (d) So? If they mean the same thing, I can see why you would say that renaming might be unnecessary... but would it be wrong in any way? (e) An interesting point, though not necessarily relevant. Category:Sephardi Jews and Judaism would be a topic category that could contain content (organized within subcategories) about Sephardim and Judaism as it relates to Sephardim, as well as about events and concepts that are meaningfully connected with them. We should be careful, however, to avoid categorizing articles based on tangential connections: for instance, why should we place into this category "events and personalities" that "have nothing to do with either the Jews as such or with Judaism"? (f) As with points (a) and (b), this is a process issue that can be resolved simply by posting a notice at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism, which I have done. Further, the fact that these categories are old does not prove their worth: categorization and category naming standards have changed since 2005. (g) There may be a handful of such categories, but there tens of thousands of topic categories that do not have the word "topics" appended to their titles. (h) "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" is anathema to any sort of improvement or advancement. I prefer "if it ain't broke, don't break it" or "if you break it, you fix it". :) The point being... that's a subjective preference unconnected to these categories. Best, -- Black Falcon ^{( talk)} 20:49, 2 July 2012 (UTC) reply

  In response to Black Falcon:(a) The nom has admitted his ignorance of the subject, that is clear, and he should have held back to meddle in something he has more competence in. (b) To run around and start aimless discussions at CfD is an exercise in futility. (c) The discussion is about the fate of the nominated categories, while they serve as important navigational tools, and not the one you mention. (d) It is not "wrong" but it is redundant and illogical because it would mean that two different categories would share the same name because some folks don't know that the terms they use are Hebrew translations. (e) My point is simple, so don't befuddle it. That the present categories serve an important function by having related sub-categories under them, check it out. (f) The categorization in the Judaic sections has not changed much and has worked well. They are well-put together, and it makes no sense to break the system now just because of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. (g) WP is not a beauty pageant nor does it try to squeeze all the square pegs into round holes just because some folks are not comfortable with a name or wording of something that has worked well for a very long time. (h) You are creating red herrings. The fact remains that the nom is nitpicking based on his admitted lack of information and experience trying to organize diverse and complex topics relating to Jews, Judaism and Jewish history (and much more) into these useful categories that serve as parent categories quite well in and of themselves. Thanks, IZAK ( talk) 07:00, 4 July 2012 (UTC) reply

  No one has any intention of "break[ing] the system" and how "well" the current system works is not axiomatic—it is part of what is being discussed and evaluated here. We should try to discuss the category, not the nominator, the process or the system; with that in mind: what you described in point (e) is the function of a topic category, and my point was that a topic category can contain both non-biographical and biographical articles and categories. In other words, there is no need to keep the biographical category completely separate from this topic category. -- Black Falcon ^{( talk)} 15:46, 20 July 2012 (UTC) reply

  This isIZAK talking about my proposal: (d) The suggestion to rename to Categoy:Sephardim is ridiculous because "Sephardim" is the Hebrew translation for "Sephardi Jews"! Well, why not explain "ridiculous" (or even better: not use it at all)? Would help. especially it could help your point, (it is not argumented for now). - DePiep ( talk) 22:19, 2 July 2012 (UTC) reply

  It is ridiculous and illogical to use a word that means the exact same thing, just that one word is in Hebrew the other in English. Simply put: Sephardi Jews=Sephardim. There is no difference so therefore there would be no improvement in any way, only chaos. IZAK ( talk) 07:00, 4 July 2012 (UTC) reply

  Please stop using non-argumentative words like ridiculous and unbased illogical. Even worse, stressing that you yourself are the only one who "knows" it does not convince me, and clearly means you did not explain it. Now about the usefull points you do mention. Hebrew is not involved here. So Sephardi Jews=Sephardim in English OED. Except that the double word says Jewish people who are Jews from region X: pleonasm. - DePiep ( talk) 10:47, 4 July 2012 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. IZAK ( talk) 19:41, 2 July 2012 (UTC) reply

• Rename as no precedent to have categories called "~ topics", but certainly keep to allow for a useful hierarchy. JFW |  T@lk 20:27, 2 July 2012 (UTC) reply

  "Rename" to what JFW? Please clarify as the nominator does not know and is offering no real suggestions. At least none that will create more clarity. And there are other categories that function well like this, see such as Category:Judeo-Islamic topics, Category:Islamic and Jewish interfaith topics, Category:Judeo-Christian topics, Category:Christian and Jewish interfaith topics. It is done on WP. Thank you, IZAK ( talk) 20:35, 2 July 2012 (UTC) reply

• Keep for Now, but Consider Rename There is a correspondence to the parent categories about individuals, grouping categories and articles related to Ashkenazi / Mizrahi / Sephardi Jews and serving as an aid to navigation that doesn't exist in any other form. I agree that the wording leaves something to be desired though no alternatives have been offered that would be any better. Alansohn ( talk) 20:57, 2 July 2012 (UTC) reply

  Reconsidering is what we are doing. Rename into what, please? - DePiep ( talk) 21:00, 2 July 2012 (UTC) reply

  Sorry I wasn't clearer. I agree that a rename might be appropriate, but none of the alternatives proposed are any better than what they're currently named. I'm willing to stick with the status quo unless a better set of names is offered by other editors (or I think of better names myself). Alansohn ( talk) 22:24, 2 July 2012 (UTC) reply

Sorry, cutting out the word topics from the title(s) is good naming practice. We do not name articles "This page is about the sun", we use " Sun".— Preceding unsigned comment added by DePiep ( talk • contribs) [1]

You miss the point DePiep. Being simplistic does not help. The nominated categories perform a serious function if you will bother to get into them you will see they serve as super-parent categories for important parent categories as well as providing a category "haven" for issues related to the subject that would not fit neatly into any other "Jews" or "Judaism" sub-categories. You are attacking something that is helpful merely because you don't like the way its phrased. Note that WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a good enough reason to destroy perfectly good work that's been built up over many years. IZAK ( talk) 06:05, 5 July 2012 (UTC) reply

• Rename I do not consider " Category:Sephardi Jews topics" to an English phrase. It would need to be "Sephardic Jewish topics" or "Sephardi Jewish topics" if it is meant to include general problems and organizations, or "Sephardi Jews" or "Sephardic Jews" if meant to contain people. (To me Sephardic as the adjective is much more natural English than Sephardi, though I know both forms are used.) We usually avoid the word "topics" in the name of a category. I can't figure out why, because that is exactly what most of them are. We normally include both people and general topics in a category, and that makes no sense to me either. DGG ( talk ) 22:52, 2 July 2012 (UTC) reply
• Keep for Now, but Consider Renaming in the Future per Alansohn. I think the current names may be out-of-step with the current categorization scheme, but I don't think any of the proposed alternatives is better. —  Malik Shabazz  ^Talk/ _Stalk 23:30, 2 July 2012 (UTC) reply

Reads like a contradiction. If they are out of step, why not change that? - DePiep ( talk) 11:06, 4 July 2012 (UTC) reply

• Keep for Now, but Consider Rename per Alansohn, but not Sephardim, Ashkenazim, etc... -- Shuki ( talk) 05:19, 3 July 2012 (UTC) reply

The discussion here has evolved with at least one problem clear: the word "topics" should be cut out per WP:CATNAME. Why would you not do that? - DePiep ( talk) 11:06, 4 July 2012 (UTC) reply

• Keep All I think that IZAK arguments are clear enough. -- Yoavd ( talk) 07:50, 3 July 2012 (UTC) reply

  I'd be grateful, then, if you would offer your response to my reply to IZAK's argument. Thank you, -- Black Falcon ^{( talk)} 17:47, 3 July 2012 (UTC) reply

  • See above, thanks, IZAK ( talk) 07:00, 4 July 2012 (UTC) reply

• Keep All At issue here is clarity. There are topics covered by articles that fit under the general headings of these Category names: "Sephardi Jews", "Ashkenazi Jews", "Mizrahi Jews". A person seeking to find an article that falls within one of these three subject ranges would be alerted to the likelihood of finding what they are looking for by clicking on one of these Categories. These names are only meant to be general indicators of where one might consider looking for an article on a given topic. The person looking for an article on a subject can reasonably be expected to explore the Categories as they are named. Bus stop ( talk) 14:11, 3 July 2012 (UTC) reply

re: keep implies Category:Sephardi Jews topics, not Category:Sephardi Jews as you seem to think. So do you propose that change? - DePiep ( talk) 11:06, 4 July 2012 (UTC) reply

• Alt. suggestion: We could rename Category:Sephardi Jews to Category:Sephardi Jewish people and then move the 'topics' category to Category:Sephardi Jews; and likewise for the others. -- Black Falcon ^{( talk)} 17:47, 3 July 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Please stop running around in circles and let this go. Bottom line, the nom did not know the subject and admits to it and should never have started this CfD. I would have welcomed a discussion on my or your or any talk page, which is about what it's worth. Thanks, IZAK ( talk)

• Your persistent attacks on me for being ignorant and that I should "meddle in something he has more competence in" is utterly uncalled for. You may have not the slightest acquaintance with the CfD process or you are acting out of bad faith. There is no requirement of a nominator to have intimate knowledge of a subject in order to bring categories here, and as for my caveat of not being an expert on Jewish subjects, this is being pounded on by yourself for absolutely no rational reason. My contention is that these categories end with the word "topic", something which make them stand out as an eyesore in Wikipedia's category structure. I have also pointed to, and others have agreed, that there seems to be a lack of apparent connection between categories and members. So these things should clearly be discussed. Your vitriol is not constructive. __ meco ( talk) 07:17, 4 July 2012 (UTC) reply

RE: I concur with the two points meco (nom) raises here. IZAK is going off-arguments in this discussion (I experienced the same), and the usefull part of the discussion has lead to at least one clear problem & solution: cut off the topic word from thetitles. - DePiep ( talk) 11:10, 4 July 2012 (UTC) reply

RE black falcon: essentially good new names, except that now it add another repetition: saying "people who are Jews who are Jewish people from region X". :-) I'd say create Category:Sephardim people, as subcat in Category:Sephardim.— Preceding unsigned comment added by DePiep ( talk • contribs) [2]

I think the name should retain the term "topics". I don't think our primary concern should be grammatical or aesthetic. We should be helping the reader to find what they are looking for. Contained in these Categories are a variety of types of material, not necessarily conforming to constraints that are objective. Meco has argued that our naming scheme "stands out as an oddity" and that these Category names "stand out as an eyesore in Wikipedia's category structure." Is this our primary concern? The reader presumably has at least a rudimentary sense of the material they are sorting through. I don't think they will find off-putting names that best lead them to articles they might be looking for. Our first aim should be for organizational clarity, in my opinion. Bus stop ( talk) 11:36, 4 July 2012 (UTC) reply

Thank you Bus stop, exactly my point. Well put. IZAK ( talk) 05:55, 5 July 2012 (UTC) reply

Eh, IZAK, exactly which of your eight (a)-(g)-points above you refer to? You write: exactly my point: To me not even one matches it. So, which point is it IZAK? And why cannot you expain it yourself then? (23:40, 5 July 2012 User:DePiep).

• Keep a category with the name Category:Sephardi Jews will always be used as a default location for articles on people. The current way works. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 15:56, 18 July 2012 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the discussion was: merge. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:53, 16 July 2012 (UTC) reply

• Propose merging Category:Free Zone Wikipedians to Category:Scientologist Wikipedians

Nominator's rationale: This user category is intended for Wikipedian adherents of Scientology who practice outside the Church of Scientology (see Free Zone). The category was created nearly seven years ago and still contains only one member: a user who has not edited in over six years. Further, I can think of no reason to not expand (perhaps explicitly via category description) the scope of Category:Scientologist Wikipedians to include both those who practice within and outside the Church, particularly in light of the fact that the parent category itself contains only two members. -- Black Falcon ^{( talk)} 06:33, 30 June 2012 (UTC) reply

• Comment: This might be tricky. Would potential members of this category be...perturbed...by being lumped in with the "mainstream" Scis? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:04, 2 July 2012 (UTC) reply

  I don't think that would be the case. After all, they still adhere to Scientology and that's what the category identifies, not any connection with the Church of Scientology. I see the distinction as being between: affiliation with a set of beliefs (Scientology) versus affiliation, or lack thereof, with a particular organization (the Church of Scientology). Category:Wikipedians by religion contains categories of the former type; most categories of the latter type were deleted in 2007. -- Black Falcon ^{( talk)} 20:55, 2 July 2012 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the discussion was: merge. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:24, 7 July 2012 (UTC) reply

• Propose merging Category:Eastern European Neopagan Wikipedians to Category:Neopagan Wikipedians

Nominator's rationale: I could find no indication that Eastern European Neopagan(ism) is a distinct religion or religious movement and not just an original concept. The few online references to "Eastern European Neopagan(ism)" that are not Wikipedia mirrors use the phrase merely to refer to Neopaganism in Eastern Europe. Thus, this category appears to be an unnecessary intersection of Category:Wikipedians by religion and Category:Wikipedians by location and should be upmerged. -- Black Falcon ^{( talk)} 06:16, 30 June 2012 (UTC) reply

• Merge per nom. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 23:22, 5 July 2012 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the discussion was: rename to "Retail markets" versions.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 14:39, 26 July 2012 (UTC) reply

• Propose renaming Category:Markets by region to something
• Propose renaming Category:Markets by city to something
• Propose renaming Category:Markets by country to something

Nominator's rationale: Rename or Delete. Markets is ambiguous. Are you talking about Category:Fish markets, Category:Flea markets, Category:Food markets, Category:Night markets, public markets or stock markets? If worth keeping, maybe a rename to something on the order of Category:Retail markets by region? Note that there are many subcategories here that will need to be looked at and nominated if these are changed. Vegaswikian ( talk) 05:53, 30 June 2012 (UTC) reply

• Probably need to be Retail markets by region etc. and then weeded for other types Tim! ( talk) 07:50, 30 June 2012 (UTC) reply
  • If you look at the by country subcategories, you see that a large number are very small, that tells me that subcategorizing those may not be the best idea since they would not be well populated. The same probably would apply to cities. So a question would be, do we just rename these to Category:Retail markets by country and Category:Retail markets by city and not split out by type of the country level unless one country has a lot like Category:Food markets in the United States. At this point I would lean to Deleting Category:Markets by region since it is really working as a by continent category and that is not appropriate for this type of collection. That could be deleted after the articles are added to some other parents. The subcategories are already in Category:Markets by country. Vegaswikian ( talk) 19:04, 30 June 2012 (UTC) reply
• cmt the parent category is Category:Retail markets Hmains ( talk) 16:41, 30 June 2012 (UTC) reply
• Oppose - A quick glance across the parent and sub-categories shows that this proposal needs more investigation and thought and then bringing back to CfD. I respectfully suggest the proposer takes it to the relevant projects first before making what he admits is a large-scale change. (At the very least this affects editors at WikiProject Business, WikiProject Economics, WikiProject Architecture and the Markets talk page.) Ephebi ( talk) 08:02, 3 July 2012 (UTC) reply
  • If you think that said notification is needed, feel free to notify the affected projects. But with the current usage being ambiguous and with a much better name based on a parent category available, I see no reason to not do something at this time. Vegaswikian ( talk) 00:20, 4 July 2012 (UTC) reply
    • No, you feel free to do so. I don't have the inclination to run around tidying up after you. Ephebi ( talk) 11:44, 4 July 2012 (UTC) reply
• oppose rename or delete of Category:Markets by city and Category:Markets by country. I'm ok with delete of Category:Markets by region, not convinced we need a continental classification at this point. But the others should stay; market is the appropriate generic term; I'd suggest going to the talk pages of the various projects cited above to sort out exactly how these cats should work, but I don't think they need rename or delete at this point.-- KarlB ( talk) 14:53, 3 July 2012 (UTC) reply
  • And being generic is the root of the problem. Category names should not be ambiguous which can mean that generic names should be avoided. And that is exactly why this name is wrong. So you are OK with adding stock markets to the contents of these categories? Vegaswikian ( talk) 23:11, 3 July 2012 (UTC) reply
• Rename to Category:Retail markets by city and Category:Retail markets by country; delete Category:Markets by region as premature. The current titles are, due to the multiple meanings of the word ' market', extremely ambiguous; on the other hand, the proposed titles clearly convey that the categories are part of the Retail markets category tree and contain articles about physical places where consumers can purchase products such as food, clothes, furniture and so on. A title such as Category:Markets in the United States leads me to expect articles about business/economic zones (e.g., Pacific Northwest market) or industry sectors (e.g., Telecommunications market in the United States), not to mention the other possibilities (e.g., stock markets) identified by Vegaswikian. The subcategories present no problem since they can be speedied once these categories are renamed. -- Black Falcon ^{( talk)} 19:37, 20 July 2012 (UTC) reply
• Rename to include retail in title. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 18:04, 21 July 2012 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the discussion was: rename. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:54, 16 July 2012 (UTC) reply

• Rename from Category:Economies of World War II to Category:Economic history of World War II. The current name is too narrow and thus not very useful. Broadening as proposed would make it much more useful, and also would mirror Category:Economic history of the American Civil War. (Note: I was not surprised to discover that this category was created by an editor who has long since been banned for disruptive editing; he left behind a mess everywhere he went (in particular, the whole category tree for Category:World War II.) Cgingold ( talk) 04:16, 30 June 2012 (UTC) reply
• Rename per nom, I really have no idea what to expect to be in the category based on the current name. Tim! ( talk) 07:48, 30 June 2012 (UTC) reply
• REname -- The present name would be in theory be an appropriate name for a series of articles on the "economy of fee in WWII", but "Economies" tends to refer more to saving money than to the economy of a nation (in the plural). Ther might be alternative ways of dealing with this ambiguity, possibly "national economies in WWI", but I prefer nom's solution. Peterkingiron ( talk) 21:31, 1 July 2012 (UTC) reply
• Comment - the creator was indefinitly blocked, but not banned. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:35, 4 July 2012 (UTC) reply
• Upmerge to Category:World War II. I remain unconvinced that there is a clear reason to group these articles together at all. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 23:25, 5 July 2012 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the discussion was: keep. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:55, 16 July 2012 (UTC) reply

• Propose deleting Category:Albums produced by Tommy Oliver (musician) ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Only one entry. Precedent is that producers have to have multiple solo credits to warrant categories. I can't verify that Oliver has had any other production credits, and his article is at AFD. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{( What did I screw up now?)} 01:52, 30 June 2012 (UTC) reply

• Keep, Allmusic.com lists multiple albums produced by Oliver, some of which currently have articles on WP. ive added a couple for now, but the category can be more fully populated. Ive also fixed up the article on Oliver a little, and i believe it will withstand AFD.(Mercurywoodrose, not logged in) 99.101.139.82 ( talk) 18:53, 4 July 2012 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the discussion was: keep. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:56, 16 July 2012 (UTC) reply

• Propose renaming Category:Access to Knowledge movement to Category:Right to access information movement

Nominator's rationale: Access to Knowledge is the name of a particular organization. Not all of the entries of this category are specifically tied to this organization, even if they share traits. I propose that this be renamed to something generic, or otherwise if it is to remain, then reliable sources need to be somewhere connecting the category's contents to the movement. Blue Rasberry (talk) 00:34, 30 June 2012 (UTC) reply

• Keep

The term A2K / A2K movement is widely used, by campaigners, academics and at WIPO. This is made clear on the Access to Knowledge movement page

See for instance: [3]

Access to Knowledge (A2K) is the umbrella term for a movement that aims to create more equitable public access to the products of human culture and learning. The ultimate objective of the movement is to create a world in which educational and cultural works are accessible to all, and in which consumers and creators alike participate in a vibrant ecosystem of innovation and creativity.

These goals are of interest to a broad coalition of consumer groups, NGOs, activists, Internet users and others. However for many of them, coming to grips with the issues involved in the A2K movement can be daunting. These issues, including copyright and patent law reform, open content licensing, and communications rights, often involve legal and technological concepts that even specialists find difficult.

Or also at [4]:

The A2K (Access to Knowledge) movement takes concerns with copyright law and other regulations that affect knowledge and places them within an understandable social need and policy platform: access to knowledge goods.

There is also a literature about Access To Knowledge (see links off Access to knowledge movement) and it is also referred to in the Berlin Declaration on Open Access to Knowledge in the Sciences and Humanities and a draft treaty presented to WIPO. [5]

On the other hand there is the A2K Network [6] which is part of Consumers International but this itself defines itself as the result of a discussion on the topic ("This Web site was launched in 2009 as part of the Global Consumer Dialog and Public Education Network on Access to Knowledge (A2K) Issues")

Note: I've added most of this to the Access to knowledge movement page itself where it was missing. Hope that helps. Jim Killock (talk) 11:51, 8 July 2012 (UTC) reply

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