Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 May 7

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< May 6 May 8 >

May 7[edit]

Category:Arab Citizens of Israel[edit]

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 Category:Arab Citizens of Israel and Category:Arab Israelis to Category:Arab citizens of Israel. This discussion was open for 17 days and it appears that at the end, the consensus was moving to this result. Clearly there was a strong consensus to merge with some issues as to which way to go. Also there was discussion on the problems with the name of one of these. After this merge is completed, if there are strong feelings about the name, then a less complicated rename proposal can be made without all of the side issues, it should be simply a choice between the two. The fact that we had a main article swayed how I looked at this. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:25, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:Arab Citizens of Israel to Category:Arab Israelis
Nominator's rationale: Merge. Essentially duplicate categories. Target category is older and is phrased according to the commonly-used standards for nationalities. Notified creator with {{subst:cfd-notify}} Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:18, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Changed to) Reverse Merge (with small c) per debate below (from M per nom). Continuing supporters of the nominated merge don't seem to have many arguments, beyond the weak one of category consistency (against consistency with the article), when AI seems clearly to be objectionable on POV grounds. Johnbod (talk) 23:04, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was requested some time ago that the title of the "Arab Israeli' category be changed to Arab Citizens of Israel. The majority of Arabs in Israel do not call themselves Arab Israelis, though a minority do. Arab Citizens of Israel acknowledges their rights as citizens without denying their cultural-national Palestinian affiliation. So I understand the need not to have two category titles, but can I suggest that rather than simply merging this category into the other, that the other title be changed? There is a discussion about this on the discussion page there, and people seem to agree that Arab citizens is a term all can agree on, while 'Arab Israelis' is one imposed upon Arabs in Israel against their will and 'Palestinians' offends many Israelis.Refcahman (talk) 18:47, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Where is this discussion? I can see a couple of isolated comments on Talk:Arab citizens of Israel, but no more. One on the cat talk too. I'm leaning to reverse merge however. Johnbod (talk) 23:34, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (nominator). As nom, I'll wait to see what others think about this. I note that the main article is called Arab citizens of Israel, but using this formatting for a category would be at variance with standard nationality category formatting used with nearly universal consistency in WP. I would be fine with whatever the consensus is, providing, of course, that the category be Category:Arab citizens of Israel rather than the one that exists now. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:02, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reverse merge and rename with lower-case "c". Seems reasonable to implement this per the discussions amongst the interested parties. Otto4711 (talk) 23:25, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi, sounds like this is almost resolved, but I just thought I'd let people know that the discussion refcahman seems to have been referring to is at "Editing Category talk:Arab Israelis (section)" 1equalvoice1 (talk) 06:59, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as suggested per nom. The main article should also follow this form. gidonb (talk) 00:41, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I am leaning toward merging to Category:Arab citizens of Israel. But I'm wondering about how this change would comport with some of the existing sub-cats of Category:Arab Israelis, such as Category:Arab Israeli politicians, Category:Bedouin Israelis, and Category:Israeli Druze. Will any of those need renaming (for consistency)? Cgingold (talk) 02:00, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reverse merge and rename with lower-case "c"Refcahman (talk) 06:30, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Good question Cgingold. Usually what I do, although it may seem cumbersome, is simply write "Arab politicians in Israel," "Arab actors in Israel", consistently across the board. Thus it would be: Category:Arab politicians in Israel, Category:Bedouins in Israel, Category:Druze in Israel. At first it seems odd but pretty quickly it becomes second-nature; if everyone did it, no one would think twice about it. Look up Category:Arabs in Turkey and click on Alawites and you will see the situation is similar: Arabs in Turkey are historical indigenes to the region but came under Turkish dominion against their will due to colonial policy. They are also citizens of Turkey, but prefer not to be called Turkish Arabs or Arab Turks. I am in favor of merging to Category:Arab citizens of Israel LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 02:18, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly: Reverse merge and rename with lower-case "c"LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 06:31, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unnecessary racial/ethnic category. Are Jews from Arab countries "Arabs" by WP's definition or does their religion disqualify their nationality/race/ethnic status? If we're going to categorize people by these useless categories let's at least be clear how we are drawing up our racial profilings... Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:00, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - same thing. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 13:33, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge better to have the common name for the category. (ie. African Americans) Ethnic before national usually. X citizens of O is not necessary. --Shamir1 (talk) 20:58, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Arabs do not call themselves "Arab Israelis," and Israelis are imposing this on them. People self-define. People from Canada read wikipedia, go to Haifa, meet some Arabs, and call them "arab israelis" and wonder why no one wants to talk to them. This has been raised before, and I think the fact that it keeps coming up is an indication of something. I'm inserting the discussion from Category talk: Arab Israelis here:

Comments:

  • Given that the term "Arab Israelis" is rejected by most of the people who are discussed under that appellation (see Talk:Arab citizens of Israel, I propose that this category be renamed Arab citizens of Israel, or Palestinian Arab citizens of Israel, or Palestinians in Israel, or 1948 Palestinians. The first designation, Arab citizens of Israel, was a compromise position. I prefer the second myself, but would like to open the floor for discussion. Tiamut 14:32, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I agree that the category should be renamed in accordance with the name of the primary Wikipedia article on the subject. I have nominated it for a speedy renaming, which if it is opposed, we can do to a standard CfD discussion similar to Humus sapiens' recent CfD. --Abnn 19:15, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Arab citizens of Israel seems like a neutral and descriptive name, so I'd support that. The other suggestion, Palestinian Arab citizens of Israel, would more problematic, because not all Arab citizens of Israel self-identify as "Palestinian" (in particular, such identification is relatively low among Druze). --Delirium 21:12, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 20:36, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge as suggested, same category. Epson291 (talk) 10:10, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reverse merge Someone brought up it's like saying "African American", however most blacks in America are content or proud with being American, unlike many Arabs in Israel who are more culturally, tribally (as in some cases with Arabs from the Triangle and northern West Bank) and above all nationally (as in nationalism) related or tied and closer to "Palestine" and the Palestinians. This is especially the case between many Palestinians in Lebanese or Syrian refugee camps and those in the Galilee, as well as between Triangle Arabs (Basma, Baqa al-Gharbiyya, etc) with northeastern West Bank Arabs.(Barta'a, Baqa al-Sharqiyya). I know calling them Palestinian citizens of Israel would be POV (especially with most Druze and Jews objecting to it), but Arab Israelis is also offensive to many Arab citizens (most Christians and Muslims, including myself). Arab citizens of Israel is as neutral and accurate as it gets and honestly I can't see why that would be contested. --Al Ameer son (talk) 20:06, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - at least one user, Al Ameer son, whose pages I watch, has been brought here as a result of a clear violation of WP:CANVAS. link. I suspect that others have been canvassed as well, although don't have time to look at the moment. For the record, I put zero blame on Al Ameer son, who has a complete right to vote even if he was canvassed, and will leave a message for LamaLoLeshLa, who might not be aware of the policy. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 20:24, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • For the record, I was active in several discussions on this page, because I had my own proposal at the bottom. Mine has been resolved. gidonb (talk) 02:18, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Another comment - Wikipedia is not and has never been a democracy. In a democracy, political parties vote as a bloc, wheel and deal, and act to advance their own interests and the interests of their constituencies. This is anathema to the decision-making structure of Wikipedia, in which contributors are expected to act as individuals, and at least try to advance the interests of the encyclopedia as a whole. In a democracy, parties vote propositions up or down for any reason they like; on Wikipedia, contributors are expected to back up their opinions with rational arguments grounded in Wikipedia policy and in the published statements of reliable sources.
      For example: Wikipedia's article on the Islamic prophet Muhammad contains numerous representational images of him. Such images are offensive to many Muslims. As a result, Muslim readers have heavily lobbied and petitioned Wikipedia for their removal. As of May 2008, nearly half a million petitioners have asked for this,[1] and less than 3,000 have asked for them to stay.[2] Yet they stay—because the only reasons given for removing them are incompatible with Wikipedia policy, and because Wikipedia is not a democracy. (e.c. courtesy of Eleland). JaakobouChalk Talk 01:05, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Wow, Jaakobou, I'm honoured that you would quote my little essay. I do have to point out that the situations here are not even remotely analogous, though. <eleland/talkedits> 17:34, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Extra comment: In line with several of the already made comments, I believe it has not been demostrated that the majority of Arab Israelis find the term 'Arab Israeli' offensive. Indeed LamaLoLeshLa, we can't survay "Arabs in Israel to start 'voting' here",[3] but here is an Arab publication using the term, and here's another , another: [4], here's IRNA using the term, and even Ilan Pappe uses the term, on Al-Jazeera no less.
      In light of these references, I believe that it is WP:OR to suggest that the majority of Arab Israelis are offended, not that this would be compatible with Wikipedia policy anyways. JaakobouChalk Talk 08:09, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The actual term here is partly a compromise excluding the word "Palistinean", which would be included in the self-description by many or most of the people themselves. Would you be happier if it was included? There are many references in the main article, such as this report for example. For WP policies, see below. Johnbod (talk) 13:19, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - FYI, in response to Yhockney: only one user. I was not aware of the policy. To clarify, the only person who had not already written something here was Al Ameer son. I had been in new contact with him about a different recent entry and thought he'd be interested in this discussion so I brought this talk page to his attention. I did not request he or anyone else vote a certain way. I also wrote to two others who came here of their own accord before I had even visited the page, and left a note saying: 'Are you going to visit the page again to leave your vote?' I did not say anything else, i.e. encouraging them to vote any particular way. However if that is considered canvassing and thus bad practice, I will certainly not do it again. BestLamaLoLeshLa (talk) 03:32, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Reverse merge As has been pointed out by several editors above, the term "Arab Israelis" is considered offensive and trejected by many, maybe most, of the people this term is supposed to include. The term "Arab citizens of Israel" is a factual, NPOV description of their status and situation, and is certainly the one we should use. RolandR (talk) 22:33, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - per nom. JaakobouChalk Talk 00:36, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. Wikipedia does not walk on eggshells to avoid hypersensitive people finding overarching reasons to be offended. A citizen of Isreal is an Isreali, and an Arab citizen of Isreal is therefore an Arab Isreali. Period. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 01:11, 20 May 2008 (UTC) per Johnbod to Arab citizens of Isreal. Although I don't like it, it will cause no harm, is not confusing for readers or editors, and does not promote any bias. There is certainly a need for a single category to eliminate cat-pov-forking, and this seems an adequate compromise. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 22:27, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • One could just as easily see accusations of hypersensitivity, levelled at people with opinions that differ from your own, as generating an atmosphere of egg-shell-walking. The rest of us have tried to express our view on the subject in an atmosphere of respect. Please do the same. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 01:34, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: It all seems quite arbitrary - someone started a page once years ago and titled it "Arab Israeli" it could just as easily have said "Arab citizen of Israel" (which is in common usage in Israel).
Again, Arab citizens of Israel is a compromise position; using this neutral terminology, we're trying to avoid a term which seems inaccurate to anybody here. Can anyone explain to me what is objectionable about "Arab citizens of Israel?" It is not wikipedia policy, as far as I know, to declare that all peoples on the planet must be categorized in monolithically identical fashion so as to make things consistent.
  • Merge: "Israeli" and "Citizen of Israel" are synonymous. The terms "Arab Israeli" and "Arab Citizens of Israel" mean the same thing, but the former is the predominant phrase. ← Michael Safyan (talk) 05:56, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So was the word "Negro," once. There's nothing inherently wrong with that word, either. Black people rejected it, and eventually white people respected that.71.249.53.111 (talk) 20:57, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That is a false analogy, if I've ever heard one. "Negro" was rejected, because the term was used in a derogatory manner. This has not been the case with the term "Arab Israeli", which refers to Israelis of Arab descent, including Jews, Muslims, and Druze. The term appears to be offensive only to those who consider themselves to be Palestinian, despite their Israeli citizenship, and whose actions only help Lieberman. Furthermore, it is obvious that the majority of African Americans find the term "Negro" offensive; whereas, you have yet to demonstrate that this is the case with Arab Israelis. ← Michael Safyan (talk) 20:13, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The issue is the denial of the Palestinian aspect to the identity of most Arabs in Israel. As in, Arabs in Israel are part of the same people as the Palestinian people. Not only are they native to the same region, they also experienced the same basic phenomena other Palestinians experienced in 1948, at the moment Israel was created. Their identity is as much forged by the experience of isolation from their people, ongoing dispossession, and internal displacement, which is a Palestinian experience, as by the Israeli society that emerged after. Hope that helps slightly. I still haven't heard one good objection to "Arab citizens of Israel", please someone explain, other than just: "status quo works for me;" the implication there is: I don't care if it doesn't work for Arabs themselves. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 19:30, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do understand, but "Arab citizens of Israel" does little more to acknowledge the Palestinian identity of Arabs in Israel than "Israeli Arabs". (This assumes, as argued by Michael Safyan, that "Israeli" and "citizen of Israel" are synonymous.) Why do you consider "Israeli Arabs" to be worse than "Arab Israelis"? –Black Falcon (Talk) 19:59, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • What we all think is beside the point. If "Arab citizens of Israel" themselves have strong views on the matter, we should reflect those unless there are compelling reasons not to, and I see none of those above. Johnbod (talk) 20:07, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are some, as evidenced from this discussion, who find the term offensive. However, those who oppose the merge (and the article Arab citizens of Israel) have failed to demonstrate that the majority of Arab Israelis find the term offensive. Since Arab Israeli is the predominantly used term to describe Israeli citizens of Arab descent, it should be used unless it can be adequately demonstrated that the majority of such individuals reject the use of the term. Furthermore, along the lines of Jaakobou/Eleland, right-wing Christians find evolution offensive, yet we do not remove it. ←Michael Safyan (talk) 20:37, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • No that's just confusing things, I'm afraid! Every one agrees there should be one category not the present two, so everyone wants a "merge per nom" to 'Arab Israelis' or a "reverse Merge" to 'Arab citizens of Israel', or a merge to some other name. Johnbod (talk) 02:05, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge both to Category:Israeli Arabs per my comments above (it's better than "Arab Israelis" because it gives more emphasis to the Arab identity) and the table below. –Black Falcon (Talk) 20:49, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Google Web Google News Archive Google Scholar Google Books
Arab citizens of Israel 34500 1020 784 628
Arab Israelis 54500 1960 689 617
Israeli Arabs 289000 11800 3860 938
Yes indeed, this proves the point very neatly - look at the first few on Web and books - Jewish Israeli and American sources use "Israeli Arabs", and they themselves use Arab citizens of Israel; of course the former are better represented on the Web in English. If you spend any time looking at Irish pages here, you would see there is a de facto WP policy, perhaps formally stated somewhere, of WP:DONTUSENAMESTOANNOYMINORITYGROUPSFORNOGOODREASON. We should use Arab citizens of Israel. Johnbod (talk) 23:04, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is a good reason: WP:COMMONNAME. While the point has been made that the terms "Arab Israelis" and "Israeli Arabs" are not desired by those people to whom they would apply, the reason has not been clearly indicated. As I wrote above: "Arab citizens of Israel" does little more to acknowledge the Palestinian identity of Arabs in Israel than "Israeli Arabs". –Black Falcon (Talk) 23:26, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In WP:COMMONNAME it says "Also, some terms are in common usage but are regarded as offensive (Mormon Church, for example)", which fits this case exactly. Whether the difference seems large to you or I is not the point - I originally voted per nom before being pursuaded by arguments above). In any case all we doing is matching the category with the main article per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories). Johnbod (talk) 23:35, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That may be, but the implication of my comment above is that the main article also should be moved to Israeli Arabs. While WP:COMMONNAME contains advice that we should not "overdo" it, I think the fact that "Israeli Arabs" is 10 times more common than "Arab citizens of Israel" overrides concerns about "overdoing it". And you cannot say that it is purely a matter of Jewish and American sources using "Israeli Arabs" and "Arab Israelis"; USA Today, Christian Science Monitor, the Washington Post, and others have used "Arab citizens of Israel" (although not exclusively). –Black Falcon (Talk) 23:51, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here is not the place to discuss renaming the article (though obviously I would oppose that). No one here seems to deny that "Arab citizens of Israel" themselves object to the other terms. Some seem to be saying it is a trivial difference, and some don't seem to care about causing offence, but these are not powerful arguments. How much more common is "Mormon" than LDS, I wonder? I see nothing in the policy suggesting (given that all the variants are pretty clear, unambiguous etc) that commonness overides not causing offence. Johnbod (talk) 02:14, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Without going in circles too much, Black Falcon (thanks for the chart), I just want to add that the fact that the reason that American and British sources use the term is that they are taking the lead from Israelis rather than Arabs in Israel.
If you look at "The Future Vision of the Palestinian Arabs in Israel" a document drafted jointly by nearly all the major Arab nonprofits, politicians and professionals in Israel, you will see they use the words "Palestinian Arabs" and "Arab citizens of Israel" but never refer to themselves as Arab Israelis, not even once. (See also this website, and this one, the websites of two of the main Arab organizations in Israel, for the lack of any use of the term 'Arab Israeli'). These are not "radical" organizations. Wikipedia is not representative. We are not going to get Arabs in Israel to start 'voting' here, because English is not their native language. Even many English-fluent West Bank/Gaza Palestinians or exiles on wiki are probably not going to rush here to vote because this is not their #1 concern (perhaps more focused on writing up profiles for destroyed Palestinian towns, for instance). But we need to assure that wiki entries are accurate and respectful to the living subjects they claim to 'summarize.'
Finally, just to answer your question about why 'Arab citizens of Israel' does not deny Palestinianness while 'Israeli Arab' or 'Arab Israeli does.' While "Arab citizens of Israel" does not emphasize Palestinianness, it does not deny it. However, at this stage, in the context of war, the word "Israeli" does deny the word "Palestinian" - one cannot be both at this stage in the conflict (because Israelis and Palestinians are, on the national, if not individual, level, enemies, and one cannot be the enemy of your own people). "Arab citizens" acknowledges their rights as citizens without putting them in the position of being an enemy to 'the other' or 'themselves' whoever that is in a given situation. "Arab Israeli" forces upon them a tortured identity ("my country is at war with my people"), rather than a positive one (I am a citizen with equal rights)LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 02:07, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Again, you are asking for eggshell-walking. The war is not happening on wikipedia. The accepted nomenclature for peoples who inhabit a country whose heritage is from another is another-countrian. African-American, French-Canadian, German-Swiss, etc. You can not reasonably ask wikipedia to take a stand in this actual or perceived 'war' between peoples and make awkward category and article names to demonstrate such bias. Your request is unreasonable and silly. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 03:26, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)You clearly have not been looking at these pages recently as dozens, probably hundreds, of these categories are in the process of being renamed "Fooians of X descent" (example) - another factor not yet brought into this debate. You also don't understand the meaning of "German-Swiss" I'm afraid. Which "other country" do 'Arab citizens of Israel' draw their "heritage" from, btw? If a name is regarded as objectionable by people it is applied to, then WP policy is not to use it if there are reasonable alternatives, as there are here. See policy links above. Johnbod (talk) 03:36, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is true that I am not a frequent viewer of cat discussions, and I am/ was unaware of the other renamings you mentioned. I have accordingly modified my recommendation above, although I still don't like it... but I acknowledge that I do not have to like it. My main concern is that we should not have multiple categories to promote pov-forking, and that the cat should generally have the same name as the main article, and that the cat name should not be confusing to readers or editors, and must not promote a bias. Thanks, Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 22:27, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Isreali-Arabs would be people in an Arab state who originally come from Isreal... that would be completely wrong for the intended use of this category. It's just plain simple: Arab-Isreali. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 03:29, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your explanation -- it clarifies why you would consider 'Arab citizens of Israel' to be preferable to 'Israeli Arab' or 'Arab Israeli'. My concern is to avoid settling for a substandard title, to avoid choosing a title that does not reflect a neutral point of view (or gives undue weight to a minority view), and to avoid choosing a title that reflects the personal feelings or opinions of Wikipedia editors rather than the judgments of reliable sources. (That is, a neutral encyclopedia should primarily seek to reflect the real world, rather than trying to change it.) For that reason, my first preference is still Israeli Arabs, as it reflects the most prevalent usage.
However, in light of the fact that (1) I am, so far, the only one in this discussion who has endorsed that option, (2) the main article is presently located at Arab citizens of Israel, and seems to have been at this title for approximately one year, (3) a category should generally reflect the naming of its corresponding main article and, as Johnbod notes, the title for a topic should generally be chosen on the article's talk page, (4) Arab citizens of Israel and Arab Israelis are in approximately equal usage, (5) Arab citizens of Israel is apparently the title that is least offensive, and (6) we should not continue to have two categories, I have amended my initial recommendation to note that a rename to Category:Arab citizens of Israel is my second preference. –Black Falcon (Talk) 03:47, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have also modified my recommendation,in the spirit of compromise. See my replies above and my updated recommendation att he top. Thanks, Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 22:27, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Always good to see people changing their votes after discussion, which three of us have now done here, myself included. Johnbod (talk) 01:16, 24 May 2008 (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.

Category:Canadian songs by artist[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:Songs by Canadian artists. Otto's arguments are very persuasive. If these are songs by Canadian artists, and even Bearcat says that "a work by a Canadian artist is released in the United States doesn't make it an American work ... it makes it a Canadian work", then in order to keep the information intact and keep the size of Category:Songs by artist lower, it should be named as such. Kbdank71 13:32, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:Canadian songs by artist to Category:Songs by artist
Nominator's rationale: Merge - subdividing Category:Songs by artist along nationality lines really doesn't work, given the international nature of music release. At the very least, this should be renamed to Category:Songs by Canadian artists although again, I find little value in such a scheme. Otto4711 (talk) 22:31, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Songs by artist is getting much too large to be useful; the first page of the category doesn't even get to the letter C. No vote, just $0.02 for the pot. Bearcat (talk) 18:16, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that it's massive and we should be looking at ways to break it down, but by nationality isn't it. Perhaps simply alphabetically, with each letter of the alphabet being a subcat? This would require maintenance to keep the parent cleared but is doable. Otto4711 (talk) 19:54, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the value of these becomes more apparent if you look at it from the "songs by country" side of the equation — while a lot of them obviously aren't all that large, the four major English-speaking countries which have the largest songs-by-country categories (UK, US, Canada, Australia) have now been diffused down to "(Country)-(genre) songs" subcategories, and some of the others are at least partially diffused as well. And the British cat is additionally diffused down to Welsh, English and Scottish (but not Northern Irish yet) subcats. From that side of things, there is value in having a subcategory which allows the reader to browse all of the relevant artist categories on a single non-genre grouping. IMO, anyway. Bearcat (talk) 19:16, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The problem remains that calling a particular song "Canadian" (or whatever nationality) does not take into account the complexities of music releasing. k.d. lang, for instance, is a Canadian national but has recorded much of her catalogue outside of Canada, and ger songs are released in Canada, the US, and any number of other countries. What determines that a song is a "Canadian song"? Where it was recorded? Where it was released? The nationality of the artist? Why is a song by an artist included in this category any more a Canadian song than a song by any other nation in which the sone was recorded or released? Otto4711 (talk) 00:56, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • How is music different from film, literature or television? The fact that Corner Gas is aired on an American TV station doesn't make it not a Canadian TV show; the fact that Away From Her was screened in the US and got nominated for two Academy Awards doesn't make it not a Canadian film; the fact that Margaret Atwood won a Booker Prize for The Blind Assassin doesn't make it not a Canadian novel. They're still Canadian, first and foremost, because they were created by Canadian artists. Why is music somehow different? Bearcat (talk) 01:43, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're pointing out a problem with the entire scheme of categorizing inanimate objects by nationality, which is an argument against compounding the problem by implementing it within another categorization scheme. Otto4711 (talk) 12:17, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The fact that a musical, literary, cinematic or artistic work has been released in more than one country doesn't change the nationality of the work's creation. The problem you claim to here simply doesn't exist. The fact that a work by a Canadian artist is released in the United States doesn't make it an American work if its creator isn't from the United States — it makes it a Canadian work that got released in the United States. Bearcat (talk) 22:13, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • So you're suggesting that the nationality of the recording artist is the deciding factor? What about a film directed by a Canadian director that is financed by an American studio, shot completely in the US and premiered in America? Is that a Canadian film? No. What about a film that is shot in the US, directed by an American dorector but features an all-Canadian cast? Is that an American or a Canadian film? If songs are somehow defined by the nationality of the person who recorded it, which I strongly doubt, then the category should be Songs by Canadian artists not Canadian songs by artist. Otto4711 (talk) 00:30, 13 May 2008 (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.

Category:Elmbrook School District[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. Kbdank71 16:24, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Elmbrook School District (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: 1) No other school districts in Wisconsin have a category, 2) this was created by a one-day-only editor, 3) the 2 articles in it are already in other appropriate categories, and 4) it serves no useful purpose. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 22:07, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose It groups four articles together. Expand the information for the district and make pages for other schools there. It is a useful category especially if it can eventually be applied to alumni, sports teams, and so on. Many universities have catagories, why not school districts. 1)it is a fallacy to say that an exception is automatically incorrect. Perhaps other wisconsin school districts should have them. 2) does it really matter who made it if it is worthwhile? 3)two articles? 4)it does serve a purpose, it groups together a set of articles related to a government designated school district which touches a great number of lives and has many aspects that could be treated by an encyclopedia. DaronDierkes (talk) 11:59, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nominator's Rebuttal A common way for US school districts to serve this purpose is to have the school articles link to the ISD article and have feeder schools link to each other, as is the case in this district. Another common way is to have a template for the school district that lists all the schools. Categories have a place in Wikipedia, I just don't think a category is the best way of keeping schools within a school district together. Their relative lack of use in school districts compared to direct links or templates supports this argument. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 13:52, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. No precedent for every school district to have a category. A nav template works well here. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:01, 12 May 2008 (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.

Category:Gil Grand songs[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. Kbdank71 16:23, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Gil Grand songs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Category that is currently empty and will probably never be needed again. Caldorwards4 (talk) 21:08, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question? Why will it probably never be needed again? Anyway, if it's empty for 4 days it can be speedied. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:47, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There were two songs in the category, both of which were stubs that Caldorwards4 redirected to the album they were from shortly before nominating the category. I don't know about never needed again — while I personally agree with Caldorwards' edits in this case (both articles were unreferenced stubs which did absolutely nothing to explain what made the songs notable enough for independent articles), the category will be valid again if somebody comes along at a later date and writes better articles about one or more of his singles. Delete, but do so without prejudice against recreation if we have genuinely keepable articles about Grand's songs in the future. Bearcat (talk) 19:27, 10 May 2008 (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.

Musical groups[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename all. Kbdank71 16:21, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Stoner rock groups to Category:Stoner rock musical groups
Propose renaming Category:Rap metal groups to Category:Rap metal musical groups
Propose renaming Category:Glam metal groups to Category:Glam metal musical groups
Propose renaming Category:Folk metal groups to Category:Folk metal musical groups
Propose renaming Category:Christian metal groups to Category:Christian metal musical groups
Nominator's rationale: Consistency with other, similar, categories. See Category:Heavy metal musical groups and Category:American musical groups J Milburn (talk) 18:57, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have merged these very similar nominations to facilitate discussion. --Eliyak T·C 04:42, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thankyou, appreciated. J Milburn (talk) 15:55, 8 May 2008 (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.

Category:Avant-garde metal[edit]

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. Kbdank71 16:21, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:Avant-garde metal to Category:Avant-garde metal musical groups
Nominator's rationale: This category (other than the article on the style itself) is just a category for bands of the genre. As such, it should be named in the same way as others- "[genre] musical groups". See Category:Heavy metal musical groups and Category:American musical groups. J Milburn (talk) 18:45, 7 May 2008 (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.

Category:English-Sierra Sierra Leonean people[edit]

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. Kbdank71 16:20, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:English-Sierra Sierra Leonean people to Category:British people of Sierra Leonean descent
Nominator's rationale: Obvious typo (two Sierras), it seems to include several non-English Brits, and the order is backwards (should be Sierra Leonean-English people). Propose renaming to the "X people of Y descent" convention to prevent such confusion, and changing English -> British to include the British people from outside England. jwillbur 17:14, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I ve put the rest that don t follow the British people by Fooian descent pattern up for rename on the May 9 list of nominations Mayumashu (talk) 00:36, 9 May 2008 (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.

Category:Wake me for Wikifun[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Delete - Note: The page has been marked historical, and (at the time of this closure) the userbox looks like it'll be joining the page. - jc37 22:21, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Wake me for Wikifun (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: This MfD is currently ongoing as to the fate of the seemingly abandoned WikiFun project has been closed as 'keep but mark as historical'. This category is filled only through the WF userbox, and that is also up for deletion. If the WikiFun pages get deleted or marked as historical [which at the time of listing seems highly likely], then this category is useless and should be deleted. RichardΩ612 Ɣ |ɸ 16:07, May 7, 2008 (UTC)
  • The proper venue for this is WP:UCFD, as it is a user category. That being said, delete regardless of the outcome of the MfD. This is what watchlists are for. VegaDark (talk) 21:05, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Full ack. delete. -- Ravn (talk) 14:08, 10 May 2008 (UTC) (original creator of this category)[reply]
  • Delete regardless of better procedure since the creator agrees and as long as no substential objections are made. gidonb (talk) 20:23, 11 May 2008 (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.

Category:George W. Bush Administration scandals[edit]

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. Kbdank71 16:20, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:George W. Bush Administration scandals to Category:George W. Bush administration controversies
Nominator's rationale: Merge, This should be quick. The target category is already well populated and more neutral in wording. Something might also ought to be done about the consistency of capitalisation of Administration/administration categories. BigBlueFish (talk) 15:53, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. --Eliyak T·C 04:30, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
support. You're right, controversy is more pc than scandal DaronDierkes (talk) 12:06, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. gidonb (talk) 20:21, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. I know this isn't a vote but he said it so well. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 02:35, 12 May 2008 (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.

Category:The Westfield Group[edit]

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. Kbdank71 16:19, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:The Westfield Group to Category:Westfield Group
Nominator's rationale: Merge, alternative names for the same company. Companies own profile (2nd sentence) indicates "the" is not part of the title. Westfield Group article title also doesn't begin with "the". XLerate (talk) 09:06, 7 May 2008 (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.

Category:Films made before the MPAA Production Code[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: no consensus. WoohookittyWoohoo! 10:18, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:Films made before the MPAA Production Code to Category:American Pre-Code films
Nominator's rationale: First, the title of this category implies that all films made before the Production Code was adopted, from the 1890s on, are eligible for inclusion - surely not what its creators intended. Second, Pre-Code is the common name for these films and we need not get too technical - perhaps even eliminate "American" from the new name, as all such films were by definition American. Third, the Code was actually adopted in 1930; it wasn't really enforced until 1934, but a literal reading of the present title would imply pre-1930 films, when in fact it's 1930-34 it should cover. Biruitorul (talk) 07:20, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I believe your proposal is attempting to undo the results of this discussion. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:22, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I wasn't aware of that - thank you. However, I think I outlined some solid reasons for a move which weren't raised two years ago. Biruitorul (talk) 00:51, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The previous discussion had much more discussion. While the nomination proposes a different take, without significant support I don't see a reason to change. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:03, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's not my fault more people haven't commented here. I've made three good arguments for the change; I'm ready to defend them, but "I like things just the way they are" doesn't give me much to work with. Biruitorul (talk) 05:14, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question - am I correct in my understanding that films made outside the US were, to be released in the US, still required to meet Code standards? Otto4711 (talk) 23:14, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, while overturning a prior discussion is not prohibited - it has been over a year and there is no evidence of gaming going on - it should be done with due care and consideration lest it reopen a cycle of counter-proposals. I think the more common parlance is "pre-code film" rather than the more technically and grammatically correct version we have now. That said, go with simplicity and common words rather than the fancy or formal when there is no real loss of specificity - as here. But I understand Vegaswikian's position so I won't be too upset if I end up as a lone dissenter (again). :-) Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:07, 14 May 2008 (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.

Category:Ecotaxes[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. Kbdank71 13:20, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:-importance articles (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - "Eco" here is undefined and confusing; many taxes might be spun as having an "Eco" element in it, though maybe only under certain conditions. Looking through Category:Taxation and identifying when to mark a tax as partly or truly 'green', all or some of the time, is subjective and POV. The current list is small and would only grow significantly if a very broad interpretation was taken. Therefore a category is the wrong mechanism as it is better described through a list or links within the Ecotax article itself. Ephebi (talk) 06:20, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - "Ecotax" is defined in the ecotax article, and the "eco-" prefix is defined at Wiktionary. Whether or not something should be included is decided in ecotax or its own article; for example, severance tax will be included if an article for it is ever created. The ecotax article does not (as of this writing) have any neutrality disputes. As per WP:CLS, lists and categories can both be useful and are not mutually exclusive. --Explodicle (talk) 13:38, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Ecotaxes are in the eyes of the beholders. There are those who think that sales taxes are regressive and such taxes that keep people in poverty hurt the environment; others think we should heap sales taxes on polluting things to help the environment. Which is the ecotax? A tax on latex condoms? they aren't biodegradable, an ecotax, right... but population growth being the #1 cause of eco problems, certainly an anti-ecotax. Ditto road taxes based on weight of automobiles: batteries and hydrogen fuel cell cars weigh more, etc.... Pure POV. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:11, 14 May 2008 (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.

Category:Medieval sites in Irael[edit]

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: Speedy Delete per C1; Empty Category. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 17:26, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Medieval sites in Irael (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: mis-spelled. Blueberrybuttermilkpancakes (talk) 05:22, 7 May 2008 (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.

Category:Ugartic kings[edit]

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: Speedy delete per author request. VegaDark (talk) 04:06, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Ugartic kings (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: misspelled name. Blueberrybuttermilkpancakes (talk) 03:52, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm putting this up for deletion - I hope this is the right place.
  • Since you are the creator & it is empty, you can speedy it yourself - see the main CfD page for how. Johnbod (talk) 03:59, 7 May 2008 (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.

Subcategories of Category:Non-governmental organizations by country[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: no consensus, defaulting to keep as is. There does need to be consistency and some cleanup though. Wizardman 03:26, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[Country] NGOs

NGOs in [Country]

Non-governmental organisations in [Country]

Per the convention of Category:Organizations by country, rename all to "Non-governmental organisations based in [Country]". Black Falcon (Talk) 03:25, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep until sorted That does not reflect how the categories now work - in many cases they are "operating in" not "based in". The two Burma articles are based in the US and Germany, the one Equador article is based in the UK. See also Lesotho, Peru and ? Nepal. It might be best to add such aid NGOs cases to "operating in" sub-cats, when they only operate in a few countries, in which case I would support. Since most counties (but not Thailand) seem to fall in one group or the other, many would be fixed by changing the nom above. Johnbod (talk) 03:32, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think categorising NGOs by the countries in which they operate may not be a good idea. Aside from the problem of category clutter on articles about NGOs that operate in dozens of countries, such categories would also be "current" categories with unstable membership. The operational scope of many NGOs is in constant flux, and local offices are opened and closed all the time. Black Falcon (Talk) 03:41, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Certainly in many cases, but Oxfam etc don't figure in this way & many are set up for a very specific target area. But many of the individual noms above are clearly incorrect. Johnbod (talk) 03:50, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm willing to do the necessary sorting for these categories if there is consensus for a specific system of categorising NGOs. If there hasn't been discussion on the topic previously, perhaps this discussion can produce one. Black Falcon (Talk) 04:01, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - If the subcategories are to be changed to "Organisations", then the parent category should probably follow that same naming convention. Or was the spelling difference inadvertant? VegaDark (talk) 04:06, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or rename other way. The vast majority of NGO's acting in Vietnam or Thailand are based outside these countries. So, to my mind, we should keep the existing names of the categories or call the Category "Organizations operating in Vietnam" (or Thailand).Ans-mo (talk) 05:48, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think "...operating in [Country]" would be clearer than the current format. However, such a categorisation scheme would not be unproblematic. As I noted above, it could create category clutter on articles about NGOs that operate in many countries, and it would also be difficult to maintain, since the operational scope of many NGOs is always expanding or contracting. Black Falcon (Talk) 20:09, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all with respect to the suggested change. Better would be to change to an improved format. My first preference is [Countri]an NGOs (e.g. Belgian NGOs) and cleanup the cases mentioned above, e.g. for Burma. Mentioning every country where an NGO may (temporarily) operate seems cat flooding to me. If cleanup idea is dismissed, my second preference would be NGOs in [country] (e.g. NGOs in Belgium), as already the case for Bangladesh and Sierra Leone. gidonb (talk) 00:21, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Is the better solution here to create the suggested categories and then populate? The problem with the organizations tree is that it was a mess the last time I looked in detail. I see the suggested merge as a reasonable start in cleaning these up. Is a rename really bad since it follows how organizations are listed for other types of organizations? Vegaswikian (talk) 01:50, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change. I prefer the new category suggested. (Ekabhishek (talk) 07:41, 10 May 2008 (UTC))[reply]
  • Rename per nom but retain organizations as the spelling. This categroy tree needs a vast overhaul. The fact that Black Falcon has offered to do the cleanup after the change is a key factor. We need to start somewhere. Do a rename that addresses the vast majority and leaves a small number for cleanup rather then the opposite which is much more work. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:08, 12 May 2008 (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.

Category:-importance articles[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. Kbdank71 16:13, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:-importance articles (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: will not be populated, creaded with random text, poor category name. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 00:17, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete pending some sort of explanation of the category from the creator. Not exactly sure what this is supposed to be used for, perhaps a poorly named attempt at creating a category similar to Category:Articles by importance? VegaDark (talk) 01:52, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Creator's first edit. Johnbod (talk) 02:30, 7 May 2008 (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.

Category:Victims of genocide[edit]

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. Kbdank71 16:12, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Victims of genocide to Category:Genocide victims
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Irregular name to regular name. If possible, please speedify. gidonb (talk) 00:16, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all the subcategories follow the form "[foo] genocide victims", no reason parent should be different. -Icewedge (talk) 04:10, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom.--Lenticel (talk) 22:12, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose. Category:Victims has both. Neither one seems better, so I say leave as is. --Eliyak T·C 04:34, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The standard form is Category:Victims of two or more words or Category:Oneword victims. Other cats under Category:Victims follow the standard form. Regards, gidonb (talk) 14:16, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see no compelling reason not to rename for consistency, per nom. Cgingold (talk) 02:06, 11 May 2008 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_May_7&oldid=1144625404"