Welcome to the MedLibrary.org Wikipedia Supplement on Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 July 4 -- Please Click to Return to Front Page

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 16:55, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Suggest merging Category:Bosnian diplomats to Category:Bosnia and Herzegovina diplomats

Nominator's rationale: Merge. Essentially duplicate categories, I think. New category "Bosnian" to be merged with older one ("B&H"). Most subcategories of Category:Bosnia and Herzegovina people by occupation use "B&H" rather than "Bosnian" when referring to people from the country; see 2008 FEB 08 CfD. Here there's no reason to use "Bosnian" rather than "Bosnia and Herzegovina". Notified creator with {{subst:cfd-notify}} Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:22, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Weak support and comment rename as per nom, however, the entire diplomatic category needs to be looked at. Are they Ukrainian diplomats, Diplomats from Ukraine, or Diplomats of Ukraine, using Oleg Dyomin as an example. It's not yet in the article, as I am creating stubs for the various Ambassadors to Russia at the moment, and will be adding more to each of them from each source as I go. Dyomin was born in the Russian SFSR in the Soviet Union, but is the Ambassador of Ukraine. He could go in a Ukrainian diplomats and Diplomats from Ukraine categories, but then he could equally go in Russian diplomats, Diplomats from Russia and even a Diplomats from the Soviet Union category, given his place of birth. However Diplomats of Ukraine would be the most succinct category, as it doesn't imply any nationality or ethnicity, but the of Ukraine denotes that they are acting for Ukraine. Instances can, and have, arise where a diplomat is regarded as coming from one country but is a diplomat for another, e.g. a diplomat of the UK who also acts as a diplomat of Germany, particularly common pre-1900s. We see many variations within Category:Diplomats by nationality. We have Category:Lebanese diplomats, yet Category:Lesotho diplomats; why not Category:Basotho diplomats. Perhaps it is a lot of people wouldn't know what Basotho means. But would people know that Category:Burkinabé diplomats relates to Burkina Faso. We have Category:Central African diplomats for diplomats from the Central African Republic, however the category name at first glance could look like a region, meaning Category:Rwandan diplomats and Category:Ugandan diplomats could go in there, after all they are Central African. We have Category:Dominican Republic diplomats, even though the demonym is Dominican, of course Dominican is also the demonym for people from Dominica. Why Category:Australian diplomats, and not Category:New Zealander diplomats. Why Category:Kyrgyz diplomats, but not Category:Kazakh diplomats and Category:Tajik diplomats (sorry, but even if the CIA uses the terms, Kazakhstani, Tajikistani and Uzbekistani sounds just so wrong - I don't know anyone from these countries, whether they be ethnic or Russian, who use those terms as their denonym). And why Category:Diplomats of the Holy See, and not Category:Vaticanese diplomats (yes, Vaticanese is used on WP in some places, as wrong as it sounds). The Holy See example exemplifies why this category needs to be looked at - they are diplomats representing the State (government), their nationality isn't important in the slightest. By all rights Category:Diplomats by nationality should be renamed to Category:Diplomats by country, and other categories renamed to Category:Diplomats of Australia, Category:Diplomats of Ancient Rome, Category:Diplomats of Kazakhstan, Category:Diplomats of Lesotho, etc, etc. That's my 2к. --Россавиа ^Диалог 03:47, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

My nom only addresses this one category. I agree someone could/should begin a discussion on the other issues mentioned, but many of them are issues that have been hashed out in previous CFDs: e.g., the Dominican/Dominican Republic/Dominica issue. Also, you confuse adjectives with demonyms in at least the New Zealander/New Zealand example. Demonyms are nouns, not adjectives, and the adjectival form is often different than the demonym. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:12, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

• Rename all to "Diplomats from [place]" per Россавиа, using proper names rather than counter-intuitive demonyms. I realize this is not the current convention for sovereign countries, but the "X from Y" scheme has been remarkably stable for cities, states, and anything else sub-national. This looks like a good place to start. — CharlotteWebb 16:25, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
• Merge per nom, per naming in both parent cats Category:Diplomats by nationality and Category:Bosnia and Herzegovina people by occupation. (Changing to 'From foo' needs a general discussion. I agree that some of the demonyms are very obscure but there is a list at List of adjectival and demonymic forms of place names.) -- roundhouse0 (talk) 18:16, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
  • The comments made by Russavia on adjectives I find a bit strange, since s/he first complains about the obscurity of the demonyms/adjectives, and then complains that the ones s/he's familiar with (which are probably obscure to other users) aren't "correct". We can't have it both ways. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 19:32, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

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: delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:00, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Category:Goh Lee Kwang albums - (|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Nominator's rationale: Procedural completion of nomination for Legotech; my guess is that Twinkle couldn't find the target page again. All of the albums in this category are up for G6 (I did that) because the artist isn't notable, so there's no reason to keep their pages around either. were deleted per G6/G11 and the category is now empty. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 23:01, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

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: delete. Kbdank71 16:46, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Category:Businesspeople from Cincinnati - (|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Category:Businesspeople from Pittsburgh - (|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Nominator's rationale: Occupation by city categories were previously deleted in 2007. Has consensus changed? If so, why? Merging into the appropriate parent state category is probably most appropriate. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:06, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

• At first glance it appears that 26 of the 27 known "businesspeople from Ohio" are in fact from Cincinnati, and that 56 of 59 "businesspeople from Pennsylvania" are in fact from Pittsburgh. It wouldn't be unreasonable to assume that the majority of businesspeople by location categories are grossly underpopulated, so I would consider this a work in progress which might ought to be revisited in the future. — CharlotteWebb 16:37, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per prior CFD, or delete/upmerge as blatant overcategorization. Individuals are categorized by profession. Many notable individuals have multiple professions. Individuals are also (regrettably) categorized by their association with subnational entities (whatever "from" can be stretched to mean), sometimes (regrettably) as far down as neighborhoods. Most notable individuals are associated with multiple subnational entities. If we then intersect profession with subnational entities, the categories just multiply out of control. There's also never any way with these categories to ensure that the individual's profession was actually tied in some way to the subnational entity in question, so it all becomes completely trivial and arbitrary. Postdlf (talk) 01:34, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

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: no consensus. Kbdank71 16:53, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Category:Baltic diplomatic missions (|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

• Probable delete (or rename if kept).

• I might be inclined to support retaining this category if there were more articles with substantial content directly pertaining to the stated subject. There are small bits of info in the biographical articles, but not really enough, in my estimation, to justify a category. If kept, it should be renamed more narrowly to better reflect its intended use. Notified creator with {{subst:cfd-notify}} Cgingold (talk) 09:51, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

• Support nom. Suggest something like Category:Diplomatic missions of the Baltic states (1940-1991) if kept. There might well be more material than the present 4 articles (3 seem to be about Latvia). -- roundhouse0 (talk) 10:44, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
• Since all but 1 are diplomats, Category:Diplomats of the Baltic states (1940-1991), with new parents, might be better. Or is there a cat for WWII/Cold War governments in exile? Johnbod (talk) 16:10, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
• Rename. I am the author of the category and I would agree with the suggestion to rename it to Category:Diplomatic missions of the Baltic states (1940-1991). This really was the purpose to devote the category to WWII/Cold war Baltic diplomats and diplomatic missions in exile. The sole reason why only one mission is mentioned there is that there are no articles yet about Estonian and Lithuanian missions (although someone should create them). Also, there are several other diplomats to add to this category, but they also do not have their articles yet (for Latvia Arnolds Spekke should be added, for Estonia - Johannes Kaiv, as well as Juozas Kajeckas, Stasys Backis for Lithuania. I noticed that Povilas Žadeikis and Stasys Lozoraitis from Lithuania already have their articles, so I'll add them to the category. Avellano (talk) 4:46, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
• Support REname but if the intention is to deal with the missions of governmetns in exile, should not the phrase "in exile" appear? I assume that the relevant SSRs did not conduct foreign affairs and so had no diplomatic missions. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:57, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

• The tricky case here is that diplomatic missions are per se located in foreign countries, so a phrase "diplomatic mission in exile" may seem a bit strange. At the moment, there is no direct relation of this category to governments in exile of these countries. Governments were detached from diplomacy at that time. See List of Heads of State of Latvia for an insight. Avellano (talk) 15:21, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:31, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

• keep and rename to Category:Diplomatic missions of the Baltic states (1940-1991). Despite any problems this name may have, the other suggested alternatives are worse. This name does describe the contents Hmains (talk) 18:47, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
• Delete as the articles contained therein are not articles on Diplomatic missions, but on the heads of missions. If the article subjects held the diplomatic rank of Ambassador, then move them to Category:Ambassadors of Foo, if they were mere diplomats, then to the relevant Category:Diplomats by nationality category. --Россавиа ^Диалог 04:04, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
• Strong delete. Agree with Russavia. In addition, we have already created Diplomatic missions of Estonia, Diplomatic missions of Latvia and Diplomatic missions of Lithuania. Feel free to add pre-1991 details of those countries diplomatic missions (not personalities) in those articles. Kransky (talk) 07:06, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

• 'A diplomatic mission is a group of people from one state or an international inter-governmental organization (such as the United Nations) present in another state to represent the sending state/organization in the receiving state.' Seems about right. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 01:46, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

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. Kbdank71 16:44, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Propose renaming Category:Theology of the Body to Category:Catholic theology of the body

Nominator's rationale: The proper noun "Theology of the Body" is the name of a book containing a series of speeches by Pope John Paul II. This category contains articles on theological thought relating to the human body, and is not restricted to articles related to JPII's work. Therefore, the article title should not be a proper noun. Also, all the articles in the category are about Catholic thought, so adding "Catholic" would make it more descriptive. Lyrl^Talk _C 15:27, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

• Rename per nom. Johnbod (talk) 17:30, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
• Rename. Theology of the Body is a clever commercial product in book CD and other forms, based on 190 speeches of the Pope, (who to the best of my knowledge never used that title. Nor did Pope Benedict XVI use or even mention this commercial title or related speeches in in his encyclical Deus Caritas Est on the same topic. But a Catholic theology of the body exists, as discussed earlier here and the proposed renaming makes a lot of sense. --Ambrosius007 (talk) 19:43, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

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. Kbdank71 16:44, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Propose renaming Category:CSKA Moscow footballers to Category:PFC CSKA Moscow players

Nominator's rationale: Rename. WP:FOOTY uses clear guideline for categories of football players. If the name of the club is distnict only to a football club, "players" from should be used. CSKA Moscow is a multi-sport club but PFC CSKA Moscow is its football section. In the same manner we have Cat:HC CSKA Moscow players for ice hockey players. Renaming is therefore a logical step in further standardizing our WP:FOOTY stuff. Darwinek (talk) 13:40, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

• Rename - per nom + Category:PFC CSKA Moscow + article PFC CSKA Moscow. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 13:45, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
• Support - per nom. For future reference, if you want to attract attention to a deletion/renaming discussion, add a link to the discussion to the table at WP:FOOTY rather than posting it on the talk page. – PeeJay 13:48, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
• Support - categories should match article titles. пﮟოьεԻ 57 13:52, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
• This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related page moves. – PeeJay 14:09, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
• Support - This is a category for people who play for PFC CSKA Moscow. It makes much more sense for it to be at Category:PFC CSKA Moscow players. Dan1980 (talk ♦ stalk) 19:25, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

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 Category:Early German cinema. Kbdank71 16:38, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Propose renaming Category:Films of the Second Reich to Category:Films of the German Empire

Nominator's rationale: The terms "First, Second and Third Reich" were coined by the Nazis, so it's more appropriate to use the official term "German Empire" instead when referring to the period between 1871 and 1918. Wulf Isebrand (talk) 12:50, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - I don't think either of those names is satisfactory. To the average reader, "Films of the German Empire" would suggest something quite different from what's intended. I can see why Category:Films of Weimar Germany and Category:Films of the Third Reich make sense, because the cultural scene in Germany was so heavily influenced by the politics of those eras. But I don't see that as a valid rationale for naming this particular category. Perhaps something more along the lines of Category:Early German cinema would do the job. Cgingold (talk) 14:23, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
• Strongly support: The official title is better known than the technically correct Second Reich. --Ambrosius007 (talk) 19:47, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

• It may or may not be somewhat "better known", but the main problem is that it's normally used in the context of German History, where its meaning is readily understood -- whereas in the context of film categories the meaning is ambiguous, and is more likely to be misunderstood as referring to "films about the German Empire", or something to that effect. And again, both of these names are entirely incidental to the cultural milieu of the era. Cgingold (talk) 20:00, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Second Reich was coined in 1923 (five years after the demise of the German empire) by the Nazi writer Arthur Moeller van den Bruck. In his book The Third Reich he called for what became later Adolf Hitlers infamous Third Reich. He labeled the German empire (1870-1918) as Second Reich.

The 2.Reich, an after the fact later Nazi concept, was not used in the years 1870-1918. One of the reasons being, that it would have raised red flags with some adjoining countries like Austria-Hungary, where the emperor considered himself the legal successor of the emperors of the Holy Roman Empire of German Nation. Wikipedia Second Reich states:,

• The term Second Reich (Zweites Reich) is sometimes applied retrospectively to this period. The term was popularised by German nationalist historian Arthur Moeller van den Bruck in the 1920s, and drew an explicit link with the earlier Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation (the "First Reich"), as well as underlining his desire for the establishment of a "Third Reich".[6] This term was subsequently adopted during the time of Nazi rule for propaganda purposes - and therefore its use among historians after World War II has generally been discouraged, as many consider it to give legitimacy to Nazi historiography.

The issue here is simple: Should we use the Nazi histiography which is also used by some Neo-Nazis in Germany today ^[1] or a neutral and common denomination German Empire--Ambrosius007 (talk) 09:18, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

• There is a good List of German films 1895-1918, so arguably the category is not needed - other countries seem just to have lists. Delete or Rename to Category:Early German cinema per Cgingold. A "silent films" category would have no problems. Johnbod (talk) 11:09, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comment films of Imperial Germany ? 70.55.84.66 (talk) 11:11, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comment "Films of the German Empire", "Films of Imperial Germany" or "Early German cinema", but what constitutes early? ... all this is much better than "Films of the Second Reich" --Ambrosius007 (talk) 17:08, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

• "Early German cinema" would be defined on the cat page as all films prior to those of the Weimar period, which already constitutes a set of boundaries in our categories. Cgingold (talk) 21:13, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I understand Cgingolds point. It's disputable, if films should be listed by political eras. However, if we keep this category, we should definitely change its name. --Wulf Isebrand (talk) 18:16, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

• Rename to Category:Early German cinema Cgingold's proposal, supported by Johnbod, to rename to Category:Early German cinema with the above specification (1870-1919) would be probably the best option, since the films were not "official "films of or by the German Empire. It would also account for Wulf Isebrand's concern, that films should not be listed by political eras --Ambrosius007 (talk) 08:07, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

• Rename to "Films of the German Empire". Early German seems too vague. Dimadick (talk) 23:41, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

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. Kbdank71 16:34, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Category:Ethnic political parties (|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

• Merge to Category:Political parties of minorities. This category has just a single article, the other is well-populated and better parented. Notified creator with {{subst:cfd-notify}} Cgingold (talk) 12:21, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Just because a political party is an ethnic political party, it doesn't necessary mean it is a minority political party. I have added two political parties to the category, those being, Nationalist Vanua Tako Lavo Party (Fiji) and Soqosoqo ni Vakavulewa ni Taukei. Both are parties which represent the political interests of ethnic Fijians; Fiji is a country in which ethnic Fijians make up the majority of the population. Also added to the category is the Māori Party, although the Māori are a minority in NZ. Ethnic and minority are two different concepts and there are instances where a political party could be placed in both categories, as the Māori Party example shows. I believe Template:popcat may be in order here. --Россавиа ^Диалог 06:38, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

• Very good point -- I hadn't given any thought to ethnic majority parties. Cgingold (talk) 21:07, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Strong Keep This category is at present underpopulated but has growth potential. It would not hurt, if it would be also listed as a subcategory to Category:Political parties of minorities. --Ambrosius007 (talk) 17:15, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

• If anything, it might perhaps make sense to reverse your suggestion, and make Category:Political parties of minorities a sub-cat of Category:Ethnic political parties. Cgingold (talk) 21:07, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

• In principle keep --Ethnic majorities may also have political parties. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:11, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
• Keep for the ethnic majorities - should one add the Nazis etc? The Minorities should logically be a sub-cat. Johnbod (talk) 22:23, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

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: delete. Kbdank71 16:30, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Category:Press-on-Regardless Rally (|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

• Delete & upmerge contents. - Overcategorization: only two articles in category. Notified creator with {{subst:cfd-notify}} Cgingold (talk) 11:59, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

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. Kbdank71 16:48, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

• Rename Category:Polish-Lithuanian relations to Category:Polish–Lithuanian relations — Dash error. Renata (talk) 17:16, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

• The same 'error' is present in every subcat of Category:Bilateral relations of Poland. Is there a guideline to assist us here? -- roundhouse0 (talk) 19:26, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
  • WP:DASH: en-dash should be used to indicate disjunction between some independent elements like two countries. Renata (talk) 15:29, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

• Good point - this should be made explicit at Wikipedia:WikiProject International relations#Bilateral relations. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 00:22, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

• Using anything other than the ascii minus sign on Enh105 keyboards would make things exponentially harder to use, and make sure that people will assuredly build duplicate categories for every single one where the dash is replaced, or we'll end up with thousands of {{categoryredirect}} categories, all requiring alot of bot maintenance. 70.55.85.123 (talk) 04:23, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose per maintenance issues and because we should avoid specialized characters in category names that really serve no purpose. The insistence on en- and em-dashes on Wikipedia is bizarre. Otto4711 (talk) 22:31, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I disagree with "serve no purpose"; it is proper style, and it contributes to clear and professional writing. Considering that the links to categories are mainly automatic, and that people rarely ever search for categories, I should not consider the redirecting issue so great. What is wrong with using {{category redirect}} templates? These categories are not supposed to move around, are they? One move, and we're done. What exactly does that "bot maintenance" comprise? Waltham, The Duke of 03:03, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Moved from speedy rename as contested - further comments below. Bencherlite^Talk 08:11, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose per Otto. I would gladly support a general proposal that article names and category names should only include characters available on a standard QWERTY typewriter in the 1950s. (By all means add all sorts of mysterious typographical twirls within the articles. As another point names such as Çaykur Rizespor below don't sort properly if left to themselves.) -- roundhouse0 (talk) 13:11, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose, but Rename to [Category:Lithuania–Poland relations (with the en-dash as per proper style), but leave redirects. Regardless of guidelines on WP:FOR, which for all intents and purposes have not been discussed anywhere, demonyms in this category should be avoided whenever possible. Due to the history of Poland and Lithuania, there would be such a thing as a Polish–Lithuanian, and as the articles are for all intents and purposes discussing relations between States (i.e. governments), IMHO, the state names should be used, in alphabetical order (so as to avoid the importance of one over the other), and so to avoid having articles/categories such as Anglo–Indian relations (Anglo–Indian is an ethnicity as well) as opposed to India–United Kingdom relations, Polish-American relations (Polish-American relations with whom?) as opposed to Poland–United States relations, Indo-Fijian relations (see where Indo-Fijian redirects to) as opposed to Fiji–India relations. That's my 2к. --Россавиа ^Диалог 04:24, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

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. Kbdank71 16:18, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

• Rename Category:Caykur Rizespor footballers to Category:Çaykur Rizespor players correct name of the club + "players" form should be used per WP:FOOTY guidelines — Darwinek (talk) 10:37, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Doesn't meet speedy rename criteria. I think perhaps we need to consider making the instructions more clear — i.e., specifically pointing out that categories can't be speedily renamed if they simply don't comply with a certain WP naming guideline. It's only ones found in Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories) or otherwise specifically listed above that qualify. See talk page where I've opened a discussion. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:49, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Then at least rename to Category:Çaykur Rizespor footballers to correct the first letter. - Darwinek (talk) 13:46, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Moved from speedy rename as ineligible - further comments below. Bencherlite^Talk 08:11, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

• Rename per nom. Bencherlite^Talk 08:11, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
• Rename per main article name and WP:FOOTY guidelines. - Darwinek (talk) 13:47, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

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. Kbdank71 16:11, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Suggest merging Category:Guatemalan people by national or ethnic origin to Category:Guatemalan people by ethnic or national origin

Nominator's rationale: all other member sub cat pages of Category:People by ethnic or national origin follow the later naming pattern. (Ultimately, I think the whole set should be renamed to Category:Fooian people by ethnicity or national origin) Mayumashu (talk) 04:28, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

• Merge per nom. Cgingold (talk) 05:42, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
• rename per nom per good pattern Hmains (talk) 23:30, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

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: delete. Kbdank71 16:10, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Category:Latin American and Iberian Britons - (|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

• suggest delete

Nominator's rationale: renomination based on a clean up, which has been completed (refer to the talk page of 'Cat:Lat Amer. and Iber. Brit.' for link to prior nom. of deletion discussion). Mayumashu (talk) 04:01, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - very bizarre union of categories (with an astonishing collection of alleged parents). -- roundhouse0 (talk) 12:56, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Away with it! Or else what's next, perhaps "American, Australian, Canadian, West Indian, New Zealander, etc Britons"? SamEV (talk) 00:37, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
• Distribute contents: Category:British people of Latin American descent; Category:British people of Spanish descent, Category:British people of Portugese descent. We recently changed a multitude of dual nationality categories in this manner. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:18, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

They have been Mayumashu (talk) 02:15, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

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.