Welcome to the MedLibrary.org Wikipedia Supplement on Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 June 23 -- 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: delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 09:36, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Category:People with the initials ZZ - (|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Nominator's rationale: serves no useful purpose whatsoever. ninety:one 20:49, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

• delete. Overcategorization, see WP:OC#SHAREDNAMES (Avoid categorising by a subject's name when it is a non-defining characteristic of the subject, or by characteristics of the name). --The very model of a minor general (talk) 20:53, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
• Interesting, perhaps, but delete as overcat, as TVMOAMG said [isn't the word "modern" missing from that username, btw?] Bencherlite^Talk 21:48, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete as overcat per The very model. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:23, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
• Comment: How can we keep a category that doesn't include people who actually go by the name "Z.Z." -- like Z. Z. Hill and ZZ Packer. And for that matter, what about ZZ Top? (Sure, it's a band, but bands are made of people... ) And then, of course, there's the issue of implicit ethnic bias, which has been completely overlooked. Has no-one else noticed that fully half of the 16 people listed are of Arab descent? Clearly this category would be met with great puzzlement in the Arabic-speaking world. So if it were to be kept, it probably should be renamed or otherwise restricted to non-Arabs with the initials ZZ. Cgingold (talk) 23:33, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

• Tongue-in-cheek comment - does that mean that Category:Double names can come back if renamed/limited to non-Welsh people with double names?! Bencherlite^Talk 23:37, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

• Hey, I think we're onto something! Cgingold (talk) 04:49, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Delete One of the stupidest categories I have ever come across. PatGallacher (talk) 23:35, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

• ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ...., er I mean delete, per all of the above! Lugnuts (talk) 07:57, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I created this cat because in certain contexts it would provide a useful reference. Let the balance of views decide whether it stays or goes. The overcat point is well made, thanks. I believe that subjective views such as "serves no useful purpose" or "one of the stupidest categories I have seen" are not valid grounds for a decision. Ptelford (talk) 18:03, 24 June 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 Category:Afro Asian Americans to Category:African Americans, Category:Asian Americans and Category:Afro Asians. Angus McLellan (Talk) 09:38, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Propose renaming Category:Afro Asian Americans to Category:American Blasian people

Nominator's rationale: listed are American citizens who are Blasian, of mixed Black African and Asian ethnicity. Note, the supercat page is also nominated for rename, just below, also for greater clarity Mayumashu (talk) 18:09, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

• Remark Surely this is a triple intersection and should be upmerged to Category:African Americans, Category:Asian Americans, Category:Afro Asians? There should be some limit to the spread of these wretched categorisations. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 19:39, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I would support a triple upmerge, to the ones Roundhouse names plus Category:Afro Asians, nominated for rename just below Mayumashu (talk) 04:39, 24 June 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 Category:Afro-Filipinos to Category:Ethnic groups in the Philippines and Category:Afro Asians and Category:People of Filipino descent. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:08, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Suggest merging Category:Afro-Filipinos to Category:Afro Asian Americans

Nominator's rationale: listed are not Filipinos, but Americans of mixed Black and Filipino descent. Note:Category:Afro Asian Americans is nominated for rename to Category:American Blasian people above Mayumashu (talk) 17:55, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

• Merge per nom (and then upmerge per above) – articles are indeed all about Americans of some sort. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 19:45, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
• Triple upmerge to all of the parents except "Ethnic groups in the Phillipines" Johnbod (talk) 15:59, 25 June 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 TO RENAME. Postdlf (talk) 05:22, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Propose renaming Category:Afro Asians to Category:Blasian people

Nominator's rationale: people listed are Blasian and we have Category:Eurasian people Mayumashu (talk) 17:50, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment As a 'complete idiot' to whom the acronym ECHR (cfd below) is meaningless I risk further obloquy by confessing that I have never heard of the term 'blasian'. Also the article has only been at Blasian for a few days and an editor is objecting (around June 9th) to the word 'blasian' even being included in the article (see page history). So I have reservations about this. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 18:38, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

• Reply It looks to be slang with some currency in cyberspace and therefore is likely a poor choice (upon second thought). It's still better however than "Afro-Asian", another hyphenated term whose meaning is very ambiguous, so I changed/reverted change to have it the primary term used on the article page (despite that one contributor's objections, nearly everyone to comment on the article page's talk page uses 'Blasian' and not 'Afro Asian', even when the article page was named 'Afro Asian') It s likely a term that s been a neologism and is becoming one entering general usage. The apparent equivalent "Eurasian" is of course a formal term, but likely less so in its designating someone of mixed Asian-European ancestry. Category:People of mixed Asian and Black African ancestry and Category:People of mixed Asian and European ancestry are alternatives, although lengthy, which may be best. The problem with deleting both is that they have already been deleted and recreated a few times - there is some wish amongst wikip readers to have these and their corresponding article pages. Mayumashu (talk) 19:10, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

• I am pleased to concede that I have heard of 'Eurasian'. Is Blasian a US term or am I merely out of touch? -- roundhouse0 (talk) 19:32, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I don t know but I suspect it is - taking a peak at its use in cyberspace, I noticed that a number of sites concerned African-Americans. I think, when there are no better alternatives and if an explanation is provided at the top of the cat page, using a colloquialism would be okay for naming a cat page, in lieu of no alternative. For me, 'Afro(-)Asian' is the far bigger problem Mayumashu (talk) 19:46, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

The origins of the term "Blasian" are glaringly absent from the article, which isn't terribly surprising because it is clearly a neologism that hasn't passed into general usage -- and as such would be unsuitable for a category name. I'm sure that an awful lot of people have heard that golfer Tiger Woods refers to himself as a "Cablinasian", but that too would be inappropriate as a category name. Cgingold (talk) 20:31, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

• Further comment Many of Category:Afro Asians on inspection are actually Afro-Asian-Foos (mostly American, some West Indian), ie a triple intersection. So upmerges would be feasible (eg to Category:African Americans and Category:Asian Americans, or using Fooians of Asian/African descent. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 00:33, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't follow this. Since neither Africa nor Asia are nations, obviously all will have at least one nationality. That does not make this a triple intersection, since the category does not bring in nationality, nor gender, nor religion etc etc. Johnbod (talk) 15:55, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I thought Afro-Asian meant people of African descent in Asia. Like the Siddi. This is how I've seen the term used in demographics of nations. (Yeah I know it's Wikipedia so "how does this relate to US/UK is important, but still...)--T. Anthony (talk) 04:18, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
• "Blasian" isn't the standard or official term for people of mixed Asian and African heritage; it's a neologism that hasn't been widely adopted outside of the fanbases of a few specific "blasian" celebrities. (IIRC, Tiger Woods invented the term himself as his own racial self-descriptor.) In fact, the article has been at Afro-Asian for about a year and a half, and was moved to the title "Blasian" by Mayumashu only a few minutes before this nomination was posted. I'd support renaming the category, but to Category:Afro-Asian people instead of the nominated proposal. "Blasian" shouldn't be used in a category name on Wikipedia until such time as it actually becomes a standard terminology. Bearcat (talk) 14:48, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

"Afro-Asian", as T. Anthony brings up, is more a descriptor of an Asian person of African descent. I did make the edit based on this and how the term 'Blasian' is commonly used, such as how its used with regularity on the article page's talk page. I think what our discussion here illustrates is that neither term is that appropriate and I m quite sure there is no formally accepted term equivalent to Eurasian, which, is the adjective form of the land mass "Eurasia" - its use to indicate biracial Asian/European quality is just as neologistic as Blasian Mayumashu (talk) 14:59, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

• Rename to Category:People of mixed Asian and Black African ancestry per Mayumashu, weeding out any this does not fit. Blasians is a little-known slangy neologism & "Afro-Asian" is confusing, as explained above. Johnbod (talk) 15:55, 25 June 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) 09:44, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Category:Paradigm shifts - (|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Nominator's rationale: This category identifies topics as "paradigm shifts", a la Thomas Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. However, the very idea of a paradigm shift, much less the assignment to that category of any particular development in the history of science, is something that has never been uncontroversial. In fact, rather than a historical category used by professional historians, the term has seen far more use by scientists trying to establish the significance of work they are connected with. Any legitimate use of this category, except as a historiographical category collected works that discuss the concept of a paradigm shift, would require numerous citations, and even then would be open to challenge (since many historians would argue that there is no such thing as a paradigm shift). Delete. --ragesoss (talk) 13:23, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per sound analysis of Ragesoss. Except for the main article, the rest of the contents deal with particular instances of "paradigm shifts", so even if we were to add Kuhn's book there doesn't appear to be enough to justify salvaging with a rename. Notified creator with {{subst:cfd-notify}} Cgingold (talk) 19:59, 23 June 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: listify. Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:58, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Category:Red Tories - (|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Nominator's rationale: Despite the note in the category about what articles are suitable for inclusion, this category is a mess. Everybody has a different idea of what the term means, and the addition of this category is virtually never cited. Even if it was, though, the category is of little use, because the term's definition is so amorphous that it's possible to find reliable sources categorizing people as "red tories" for wildly different and even contradictory reasons. Best to simply delete it. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 08:39, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - from reading the article, it seems to me that this is a specifically Canadian subject. As an Englishman, the term is meaningless to me. At the very least the headnote needs to define the term more precisely. However, the nomination suggests that this is a POV category, even an attack category. I do not feel qualifed to judge and so No vote. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:35, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. As a Canadian, I can agree with nom that the category is of little use due to a lack of any decent inclusion criteria. Some few might self-identify with the term, but more often than not I think it's been used by "true-blue Tories" and their supporters to disparage members of the party/movement who have made efforts to work with the "other side of the political aisle". At the end of the day, there simply is no standard that can be used to determine whether or not someone is a Red Tory — it's not a political party; it's not a caucus group within the party; it's not even a club. It's just a term that's thrown around, kind of how "Rockefeller Republican" used to be used in the U.S. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:22, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

• Interesting comparison. I'd say both groups are/were less cohesive than the Blue Dog Democrats, which have a list in their article -- but not a Category:Blue Dog Democrats. I'm not sure how I'd lean on such a category, but in this case I'm inclined to support deletion per Sarcasticidealist & Good Olfactory. Cgingold (talk) 05:10, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

• Listify I think the last ones left standing are Orchard, Joe Clark, and Elsie Wayne. A Red Tory is a member of the Conservative (Progressive Conservative, etc) Party of Canada, whose political outlook/agenda is between that of the Liberal Party of Canada and the NDP/CCF/Progressives. (ie. left of the centre-left party) 70.51.10.4 (talk) 06:50, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

• The trouble is that evaluating such a political outlook is completely arbitrary (as is the characterization of the Liberals as "centre-left"). Moreover, the examples you give fail by your own definition, since Clark and Orchard are no longer members of a Conservative party (Orchard's a Liberal, Clark has given no indication that he holds any party membership). As for Wayne, given that most of the headlines she's made in the last decade have been the result of telling gays to stop being so damned flamboyant, I don't think many would place her as being between the Liberals and NDs. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 06:58, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

• For what it's worth, I don't see anybody in the category whose inclusion is in any way problematic — everybody here fits the headnote as written, and almost all of them are historical or retired figures who don't pose a problem when it comes to determining what, if anything, the term means today. That said, I agree that the category isn't actually helpful, as it's essentially a violation of WP:OC#OPINION. We don't subcategorize members of any other political party on earth by which particular faction they identify with: we don't have subcategories for business Liberals, the Waffle, Rockefeller Republicans, Blue Dog Democrats, etc., and consequently shouldn't have this one either. Listify and delete. Bearcat (talk) 12:49, 24 June 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 Category:Summer of worms to Category:Computer worms. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:02, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Category:Summer of worms - (|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Nominator's rationale: Only 3 entries, accompanied this deleted article. Wongm (talk) 06:08, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

• Upmerge to its parent Category:Computer worms. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 10:27, 23 June 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 Category:People from Salvadore, Bahia to Category:People from Salvador, Bahia. Angus McLellan (Talk) 09:46, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Propose renaming Category:People from Salvadore, Bahia to Category:People from Salvador, Bahia

Nominator's rationale: Per the name of the main article. Hikikomori.hk (talk) 05:46, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

• Added to June 17 entries, moved here and category tagged. Bencherlite^Talk 06:06, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
• Rename per main article at Salvador, Bahia. Bencherlite^Talk 06:06, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
• Rename per main article at Salvador, Bahia. Is this not a speedy (spelling error)? -- roundhouse0 (talk) 10:28, 23 June 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 Category:ECHR case law to Category:European Court of Human Rights case law and Category:ECHR to Category:European Convention on Human Rights. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:00, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Again: it's got to be European Convention on Human Rights case law - not Court, because there is also the old European Commission on Human Rights, which also had a body of jurisprudence. It would not make sense to have two different categories.

Propose renaming Category:ECHR case law to Category:European Convention on Human Rights case law Category:European Court of Human Rights case law

Category:ECHR to Category:European Convention on Human Rights

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Expand abbreviation. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:31, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Support - ECHR makes little sense otherwise. Wongm (talk) 09:11, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

• Rename per nom - expand abbreviation. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 10:29, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

• Object: See what I've said below. It's a pain in the arse to write out "European Convention on Human Rights". I'm afraid if ECHR makes little sense, then you are truly an idiot. Of course I don't believe for a minute that it doesn't make sense to you!!! Of course it does. Every law student who does a human rights course will know this abbreviation. Wikidea 10:41, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Kindly refrain from personal attacks. I do not like being degraded by implying that I am a lawyer. Since you are searching for alternatives, maybe you would like to suggest a rename to something that includes Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms which apparently is the correct name. Being an expert in this area, I'm surprised that you are ignoring the fact that ECHR is completely ambiguous in that two of the meanings are European Convention on Human Rights and European Court of Human Rights. The length of a category name is not the issue since they are not frequently used and are commonly copied and pasted from related articles. Clarity for everyone is the important factor. The fact the lawyers may know what it means is not a consideration. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:18, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Why write it out? Just copy & paste. Johnbod (talk) 16:02, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

• Rename as nom. The abbreviation will be obvious to English-speaking European lawyers, but WP is an international encyclopaedia and abbreviations will not be obvious to Americans, Australians and Indians. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:38, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
• Comment surely European Court of Human Rights case law, as per the subcategories. Tim! (talk) 17:04, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Updated. I believe that this only applies to the first nomination and not the second. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:43, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
• Comment I note there is the parent Category:ECHR based on the article European Convention on Human Rights, which should also be expanded, for the sake of 'complete idiots' the world over. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 17:31, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Added to nomination. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:24, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
• Rename per nom for clarity and usual expansion of abbreviations for category names. "I do not like being degraded by implying that I am a lawyer." Ah, User:Wikidea's comments just made that one too easy, didn't they ? ... Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:10, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh lighten up you big twits! I said you weren't idiots. I've got a question: do categories redirect? It always seemed to go wrong when I tried before. I won't object to that if you tell me how that could work. You say we cut and paste; but I tell you - as one editor who spends most of his time writing, rather than doing administrative stuff - it's a big pain to be copying and pasting, and not so easy. But if I can put in Category:ECHR, etc and have it redirect then we have a solution.

FYI though, the correct abbreviation of the European Court of Human Rights is ECtHR while it's ECHR for the Convention. And it has to be Convention - not Court - case law, for the reason I stated below.

Also, I think that you should really all be a little sensitive to the points I raise. Appreciate that I know what I'm talking about. I know the policy is to expand, rather than abbreviate and that's probably right in most cases; but that doesn't necessarily mean it's good in all cases. I expect you guys are more concerned with this page generally - and I'm sure do a good job here - rather than look at the particular articles. But the policy is not a rule. If it was then it would get very boring. Wikidea 22:44, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Lighten up? I was enjoying the joke; I thought I was being "light". Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:20, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

It wasn't aimed at you. Can the people who started this silly debate reply to my questions and remarks? (redirects - Convention not court - wasting time) Wikidea 11:18, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

What about the conventions to expand abbreviations is causing you a problem? The resulting size of the category name is not a consideration in this. We expand US and UK and just about everything else. It is a rather simple convention. If you want an exception, you really need to make a case for why following the existing well supported convention should not apply here. I don't see you doing that. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:35, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, fair enough: the only reason I'd say there should be an exception is that it doesn't seem sensible to make Wikiwriters (like me) type out the full name rather than ECHR every time. I think that you haven't made a good enough case for why a blanket rule should always apply. Think about it: anybody who clicks on the category will have already seen in the article what ECHR stands for. And everyone who clicks on the category will see what it means in the title blurb to the category. But my main question was, is it possible to have redirects for categories? Do you know? If you can have redirects, there's no problem, because I can just go on putting Category:ECHR case law (etc) down the bottom of pages. Wikidea 02:36, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

See Category:UK labour law for the best that be done with category redirects. You will have to get used to copy and paste; or Hotcat; or AWB if there are a lot of them. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 09:41, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

That's a real pain isn't it?? Surely there's some bright Wiki-spark who can reconfigure how these categories work? Hopefully you all agree with me that writing out long names is a pain in the behind? It's a bit odd that we can redirect pages but not categories. We put a man on the moon, we created Wikipedia... Wikidea 17:12, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Typing something out with a long name is a pain? Well, maybe, especially if you are a slow typer, but that pain seems to be a basic fact of life that WP isn't and shouldn't be trying to solve by creating a proliferation of unnecessary abbreviations in text or categories. This isn't the cell phone text-type encyclopedia. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:06, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

• Rename both per final nom. Johnbod (talk) 16:02, 25 June 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 Category:ECHR cases with the UK to Category:European Court of Human Rights cases involving the United Kingdom. Angus McLellan (Talk) 09:58, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Propose renaming Category:ECHR cases with the UK to Category:European Court of Human Rights cases involving the United Kingdom

Nominator's rationale: Rename to expand abbreviations and to match the standard naming of Category:ECHR case law. Full version was created some time ago; shortened version was created very recently and the contents of the older category were emptied into it. Bencherlite^Talk 02:20, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Support - ECHR makes little sense otherwise. Wongm (talk) 09:12, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

• Rename per nom - expand abbreviations. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 10:30, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

• Hold on As I've posted on Bencherlite's page: It should be obvious why I changed the name though: "Category:European Court of Human Rights cases involving the United Kingdom" is a pain in the arse to type out. Is this what you had put in to begin with? I was planning on shortening the other ones too.

  Also, it's inaccurate. I'm putting cases under those categories that come from the old Commission. You don't want to have the title "Category:European Court (or Commission) of Human Rights cases involving the United Kingdom" do you? That would be even more or a pain in the arse, an even greater waste of time, and even stupider than debating about this! :)

  To add to that, everybody who is a lawyer always uses the ECHR abbreviation (ECtHR for the Court itself - and I think "UK" is quite familiar too). If people don't know the abbreviation, then I suspect that they won't be doing categorising work (or creating new pages) to begin with. Maybe you three should reconsider. Also, keep in mind that I did this because I was installing quite a few new article pages. Wikidea 10:38, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Categories aren't there just for those creating articles or categorising pages, and ECHR pages / categories aren't just for (us) lawyers. Abbreviations are generally spelt out in full in categories: see point three of the general naming conventions. And as for your other point, perhaps Category:European Convention of Human Rights cases involving the United Kingdom (and similarly for the other countries) would be better? Bencherlite^Talk 16:38, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Are you saying that this was the result of a rename that was done out of policy? Vegaswikian (talk) 19:31, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
• Rename as nom - the abbreviation will not be obvious to non-Europeans. Yes it is a mouthful, but you have to learn to put up with that. Copy and paste is a convenient way of putting soem of these mouthfuls in. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:41, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Support. This nomination is supported by ample precedent. The fact that there are two uses of the abbreviation in the immediate area, as pointed out in a later discussion, is more that ample reason to follow president in this case. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:28, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
• Rename per nom for clarity and usual expansion of abbreviations in category names. It may be a mouthful, but it's still not as big as some; I'm thinking of Category:General presidents of the Young Women organization of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and other similar dandies ... Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:13, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
• Rename per nom. Johnbod (talk) 16:04, 25 June 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 all. Kbdank71 19:00, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Propose renaming

Category:People from Kyoto to Category:People from Kyoto (city)

Category:People from Nara to Category:People from Nara (city)

Category:People from Osaka to Category:People from Osaka (city)

Category:People from Fukuoka, Fukuoka to Category:People from Fukuoka (city)

Nominator's rationale: as per conventional naming (Category:People from Rome (city), Category:People from Lagos (city), Category:People from Dublin (city) etc.), to disambiguate clearly from Category:People from Kyoto Prefecture, Category:People from Nara Prefecture, and Category:People from Osaka Prefecture. A renaming to Category:People from Kyoto City, etc. would also work, a la Category:People from New York City, as it would reflect local naming disambiguation ('Kyoto-shi no shusshin no kata') Mayumashu (talk) 03:03, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

• Why not Category:People from Nara, Nara etc? Following the standard naming patter {{city name, prefecture name}} makes sense to me. Taku (talk) 07:53, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

The way I see it, 'Nara, Nara' etc. does not follow the naming pattern that is near conventional now (using the disambiguate (city)), nor reflects local naming convention - in Japanese you d never state your 'shusshin' as 'Nara no Nara' but rather 'Nara-shi', and is too colloquial(ly American) to be applied to category page naming, particularly to those that do not relate to the U.S. Mayumashu (talk) 16:45, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

True, you wouldn't say "Nara no Nara," but that's a contrived example. If someone is going to disambiguate in speech, they'd say "Nara-ken, Nara-shi." As "Nara, Nara" is the most direct English equivalent of "Nara-ken, Nara-shi," I have no problem with renaming the categories to follow this pattern. -Amake (talk) 00:47, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

If we go "Nara, Nara", then the article should be renamed the same way; and, that would definitely need to be discussed at the MoS page. Neier (talk) 08:43, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

• Rename - My preference is for the Xyz (city) formulation, but I could accept the other, too. Anything but the Xyz, Xyz plan. Cgingold (talk) 10:32, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
• Rename per nom. This format seems to be gaining wider acceptance, and it's better than Xyz, Xyz in light of how Japanese people actually refer to cities. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:16, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
• Strong oppose the nom, per WP:MOS-JA naming convention, and voluminous discussions which have already taken place there. Neier (talk) 21:46, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
• Rename "Kyoto City" and the like is absolutely not acceptable per WP:MOS-JA. While I prefer the "City, Prefecture" pattern, I think it's important that Japanese articles are consistent with the rest of Wikipedia. -Amake (talk) 00:51, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I think it is more important for all the Japanese articles to be consistent with themselves. Since there is only one city named Matsuyama, but, multiple towns, how is it better to name the three towns Matsuyama, Prefecture, while changing the city article to Matsuyama (city) just because other countries have that format on Wikipedia? Neier (talk) 08:33, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
• I would support the formats Category:People from Kyoto (city) and Category:People from Kyoto Prefecture, but would oppose the formats Category:People from Kyoto City or Category:People from Kyoto, Kyoto, per WP:MOS-JA. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 03:06, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
• Comment: I also want to comment that it is courtesy to notify parties who are likely interested in these discussions (such as a WikiProject). Notification was made someone other than the nominator today, four days after the discussion began. This comment is meant merely as a reminder only, and no ill will is intended. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 03:08, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
• Neutral, but comment: Though a bit outside the scope of this discussion, there needs to be a WikiProject discussion concerning the 'people by Japanese city' categories: At least some of the existing ones suffer from unnecessary underpopulation(i.e.,Nagoya), designated cities that could use such categories currently lack them(the biggest examples include Saitama-shi and Sapporo),and certain large to mid-level non-designated cities on this list have at least 20 natives with Wikipedia articles and could support their own 'people from' categories(three that already do are Kurume, Nagasaki, and Toyonaka. Just a thought... Ranma9617 (talk) 20:36, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

• I still don't want to see the naming convention of the Japan project be broken by this discussion, but, as to your question, there was an earlier discussion at WP:MOS-JA awhile back (Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Japan/Archive/August 2007) that resulted in a large CFD that cleared out most of the underpopulated categories. The bar was set pretty high in the discussion (40-50, 50-100, 20-30); but, the CFD focussed only on cats with less than ten people. The only designated city with a cat wiped out in that discussion was Sendai, and it's back with much more entries than it had before. Neier (talk) 13:52, 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 Category:Ship disambiguation to Category:Set indices on ships. Angus McLellan (Talk) 09:49, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Propose renaming Category:Ship disambiguation to Category:Set indices on ships

Nominator's rationale: Rename. The category is for set index articles, not disambiguation pages. JHunterJ (talk) 01:42, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

• Support - this fits in with the new set index structure - mountains has already moved over to using the system and other set indices have been created and slotted into the structure. This is the last big tidy up. (Emperor (talk) 02:34, 23 June 2008 (UTC))
• Rename per nom and Emperor.--Lenticel ^(talk) 04:41, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
• Rename per nom and Emperor. I also note that 'a set index article can be entertaining' and prepare for hours of entertainment. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 10:35, 23 June 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:Russo-Angolan relations per guideline [1] (fewer syllables go first). Kbdank71 19:13, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Category:Angola–Russia relations - (|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Nominator's rationale: Category with only one article and no reason to believe more articles will be including. Suggest either deleting or merging into appropriate categories for Russia and AngolaThomas.macmillan (talk) 00:10, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment It now has 3 articles, a prodigious rate of increase. There is also Category:Foreign relations of Russia by country so it is part of a coherent (if inconsistently named) structure. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 01:21, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

• NB Russavia (Россавиа) has emptied Category:Foreign relations of Russia by country and moved everything to Category:Bilateral relations of Russia using AWB (all on 29 June). This is not how to proceed. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 13:22, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment I will cease with this, and it was done in order to have a full category so that a useful structure can be demonstrated as part of the obvious necessary management of many categories relating to the WP:FOR wikiproject, as it may be the case that unless a valid structure is shown that some editors may not be able to see exactly how categorisation works. --Россавиа ^Диалог 14:11, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment The category should at the very least be renamed to conform to naming standards and the proper article name, Russo-Angolan relations.--Thomas.macmillan (talk) 01:44, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose As the creator of these categories, they are necessary to categorise articles within the series of articles relating to Foreign relations of Russia. Although some of these articles contained within may be stubs at present, the move to create them has come about by the reformatting done by myself of List of diplomatic missions in Russia and Diplomatic missions of Russia. Already within the nominated category we have Angola–Russia relations, Embassy of Angola in Moscow, Embassy of Russia in Luanda, and in future there will be Ambassador of Russia to Angola, Ambassador of Angola to Russia. All part of fighting systematic bias, something which WP seems to suffer from in terms of Russian and lesser country articles. --Россавиа ^Диалог 02:05, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Withdrawing deletion request, now suggesting a simple renaming. Seems speediable?--Thomas.macmillan (talk) 02:09, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Further comment I would also oppose the so-called standard, which is only a guideline on a wikiproject, and not one which has much comment on. The article was originally at Angola–Russia relations, which has been moved to Russo-Angolan relations; the naming structure is very much a leftover of imperialist times, Anglo-this, Franco-this and Russo-that, it insinuates that the Anglo-/Franco-/Russo- part is the most important part of the relationship; and as to the standard, one can see that there is no standard, we have Anglo-Australian relations, British-Sanmarinese relations, Albanian-Greek relations, Category:British-Canadian relations, Franco-Greek relations, French-Ukrainian relations, Greco-Bulgarian relations, Greek-Israeli relations, Greece-India relations, and the list goes on. There is no standard, and oppose on that basis, plus for other reasons which can be discussed in a discussion on implementing a standard. --Россавиа ^Диалог 02:27, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
• Further comment It is the nom who is moving the article around during the cfd. Please desist. There needs to be some discusion about all the names in Category:Foreign relations of Foo by country. Foo-Bar, Fooian-Barian, whether it is en-dash, with or without spaces, and whether the word 'foreign' should be there (per the parent). I would myself suggest Category:Angola–Russia foreign relations or Category:Foreign relations between Angola and Russia (alphabetical order?). -- roundhouse0 (talk) 09:38, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

• There is for instance US-Canada trade relations (and no doubt others) as opposed to foreign relations. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 09:45, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
• I disagree that the naming structure is biased, as names such as "Sino" and "Indo" are also used instead of the normal "Chinese" or "Indian" and those countries were colonized as well. I think it is more accuracy. For example, it makes a lot more sense to call them Anglo-American relations then United Kingdom-United States relations, does it not? I think the first name is exceedingly more common. I think the standard is good and we should move all the inappropriately named articles to the proper names per Wikipedia:WikiProject International relations.--Thomas.macmillan (talk) 12:17, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

• I myself have no objection to following the guidelines (which perhaps need expanding - what are Anglo-Franco relations to be called?) at WP International relations (which seem to favour a simple dash with no spaces). There is BTW a great deal of work to be done in standardising Category:Bilateral relations. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 12:43, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Please provide evidence that it is more accurate? How is Greco-Bulgarian relations any more accurate than Bulgaria-Greece relation? The denonym Bulgarian can also be relating to the ethnic groups rather than nations. Again, there is no standard, the guidelines on that project are not, by evidence, the result of discussion by the community at large, but rather the opinions of one or two editors. Again, I object to using this Category for deletion discussion as a fora for discussing something which has wider consequences across WP, and it should be done by way of a Naming convention discussion, not at Categories for deletion. --Россавиа ^Диалог 18:30, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it is categories for discussion, so the discussion is quite relevant here. I do agree though that a more comprehensive discussion does need to take place on the topic. For the moment though, the category should match the current (and correct name, according to the wikiproject most relevant to the discussion). If you wish to change the practice of the wikiproject, start a discussion there and I will be happy to follow.--Thomas.macmillan (talk) 23:57, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Again I oppose, the article was at Angola–Russia relations, which you moved to Russo–Angolan relations without input, and I would request that it be moved back to Angola–Russia relations, and then listed on WP:RM for greater comment. --Россавиа ^Диалог 11:08, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment - Naming standards have been debated before on the International Relations project page. Does it need to be reexamined? Kransky (talk) 23:49, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment Yes, I believe it needs to be re-examined, as Category:Bilateral relations, Category:Foreign relations of Foo, and categories mentioned in this RFC on myself, are all out of whack, does not make for easy navigation, and there is also substantial over-categorisation and unnecessary categorisation in many places. The entire categorisation structure of the project needs to be looked at, and then there is the naming structure of articles which is also affected by categories, and vice versa. Take Category:Bilateral relations --Россавиа ^Диалог 14:06, 29 June 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.