Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 November 1

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 15:53, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all the subcategories that have been created back into Category:Earls in the Peerage of England.

• Category:Earls of Cambridge
• Category:Earls of Huntingdon
• Category:Earls of Northampton
• Category:Earls of Northumberland
• Category:Earls of Oxford
• Category:Earls of Warwick

Peerage titles in the British Isles are "non-territorial", meaning that the place may have had no real relevance to the person in question. To quote myself on the talk page of Category:Earls in the Peerage of England, "The placenames mentioned in the title are of little significance. They were allocated more or less at random and the family in question often had little to do with the place. Also the same earldom was often created more than once for different families, but if we were to subcategorise all the peers it would make more sense to do it by family - but there are probably too many complications involved to make that worthwhile. For a start it would have to be done by surname, but the surnames are usually less well known than the titles and they tended to change between generations due to compound names (see Duke of Portland for example." Another vital point is that some titles were created in more than one peerage (new peerages were created in 1707 on the Act of Union with Scotland, and in 1801 on the Act of Union with Ireland (see peerage of Great Britain and Peerage of the United Kingdom), so it follows that if all the articles in Category:Earls in the Peerage of England were recategorised by place, and those categories were made sdubcategories of Category:Earls in the Peerage of England numerous factually inaccurate indirect categorisations would occur. To put it is simpler terms, not all earls whose title is taken from a place in England are "Earls in the Peerage of England", some of them are Earls in the Peerage of the United Kingdom or Earls in the Peerage of Great Britain. There are articles for each peerage that put things into context and provide explanatory information that cannot be included in a category.
One of the above (Huntingdon I think) is a recreation of a category previously deleted following my nomination. The previous deletion had the support of the creator of the category. Carina22 23:19, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment What's the harm in keeping all of the subcategories? The place names may not have a straight-forward relevance, but they do allow for a finer granularity for categorization. So long as the parent category exists, I don't understand what the harm is in breaking it down further. --Bill Clark 23:29, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It will create massive inaccuracy. I have had to remove four articles from these categories and transfer them to the correct GB/UK category so the merger can go ahead. It may not seem important to people who are not interested in the peerage, but this is an encyclopedia, and it should be accurate. Subcategorisation will perpetuate misconceptions about the structure of the peerage, and encourage people to make the falso assumption that every "Earl of X" played some political role in X, when he may never have even visted the place. The categories do nothing that the articles don't do better, they just connect people who often have no real connection with one another while damaging Wikipedia's accuracy and undermining its credibility in the eyes of those of us who understand these matters. Carina22 23:38, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is there any reason for somebody to want to research the historical holders of a particular title? If it might sometimes be useful to know who held the title of (say) "Earl of Northampton" in particular (as opposed to an Earlship in the Peerage of England in generall) then I'd argue we should keep the subcategories. I'm also not clear on your claim that having the subcategories increases inaccuracy – do you mean that having more categories for Earlship increases the likelihood that the wrong Peerage will be referenced, simply in virtue of there being more than one category? Or do you mean something else, e.g. that the subcategories overlap or are non-exhaustive? --Bill Clark 01:10, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • The point on accuracy is that not all the holders of the same title held that title in the same peerage. Some Earls of Oxford were Earls in the Peerage of England and others were Earls in the Peerage of the United Kingdom, so if these categories are kept they will have to come out of Category:Earls in the Peerage of England in any case. As Carina mentioned there are articles on every peerage, including Earl of Cambridge, Earl of Huntingdon, Earl of Northampton, Earl of Northumberland, Earl of Oxford and Earl of Warwick. The articles give all the information one would need to do research that you won't find in the categories, such as dates, details of the separate creations, names of holders without articles, information on related titles and so on. Having a category for say the Earls of Northumberland is really useless because peerages are often upgraded. Umless you already know that it was replaced by the Dukedom of Northumberland you will miss the information on the last 250 years. The articles deal with that problem. Anyone who uses these categories for research is heading for a fail grade. Wimstead 02:19, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I can see that it is a natural assumption that sorting peerage titles by degree and nominal place will group the individuals in the same category as those who are most relevant to them, but this is not the case. Let's say that the Earldom of Sprogshire has been created twice. The first creation was in 1221 in the Peerage of England for an Anglo-Norman warrior, but the family and the title died out when Henry VIII had the 13th Earl executed in 1512. The second creation took place in 1894 in the Peerage of the United Kingdom, for the benefit of a German-immigrant banker. The banker's son was a cabinet minister in World War I and was elevated to a marquessate. If we have a category called Category:Earls of Sprogshire, then William Bournou, 13th Earl of Sprogshire (1486-1512) and Hans Laring, 1st Earl of Sprogshire (1823-1904) will be in the same category, but the latter will not belong in the same category as his own son (who will be in Category:Marquesses of Sprogshire, a subcategory of Category:Marquesses in the Peerage of the United Kingdom. Futhermore if Category:Earls of Sprogshire is included in Category:Earls in the Peerage of England, wikipedia will be declaring that Hans Laring was an Earl in the Peerage of England when he was no more any such thing than I am. Wimstead 02:29, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Thank you both for the detailed explanations. I've been thoroughly convinced and have registered my inclination to delete, below. --Bill Clark 02:37, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Looks like a good sized category. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 23:37, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could you please pay me the courtesy of showing some interest in the relevant issues? Size should not be the issue, but rather appropriateness and accuracy. Carina22 23:38, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. Wimstead 02:19, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Merge all per above. --Bill Clark 02:37, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge all and mark as deleted categories. My first thought was that yes of course they must go. My second was, "But what's the point? There have been at least two previous deletions of categories of this type and they will only be recreated. So perhaps subcategories could be created by peerage to deal with the inaccuracy problem." But then I thought through what a hideous complicated mess those categories would be. There would be up to three for each title, and in order to be user friendly each of them would need an introduction listing the separate creations and providing links to the related categories. This would include not only creations at the same degree of the peerage in other peerages, but creations at different degrees in the peerage in the same peerage. Anyone who wished to see all the articles would be directed to each relevant category in turn. But the common sense advice would not be to look at each category, but at the single article on that peerage. And where there were separate creations in the same family, eg. Earl of Northumberland and Duke of Northumberland the common sense category is one named after the family, ie Category:Percy family in this case, which can include family members who were not peers and other related articles such as articles about the family's residences. So my third thought was merge, and mark as deleted categories, and keep doing the same when any more pop up until they are all marked deleted. Osomec 14:31, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was duplicate, already being deleted --Kbdank71 18:26, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No vote, see September 23 discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ProveIt (talk • contribs) 17:54, 1 November 2006

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. the wub "?!" 11:30, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Forbes Global 2000 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
This category is not trustworthy as this list changes every year and there is no way for the reader to know whether all the entries in this extremely incomplete category are correct by the latest list other than to check them one by one. It is also rather dodgy to take another organisations list and reorganise it; I don't see how that stops it being a copright violation. A list can do a much better job, and can be annotated by industry, country, year the figures are for and so on. Wikipedia has its own List of companies by revenue. It may be incomplete, but it is more complete than this category and it is Wikipedians own work so it is free of copyright problems. Greg Grahame 22:26, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and replace by list (if allowed by copyright). --Bill Clark 23:32, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Looks like an abandoned project.Merchbow 18:28, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was no consensus --Kbdank71 15:47, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Finland-Swedish to Category:Finland Swedish

• Rename, cfr according to Finland Swedish and approved http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requested_moves&oldid=83456664#Uncontroversial_proposal Espoo 22:17, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Just because an article rename slipped by unnoticed doesn't mean the logic behind it is correct. Gene Nygaard 22:59, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Could you elaborate on why you think the logic behind this rename and the related article rename is flawed? At first glance, the "Finland" here seems to be just a regular adjective, and so no hyphenation is called for. --Bill Clark 23:34, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Gene, if you disagree, you should at the very least react to the arguments provided in the CFD proposal. Did you go to the link i provided and read this?: Finland-Swedish → Finland Swedish — English spelling of compound modifiers: "Finland-Swedish speakers speak Finland Swedish"; see Quebec French. This shows clearly when to use the hyphen and when not, in accordance with the basic English spelling rule concerning compound modifiers. http://socrates.berkeley.edu/~yuni/ling.html is a good example of a page written by an expert in Finland Swedish, and most other edu pages will be similarly careful when to use the hyphen and when not in the "same word" (expression), depending on whether it's used as a noun or an adjective, and then depending on whether it's before a noun or not. "Science-fiction writers write science fiction", not "science-fiction". --Espoo 06:21, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A big part of the problem is that you are using the rule you cite ass-backwards. Yes, a term such as "science fiction", which is normally not hyphenated, should be hyphenated when used as an adjective (at least according to some authorities). That doesn't say anything about the converse. Terms that are hyphenated as nouns are also still also hyphenated as adjectives. Gene Nygaard 12:49, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A bigger problem is that you're ignoring the obvious facts that i presented (including the experts referenced) and ones that you should be aware of as an educated native English speaker such as that "Finland Swedish" is used without hyphens by experts and that even you wouldn't spell "UK English" or "US English" or "Quebec French" or any other such language name with a hyphen. UK English still uses hyphens in a lot of compound nouns that are spelled either separately without a hyphen or as one word in US English, but the trend is in the same direction in the UK too. --Espoo 13:11, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be trying to hoodwink people into not noticing that the hyphenated "Finland-Swedish" is much more common than the unhyphenated "Finland Swedish" even when used in contexts other than as a compound modifier. Gene Nygaard 22:08, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You again claim something without anything to back up your claim and again refuse to react to the arguments and facts provided both for Finland Swedish and all other similarly constructed language names. This is ridiculous. Are you trolling? Your use of words like "ass-backwards" and "hoodwink" seem to indicate you're not only not interested in providing any sources for your claims or in looking at any facts and sources presented to you but want to instead attack or annoy me personally. Did you look at the expert's page and see all the careful distinction between noun and adjective use and corresponding use and non-use of the hyphen? Have you ever seen any text from a reputable source with "UK-English" or "US-English" or "Quebec-French" used as nouns? No, i didn't think so. --Espoo 22:36, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So many of the uses are compound modifiers, and sprinkled with the use of the same term for the people rather than the language, that it is actually hard to be definitive about anything. There are indeed a number of them using "Finland Swedish" (and some "Finland/Swedish"). There are also a number of them using "Finland-Swedish", including

• Uncyclopedia:Finland-Swedish: "Finland-Swedish is the most important language in the world."
• http://epc.buffalo.edu/authors/bernstein/cv-full.html CHARLES BERNSTEIN, University of Pennsylvania, Dissertation Director for: Fred Hertzberg, “Moving materialities: On poetic materiality and translation, with special reference to Gunnar Bjorling's poetry (Finland-Swedish) ” (2001)
• UCLA Language Materials Project: "They vary throughout the Swedish speaking area, and are completely lacking in native speakers of Finland-Swedish."
• http://www.ling.ohio-state.edu/~ilsele/ Ilse Lehiste, Professor Emeritus, Ohio State University, Recent Publications:

"Cross-linguistic comparison of prosodic patterns in Finnish, Finland-Swedish, and Stockholm Swedish." In: Stig Eliasson and Ernst Hakon Jahr (eds.), Language and Its Ecology: Essays in Memory of Einar Haugen. Trends in Linguistics Studies and Monographs 100. (1997). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Pp. 367-377.

• PEN American Center: "The Fund has given grants of $2,000-$3,000 to a total of 32 translations from 22 languages, including Hindi, Finland-Swedish, ..."
• Words without Borders: "provides financial support for the translation into other languages of both fiction and non-fiction written in Finnish, Finland-Swedish and Saami."

Gene Nygaard 00:58, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the situation is quite chaotic, as you noticed, but if one considers that most texts written in English about this small minority are written by non-native English speakers, it becomes obvious how to deal with those cases that violate established English spelling rules demonstrated by almost exclusive hyphenless noun use of other compound language designations such as Quebec French, US English, etc.

For non-native speakers, even academics, the English spelling rule that used to require and today no longer requires but still enables use of hyphens in compound modifiers (but forbids their use in nouns or in postpositioned adjectives) is very confusing. It's also confusing for native English speakers unless they're professional copy editors. No wonder that even native English academics may start to use "Finland-Swedish" as the noun form if they see it often enough that way in professional literature written by Scandinavians who think the hyphen should be in the noun too if they've seen it in the adjective in reputable sources.

My comments on the 6 links you provide are as follows 1) joke sites are not reputable sources of information on spelling or in fact on anything for a WP article, let alone a policy/rule dispute 2) could be a title written by a native English speaker but it is using the word as an adjective, not as a noun, and it is quite amazing how many even highly educated English speakers don't understand that they should write "well-written poetry is well written". 3) is the only real surprise here and i will ask them if they're sure about their decision or if it's a mistake 4) is a publication by non-native speakers and it is very common in today's academic world that these contain much worse errors than spelling idiosyncrasies (the simultaneous use of "Stockholm Swedish" shows that they didn't think and just wrote what they're used to seeing) 5) This is a small surprise because one would expect PEN to check spelling more carefully, but the fact that this is talking about a translations and not the language as such shows that they probably relied on the non-native English translator mentioned (Johannes Goransson, probably misspelled too) as an "expert" on how to spell the name of his language in English. 6) references the Finnish Literature Information Centre who of course use the erroneous form they're used to seeing in English in Finland.

In summary, your links do not contradict my claim that well-edited English texts by native speakers make a difference between the noun and adjective spelling and (even if they don't) they never use the hyphen in the noun. In addition to the sites i already mentioned, i found a few more, and these are all much more reputable than any of yours, even one of them being enough to outweigh all of yours combined:

http://www.ethnologue.com/14/show_language.asp?code=SWD

http://csufresno.edu/odin/igt_urls.php?lang=SWD

http://www.ling.lu.se/conference/fonetik2006/pdf/kim_fon06.pdf

http://countrystudies.us/finland/43.htm

http://www.ling.lu.se/conference/fonetik2006/pdf/kim_fon06.pdf (incorrectly spelled only once in the entire scientific paper and that only in the title of a non-native speaker's publication)

http://www.ling.gu.se/konferenser/fonetik2005/papers/Kim.pdf

http://www-news.uchicago.edu/releases/02/021227.kazazis.shtml from the University of Chicago news office would be enough to prove that it is OK to spell the language without a hyphen and that this whole discussion is a royal waste of time. We need to have the category using the same spelling as the article and there is no reason to prefer the spelling now in the category. On the contrary, it is absolutely senseless and in clear violation of Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dashes) (and according to Hyphens even for the adjective form(!): "Hyphens are generally not used in noun-noun... compound modifiers when no such confusion is possible") to propose a spelling that would be an exception to the well-esatblished English rule for spelling all other double-barreled language names! --Espoo 13:56, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That last exception is irrelevant, because when the noun form has a hyphen, it is never dropped in the compound modifier form. That only says that some people do not add it in compound modifiers. People who call the language "Finland-Swedish" will always say "Finland-Swedish grammar" with a hyphen as well; the exception mentioned there only means that some who talk about "Finland Swedish" without the hyphen as the name of the language might also say "Finland Swedish grammar" rather than "Finland-Swedish grammar", if they think "no such confusion is possible". Gene Nygaard 15:09, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename, per nom. I did the article move, but I have no stake in whether or not we use a hyphen. Espoo and Gene have presented cases for what they each think is right, and I suggest asking at some language article talk pages for further input. I find Espoo's arguments and sources more convincing, hence my support for renaming. I certainly see no reason to suppose than anybody is "trying to hoodwink" anyone. As far as I can tell, everyone in this discussion is trying their best to represent grammar as they understand it. If it's decided not to rename this category, then the article should move back, too. If that turns out to be the case, please feel free to let me know, and I can help with the move. -GTBacchus^(talk) 11:19, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the current spelling is a quite legitimate one, and there is no real reason for a change. But I really don't care that much where it is, I just don't like the logical fallacies involved in inverting the rule to claim that it implies the converse. It doesn't. Gene Nygaard 15:09, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Did you even bother to read what i researched and wrote? You are still ignoring the overwhelming amount of facts and sources presented. My mention of the compound modifier rule was only to help those that don't know about it and explain why both spellings are correct depending on whether it's being used as a noun or an adjective. The reasoning in my original post included and was mainly based on the model of "Quebec French", which is the normal situation with double-barreled language names. You were proposing that "Finland Swedish" be spelled with a hyphen although no other languages are and although it is spelled without a hyphen as a noun in almost all well-edited texts written by experts on Finland Swedish who are native English speakers. --Espoo 17:11, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Category:Finland-Swedish language (changed vote), because 1) looking into the hyphen issue made it clear that the ambiguity between Finland-Swedish language and Finland-Swedish people (including, e.g., "Finland-Swedish Americans" or "Finland-Swedish–Americans" and the like) is real, 2) in this case, it is used as a compound modifier so that it woundn't offend the sensibilities of Espoo's expert (some might omit the hyphen, but few would say the use of the hyphen is clearly wrong), 3) and this also means that it doesn't matter if the hyphen is missing in the main article where it isn't used as a compound modifier (though it might be a good idea to reconsider the name of that article for the same disambiguation purposes), and 4) many other languages such as Finnish language have the word "language" both in the article name and in the category name. Gene Nygaard 16:02, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is now beyond ridiculous. Whereas above you were in all seriousness defending a spelling that is different from that used by experts who are native English speakers and different from that for all similarly named languages, which was only ridiculous, you are now proposing a name that doesn't exist, which is in clear violation of WP policies. I will now ask several admins to put an end to this huge waste of time. (And your naive confusion of questions concerning the naming of languages and people does not belong here and only shows your complete ignorance of that issue too. In addition, the people who speak this language are Swedish-speaking Finns, so as US immigrants they would be called "Finnish Americans" or - only if the language has to be rarely mentioned - "Swedish-speaking Finnish Americans" or simply "Swedish-Finnish Americans".) The language "Quebec French" is not spelled with a hyphen and it is not called "Quebec French language" (and if it were, it would still not get a hyphen because the compound modifier consists of 2 nouns). This would already be enough reason to end this debate and accept my proposal. --Espoo 17:11, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly how is my proposing renaming it to something which does not exist yet different from you doing the same thing? Stop being silly. That's the most common thing we get on Categories for discussion. Gene Nygaard 17:57, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Did you even bother to read what i researched and wrote? You are still ignoring the overwhelming amount of facts and sources presented. I bothered to react to each of the mostly low-quality sources you presented, but you ignore my entire post and the collective expertise of most linguists who are English native speakers and experts in Finland Swedish and you only react to a small quote from the WP hyphen article. Now that is being silly. Just give up. The language is called "Finland Swedish" and so should the category. Nobody except non-native speakers ever uses "Finland Swedish" erroneously for the people. In normal English, "Finland Swedish" only means the language. Case closed. - But you seem to be more interested in debating than in writing an encyclopedia on the basis of established practice and reputable sources. I will take a look at your work on WP to see if this is the way you always work. --Espoo 18:43, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You've been saying all along that if "Finland Swedish" is proper for noun usage, then "Finland-Swedish" is proper as a compound modifier in "Finland-Swedish language", so why are you singing a different tune now?

I'm not; i've explained many times that the use of the hyphen is possible in the adjective but not required. I even quoted the relevant rule from hyphen.

Your sources above include http://countrystudies.us/finland/43.htm which never uses either "Finland Swedish" or "Finland-Swedish". Not something to build your credibility on.

Are you trolling again? If all the others quote experts and show that you've been talking nonsense all along, how does one page that accidentally slipped in and doesn't even mention the language prove anything about my credibility? What does your way of answering say about yours?

You have weird notions about the logicalness and uniformity of the development of languages. English is not a conlang. There are lots of factors which enter into usage, and which affect what we name our articles and categories in Wikipedia. There are a huge number of languages, for example, not just Finnish language (where one of the factors is the homophone "finish" and all its uses as a noun, verb, whatever), which include the word "language" in their article names and category names on Wikipedia. So why do you think this one should be different? Gene Nygaard 20:31, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are ignoring use by professionals in the field and use in well-edited texts by English natives. That means that anything you say that contradicts that (and all the rest of the above) is plain nonsense. --Espoo 23:23, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We have English language and Category:English language, Chinese language and Category:Chinese language, and ... I don't really need to continue, do I? Gene Nygaard 20:41, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure you didn't forget that i pointed out that double-barreled languages like "Quebec French" and probably most others don't have "language" attached. The only place that needs to be attached is when there is ambiguity. For a native English speaker, it's obvious that "Finland Swedish" is a language. In any case, even if we do decide to add "language", which would make a very clumsy and unnecessarily clumsy title "Finland Swedish language", that would not make it necessary or even advisable to add a hyphen. And the only reason you thought of adding "language" is because you didn't want to admit you lost the first debate. --Espoo 23:32, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please note Category:Central Indo-Aryan languages, which has six subcategories, Hindi, Hindustani and Urdu on one hand, and Marathi language, Punjabi language and Romani language on the other hand. Which is to say, there isn't exactly an unambiguous precedent as to whether the word "language" is used in category titles. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:06, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think "language" is and should be added only when it's necessary. In addition, it would be interesting to see if any double-barreled language names have "language" added. --Espoo 23:36, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I've solicited more opinions here, here and here. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:06, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please read this page if you can (it is in Swedish) [1]. It is a statement from the "Research Institute for the Languages of Finland", basically it says: "Use 'Finland Swede' about persons, 'Finland-Swedish' as the adjective and 'Finland Swedish' when talking about the language variant. After having consulted English experts, I can recommend the use of these terms for general use in English texts about Finland-Swedish circumstances". MoRsE 21:27, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No matter what you or Espoo recommend, we need to deal with the actual usage, and there are lots of variations, but the most important thing is that "Finland-Swedish" (with or without the hyphen) is used to refer to people much of the time, probably more often than it is used to refer to the language. The ambiguity exists; burying our heads in the sand won't change that. Gene Nygaard 22:21, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here you go again claiming something without anything to back it up, and what you claim is once again nonsense. No educated native English speaker ever uses "Finland Swedish" for the people. In normal English, "Finland Swedish" only means the language. "Swedish" is not a possible noun for people. Wikipedia terminology cannot be based on errors made by Finns or Swedes in talking or writing English. Apparently you're not a native English speaker. The only grammatically correct possibilities in English are "X Swedes" and "Y Finns". Despite the above quote from the Research Institute for the Languages of Finland, the correct term for these people is "Swedish-speaking Finns" as was settled in Talk:Swedish-speaking_Finns#Requested_move in a move proposal that received only support and no opposition, in addition to which the support included two professionals in the field. It is hard to find a better-supported and clearer move discussion on WP. The research institute will have to change their old-fashioned and incorrect recommendation for the name of the people because the people have themselves decided to change their name as described in the move proposal.

It's typical for your manner of arguing that you mention one irrelevant link that accidentally slipped in and that didn't support my point (but also didn't speak against it!) and ignore all the other evidence demonstrating that well-edited texts by native speakers use only "Finland Swedish" for the language and never for the people and never with a hyphen when used as a noun. There is no need for the addition of "language" because it is obvious to a native English speaker that "Finland Swedish" used as a noun is a language. --Espoo 23:05, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, you wander off point. "Swedish" is, of course, a possible adjective relating to people, as well as relating to the language, and the same is true, of course, for "Finland Swedish". Gene Nygaard 19:00, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You know nothing about these people or the situation; they are Finns, and so "Finland Swedish" as an adjective would be as incorrect as "Swedish" in talking about these people. Both "Finland Swedish" and "Swedish" apply only to their language, not to the people themselves. And you continue to ignore the proof that their language is called "Finland Swedish" by English-speaking experts (and without a hyphen), which means that this is what WP should use. You also continue to ignore the fact that other double-barreled language names like "Quebec French" and "Swiss German" and probably all others do not need the addition of "language" for native speakers and would be unnecessarily clumsy with the unnecessary addition. The people are called "German Swiss" and the language "Swiss German" and nobody goes around proposing the additions "people" or "language". --Espoo 19:15, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. --RobertG ♬ talk 09:56, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Black people (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Categorisation by skin colour is pernicious, which is perhaps why Wikipedia does not have Category:White people, Category:Yellow people, Category:Brown people or Category:red people. It is just a perverse form of political bias to treat black people differently. Skin colour does not determine whether people have encyclopedic accomplishments.Greg Grahame 22:10, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment What would the criteria be for inclusion? Objective standards for racial classification are very much lacking, which is why most studies (that I know of, at least) rely on self-categorization. I can understand why this category might be useful (to highlight the accomplishments of members of historically repressed or under-appreciated groups, for instance) but it seems too prone to abuse. Also, why not Category:Red-headed people or Category:Left-handed people? --Bill Clark 23:40, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Wilchett (I agree that an encyclopedia isn't appropriate for the use I described, now that it's pointed out to me more clearly.) --Bill Clark 16:52, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and Bill Clark. "Highlighting the accomplishments of members of historically repressed or under-appreciated groups" is the role of Black History Month and the like, not that of an encyclopedia that has neutrality as a core policy. Wilchett 01:53, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and per Wilchett. Additionally, a category based on skin color is even less significant and definitive of a subject individual than a category based on ethnicity, which has at least grounded itself to a specific cultural context (such as African Americans). As the article black people explains, "Latin Americans, former members of the British Empire, and US Americans all use the term differently." Anyone voting keep should really try to explain in depth why this is needed as some kind of supercategory for more precise ethnic classifications, or how it can be applied meaningfully absent clear criteria of who belongs to it. Postdlf 03:22, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and per Wilchett and per Postdlf. Osomec 14:33, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. There was Category:Left-handed people [2] and Category:Red-haired kings (Nov 2006) and many others, equaly useless and bad as this one. Pavel Vozenilek 16:21, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per nom
• Delete per nom. Olborne 10:18, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 15:44, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Finland-Swedes to Category:Swedish-speaking Finns

• Rename, according to Swedish-speaking Finns and result of Talk:Swedish-speaking_Finns#Requested_move. Espoo 22:01, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment This seems related to the CfD for Category:Finland-Swedish above. Is there a relevant guideline for the naming conventions in these cases? --Bill Clark 23:43, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Bill, this is completely unrelated; this category's name is the people, whereas the other is their language. More importantly, the renaming of the article on the people was the subject of a move proposal that received only support and no opposition, in addition to which the support included two professionals in the field. It is hard to find a better-supported and clearer move discussion on WP. Did you look at Talk:Swedish-speaking_Finns#Requested_move? --Espoo 06:33, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I've just finished reading the discussion you referenced, and now see the distinction you're drawing between this and the other CfD proposal that I had thought to be related to this one. I'd thought the issue in both cases was the use of the hyphen, but now I see that in this case, the component terms are also grammatically problematic. However, I'm still not entirely convinced by your arguments that "Swedish Finns" isn't a viable choice. You seem to rule out that option because, as you put it, "Swedish Finns" is used incorrectly to mean something else. I don't quite understand why the incorrect usage of "Swedish Finns" rules that option out for you, but the equally incorrect usage of "Finland-Swedes" is something you think needs fixing. In any event, I think "Swedish-speaking Finns" is clearer in meaning, so I'll add my support for renaming below. Thanks for your clarification of the issue. --Bill Clark 07:23, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, you've still got it mixed up; it's a content question here and a grammar/punctuation question in the other CFD. As explained in the approved move proposal and in the article itself, "Swedish Finns" is correct English that can be used as an abbreviation for "Swedish-speaking Finns" (whereas e.g. "French-speaking Canadian" and "French Canadian" do not usually mean the same thing). The reason it is not a good idea to use it as the article name is because it is used in an erroneous way in many if not most (non-native) English texts produced in Finland and Sweden. It is possible to use it in the article, and i use it there, once the reader has been averted to the correct meaning in English. WP policy specifically mentions the need to use article names that are not confusing.
      • I feel that you are being illogical in the following (are you perhaps still confusing "Finland Swedish" with "Finland Swede"?): I don't quite understand why the incorrect usage of "Swedish Finns" rules that option out for you, but the equally incorrect usage of "Finland-Swedes" is something you think needs fixing. First of all, "but" is not logical because "needs fixing" is here an incorrect way of saying "not using", which means it's also ruled out, and more specifically, i'm saying neither should be used as the article name. Secondly, the widespread incorrect use of the correct expression "Swedish Finns" only prevents its use as the title, not its use in the article after appropriate explanation of its correct meaning. Thirdly, this situation with "Swedish Finns" is logically completely different from the widespread incorrect use of the incorrect expression "Finland Swedes" (in any case without a hyphen in correct English spelling), which should therefore not be used anywhere. "Finland Swedes" is incorrect because they are not an ethnic Swedish group living in Sweden, at least they have no longer been that for a very long time according to both their own view and scientific incl. historical and genetic research.
      • In addition, even for such ethnic groups as ethnic Germans for whom it has been traditional to call descendants of German immigrants living in country X even for many generations "X Germans", the normal expression when X=USA or CH is "German Americans" and "German Swiss". "American German" used in that sense would be incomprehensible and/or considered very strange and Nazi-speak. "Swiss German" is the language, not the people, although i see that i'll have to correct that fairly common error on ethnic German too. To make a long story short, expressions such as "Finland Swedes" and "Russian Germans" are being replaced by expressions based on the model of "Swedish Americans" even in situations where there is evidence of a preserved ethnic heritage and separateness from the rest of the country. In the case of Swedish speakers in Finland, the more modern expression is the only correct because many or most of them are ethnic Finns that simply adopted the language of the minority during the many centuries of Swedish rule. In addition, extensive intermarriage has also taken place in those regions in which the descendants of the original settlers from Sweden are still living today. --Espoo 11:07, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. --Bill Clark 07:23, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. --RobertG ♬ talk 09:55, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Forbes Most Influential Businessmen (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
There is no information on where this comes from or what the criteria were, making it impossible to assess the reasons why these individuals were chosen, or even whether this is a complete set. Besides that ripping off another publication's list is a bit cheap and perhaps a violation of copyright. Greg Grahame 21:47, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You could try doing a Google search before nominating something for deletion. And this isn't a list, its a category. There is no ranking involved. A clue that it came from Forbes is the name "Forbes" in the title. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 23:32, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No more so than:

• Forbes 400

That is an article, but it is surely a copyright violation to have a 2complete list", (though as it happens the complete list is only one quarter complete). I will reduce it to a top 10, which is what other media organisations would reproduce.

I think you should discuss these things and reach a consensus before you begin a campaign of deletion. I am not aware of any letter from Forbes or Fortune demanding that the Forbes 400 list be removed from Wikipedia. Do you know of a letter or a court ruling? Or are you wikilawyering, and going to charge $250 an hour? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 22:33, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:Forbes 400
• Celebrity 100
• Forbes Global 2000 and Category:Forbes Global 2000
• Fortune 500
• Fortune 1000 and Category:Fortune 1000
• Fortune Global 500
• S&P 500 and Category:S&P 500
• Category:Time magazine Persons of the Year
• Category:Dow Jones Industrial Average

--Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 22:08, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will nominate the other categories separately. Note that you have not provided any defence of these categories, just drawn attention to the existence of several similar problems. Greg Grahame 22:15, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is a defense, its called precedent. The Time magazine archivist sent a letter to Wikipedia authorizing lists and covers from Time magazine, so long as they linked back to the Time website. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 22:33, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Time magazine archivist has what legal authority to represent the legal interests of Fortune exactly? At any time Wikipedia probably contains thousands of copyright violations that haven't been dealt with, but tbat is a spurious reason for ignoring any specific violation. We should be raising our standards, not lowering them on the grounds that we might get away with it. In any case copyright issues are only one reason to delete this category. Greg Grahame 23:43, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. This is just some journalist's opinion of who mattered. Wilchett 01:56, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. It's just a magazine list, not something of permanence like a public award. Osomec 14:35, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Being listed in a magazine is not defining characteristics of a person. Pavel Vozenilek 16:23, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 15:40, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:IP addresses used for vandalism, see August 27. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 21:44, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 15:41, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No vote, incomplete nomination of October 18, see Charles Perrault. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 21:36, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Right now it contains nothing apart from one picture. Wilchett 01:57, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename. the wub "?!" 20:20, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Country templates to Category:Country and territory templates

Category can and does contain templates that either pertain to or include territories as well countries (where "countries" is taken to mean internationally-recogniz/sed sovereign states). David Kernow (talk) 20:46, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename as nom. David Kernow (talk) 20:46, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was no consensus --Kbdank71 15:36, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Rename - This cat is pov, singling out one title of the Queen, that is used in articles that talks about her other rolls and titles. I would like to see it renamed to "Elizabeth II" or maybe "Queen Elizabeth II" Brian | (Talk) 19:13, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - The complaint nomination seems to be a spillover from an ill-tempered debate at the talk page of her bio: Talk:Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom. Leave it where it is and reconsider if the editors of the bio agree on a better name. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 20:31, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - no reason to change. Gene Nygaard 20:34, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename it's completely incorrect and misleading Customs 20:44, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is her principal and best known title and the category matches the article. Greg Grahame 21:48, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It is a tidy category that includes lists and other entries not covered by the House of Windsor category supracategory. It should remain the same name as the article.
• Keep but Rename to "Elizabeth II" or "Queen Elizabeth II" --Ibagli (Talk) 02:40, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• keep as is Hmains 04:42, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but Rename 07:25, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as long as the article remains at this title. Osomec 14:36, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep. What a load of bollocks. I named the category after her article ("Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom"). If you want to rename, rename the article first. It's not my POV either, as far as I'm concerned she's Queen Elizabeth II - but that's not the Wikipedia naming convention. --kingboyk 12:18, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - per Wikipedia convention: most commonly known name/title. - jc37 11:33, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Rename the article also needs renameing Vendertta 23:04, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep this should be the same as the article title, which has been debated to death. Timrollpickering 08:22, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename - This catergory is extremely misleading and should be renamed Banzai777 23:48, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename - She's my queen as much as she's UK's 222.152.26.176 04:54, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Timrollpickering Metthurst 06:18, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was keep --Kbdank71 15:56, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, procedural nomination, incomplete September 27th, 2006. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 19:02, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It looks like someone planned to do a renaming project in this area, but we don't know what it was and it is hard to see how this would not have remained the appropriate name for the top category. Osomec 14:40, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep no question, no obvious or needed alternative. Hmains
• Keep - An encyclopedic list of encylopedias could be useful. George J. Bendo 21:27, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - this cat seems to make sence --T-rex 19:49, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 15:34, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No vote, see also September 23, October 31, incomplete nomination of September 28th. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 17:59, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge into Category:Northern Irish terrorists. Having two categories implies that Wikipedia is taking a view that these people have been unfairly maligned, while those in the other category were genuine terrorists. Greg Grahame 21:49, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment What are the implications of being included in Category:Northern Irish terrorists? I'm wondering if it would be better to merge the two categories into the one with the less potentially-libelous name? --Bill Clark 07:28, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - alleged/suspected = citations/references, which isn't possible in a category in this case. - jc37 11:33, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge/Delete, potentially useless category. Pavel Vozenilek 16:25, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into standard Category:Northern Irish terrorists. Olborne 10:19, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was keep --Kbdank71 15:31, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Municipalities of Switzerland (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete, might as well just throw it out, you cannot find anything here anyway. It has over 260 entries mis-sorted, not in alphabetical order, see Wikipedia:Categorization and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (standard letters with diacritics). And you likely won't get here anyway, because many of those entries categorized here don't have the redirects to them from the English alphabet spelling without diacritics. They are probably all contained in subcategories anyway. Gene Nygaard 17:11, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Is this nomination a joke? There are municipalities in Switzerland, so there should be a category for them. The articles could be subcategorised, and that process has already started, but the parent category would still be needed. Greg Grahame 21:54, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of course there are municipalities in Switzerland, but if you can't find them even with the category, it isn't very useful and might as well not be there. Gene Nygaard 23:08, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For example, if I look at the first page, it goes

• Bardonnex
• Bäretswil
• Bargen, Berne
• Bargen, Schaffhausen
• Bas-Intyamon

No Bärschwil to be found. That Bäretswil doesn't look like the right place, it's too far east. Guess Wikipedia doesn't have anything about it. Sure, if you happen to click on the "next 200" tab, you can find it, mis-sorted, on the nest page. So what? Gene Nygaard 23:16, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So fix it. I have to say that I still suspect you are playing a practical joke as these are the most ridiculous reasons for deleting a category that could be imagined. Many countries have categories for municipalities, as with counties, states, provinces, towns etc etc. Greg Grahame 23:46, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not my job to fix it. I presume there is some reason this Wikipedia process was renamed from "Categories for Deletion" to "Wikipedia:Categories for discussion" (even though nobody had made the obvious change that should be made in the log pages such as this one). So if you have some proposal for getting it fixed, throw it out. Or volunteer to take it on. Or at least fix one of them, as a token gesture to show some appreciation of the problem. Gene Nygaard 00:16, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Don't delete categories where the entries need to be indexed properly. This category already has multiple sub and supra categories. Some of the entries need to be put into their proper subcategories by someone with the geographic info available. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 00:02, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All of them are in subcategories already, or at least nearly all of them. Gene Nygaard 00:13, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean that Category:Municipalities of Switzerland by canton should be the proper supracategory?

Well, something is obviously rotten in the state of Switzerland, when that category only has five subcategories and no other pages, and there are 26 cantons in Switzerland. But that's a separate side-issue which might need to be acted on separately. The problem here is that you can't find anything anyway in Category:Municipalities of Switzerland because a huge portion of the articles are mis-sorted, so it might as well be thrown out. And yes, I'd think that most of the subcategories of Municipalities of Switzerland belong instead in Category:Municipalities of Switzerland by canton, whether or not this category is deleted as requested. Gene Nygaard 13:32, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• KeepMany of Wikipedia categories are incomplete because the project is immature. Do something useful to fix this one Gene or quit complaining. Merchbow 18:32, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The problem isn't that this one is "incomplete". The problem is that you can't find what's there. And, if nobody cares enough to fix the 300 or so articles that need fixing, then the category isn't worth keeping. Gene Nygaard 18:39, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep the category, but have all articles sub-categorised. This can be easily achieved by removing the category from {{Infobox Swiss town}}, which I have fought for in the past. All municipalities are already sorted into cantons, and a list exists with them all on it, so there is no need to have a category with them all in. In the sub-categories, incidentally, the accents are sorted correctly, which cannot be easily achieved via the template. --Stemonitis 11:43, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That might be the best solution. One problem with a category like this with both a huge number of articles and also many subcategories is that you need to page through the 200-at-a-time listings to find the subcategories. It should then be merged with Category:Municipalities of Switzerland by canton, shouldn't it, under one name or the other? Does that need a new proposal here? Gene Nygaard 17:02, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I already had a go at that when I saw it. It is clearly a duplicate of Category:Municipalities of Switzerland (which are categorised by canton anyway), so one or the other can be deleted, depending on which wording you prefer. Personally, I see no need to change to existing name, so would delete Category:Municipalities of Switzerland by canton. But then I emptied it (of the five cantons that were in it, so that all would be in the same place), so perhaps I'm biased. --Stemonitis 17:15, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was list at UCFD --Kbdank71 15:30, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No vote, incomplete nomination, September 9th, 2006. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 16:56, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• In case anyone is wondering what the !vote discussion is about, the original nominator (User:Shimmera) wanted to rename this category to Category:Sexual orientation Wikipedian userboxes. On this note, my vote is to support to continue to separate the encyclopedia portion from the wikipedia community portion. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 16:48, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 15:28, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Enterprise Linux (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
merge with its parent category Category:Red Hat; the only article in this cat can be just as easily found in Category:Red Hat --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 16:23, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I support the suggestion to merge to Category:Red Hat, since no other notable Linux distributions seem to have received substantial media coverage as "Enterprise Linux" although there are plenty of "Enterprise-ready Linux" promotional mentions. A category with one article needs expansion or deletion; this appears to be a case of the latter. Barno 21:59, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. There are many 'Enterprise' Linux solutions, but Red Hat is the one most often marketed thus. This category is irrelevant as it's not like we can sanely categorise products by marketing campaign. Should we make Category:Shampoos that are good for your hair too? I think not. Kari Hazzard (T | C) 15:13, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. One of myriads of marketing terms. Pavel Vozenilek 16:24, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 15:25, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Polish-French people, convention of Category:French people by ethnic or national origin. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 16:21, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I agree that the name is no good, but this seems be trying a new and perhaps interesting approach as explained on the category page: Famous French or Polish people of Polish or French origin. Also people with French or Polish connections, f.e. Maria Skłodowska-Curie, a Polish scientist who worked and lived in France. The category "French people by ethnic or national origin" apparently only includes French citizens with roots elsewhere, and in any case the category "Polish-French people" should only include French people of Polish origin and cannot include Polish people of French origin. On the other hand, maybe it doesn't make sense having Polish-French and French-Polish people in the same category. (c.f. the category "Swiss-French people": This category lists Swiss emigrants in France, not either Swiss native speakers of French or French emigrants in Switzerland.) --Espoo 14:41, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • By the current scheme, the French-Polish would go under Category:Polish people by ethnic or national origin. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 21:22, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Are there any people listed in that category for whom it would be difficult to decide into which group they belong? Are there any other reasons for putting Polish French and French Polish into the same category? Should one try to contact the creator of this category to ask why this combination of two different groups was attempted? --Espoo 23:51, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. - Darwinek 22:34, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was no consensus --Kbdank71 15:23, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Indefinitely blocked IP addresses, or Delete, see August 30 discussion. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 15:46, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - per my comments in the previous discussion. - jc37 11:33, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. --RobertG ♬ talk 09:51, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Elizabeth Moon (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nobody else in Category:American fantasy writers and Category:American science fiction writers has one, also there is nothing to put in the category but herself and Category:Elizabeth Moon novels which belongs to - and already is in - Category:Fantasy books by author, like everybody else's. Malyctenar 14:03, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and speedy it as redundant if possible --HKMarks(T/C) 18:21, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• delete per nom. Metthurst 06:20, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. --RobertG ♬ talk 09:50, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional preteens (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Basically, fictional characters by age is supposed to be a way of categorizing fictional characters by how long they've lived. Category:Fictional centenarians includes any character over 100 years. It would be feasible to create Category:Fictional characters over 1000 years old as a subcategory (but it would also be pointless). "Fictional preteens" categorizes characters by their inclusion to a small age group, roughly 11-12. It even described "too old to be considered children", when I would describe preteens AS children. Many characters grow up on television, and pass through preteen phases which makes them warrant inclusion. In fact, any character that's lived to be a preteen should be included. This category baffles me. ~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 13:15, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Categories for fictional children, teenagers and adults were deleted, and this should be deleted for the same reasons. — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 15:12, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I don't even want to think about the characters who actually grow up over the course of a story. --HKMarks(T/C) 18:26, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I'm nominating the one for babies for CFD to Hmrox 21:03, 1 November 2006 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete per nom. Wilchett 02:00, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was keep --Kbdank71 15:20, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Pikmin characters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Childless category. Combination 12:57, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, empty --HKMarks(T/C) 18:23, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It's not childless any more. It now has the articles that should go in it, like other Nintendo characters subcategories.--Mike Selinker 02:35, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and Olimar. Tim! 09:01, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. There's a few articles and hopefully there'll be more Pikmin games.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename, only nominator commented, but seems sensible, and no objections were raised. I'll leave a {{category redirect}}. --RobertG ♬ talk 09:48, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Maffei group to Category:IC 342/Maffei Group

• Rename - This group is more frequently referred to as the "IC 342/Maffei Group" than as the "Maffei Group", "Maffei 1 Group", or "IC 342 Group". George J. Bendo 11:32, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete, appears to be a duplicate mis-spelt category (two articles in the category; will merge with People from Guildford before deleting). --RobertG ♬ talk 09:46, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People from Guilford (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
It should be people from Guildford, have moved articles to correct one. WikiGull 10:50, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment There are 7 places called Guilford in the United States. ReeseM 12:55, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment Yes, but all three people in the category that I moved were from Guildford in the UK. If left, it's open to ambiguity now you've pointed that out WikiGull 18:20, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, those will probably end up being called something like Category:People from Guilford, Connecticut. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 19:42, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as duplicate of Category:People from Guildford -- ProveIt ^(talk) 16:23, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 15:10, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:South Australian parliaments into Category:Members of South Australian parliaments by term

• Merge, Articles with similar titles are divided between the two categories. Consistent with category titles for other Australian states - see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Australian politics/Parliaments#Progress Table. MH au 04:59, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• 'Merge per nom. Brian | (Talk) 05:06, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename per nom. --RobertG ♬ talk 09:21, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Single-party system parties to Category:Parties of single-party systems

1. Slightly less confusing formulation;
2. Places "Parties", the category's subject, at the name's head. (Parent category is Category:Political parties.)

David Kernow (talk) 03:02, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename as nom. David Kernow (talk) 03:02, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename for clarity per nom. --Dhartung | Talk 04:30, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• RenameWissahickon Creek ^talk 14:24, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Greg Grahame 21:57, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. --Bill Clark 23:49, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as misleading categorisation and OR. Communist Party of Czechoslovakia did nominally keep 4 parties in the political system (they were powerless but it's not task of categories twist the terminology). Dtto Chinese CP, CP of East Germany and I suspect many others. Pavel Vozenilek 16:31, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rather common trick was to oficially designate the communist party a having "leading role" (e.g. vedoucí úloha in Czech) in the political system. Propaganda was happy to point to existence of other parties. Pavel Vozenilek 05:22, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Dominant parties in single-party-dominant political systems for accuracy as they are certainly worth grouping together. Wimstead 17:23, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Brian | (Talk) 05:06, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was keep --Kbdank71 15:08, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For spelling consistency please rename Category:Sports organisations to Category:Sports organizations. BR, Brz7 01:40, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: we usually leave dialect-based spelling choices in the hands of the creator unless it is inappropriate for the context. --Dhartung | Talk 04:32, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• I oppose this proposed McStandarisation. ReeseM 12:56, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• "Sports groups" or "Sports societies"? What would be an appropriate spelling-neutral alternative for "organi[sz]ation"? Peter O. (Talk) 21:11, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Organizations. A spelling in use everywhere. Gene Nygaard 21:43, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose This nomination runs counter to the policy on use of varieties of English. Greg Grahame 21:56, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi, you meant this policy? It's ok with me to leave it as it is: I'll take note of English diversity on Wikipedia next time. I thought it would just look more consistent, not that I'm in favour of McStandardization ;) Brz7 21:30, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. --RobertG ♬ talk 09:18, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional cowards (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Too subjective. Reached no consensus before, let's try this again. Every fictional character has something cowardly in their histories, even Superman. This is ridiculous and serves no point to any sort of research. For example, The Doctor described himself as a coward in one episode, although I doubt anyone would think to add him. It's just silly over-categorization.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 00:45, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. --Bill Clark 23:50, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Impossible to make objective, and not very useful even if we did so. --Dhartung | Talk 04:33, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this for violating WP:NPOV, WP:OR, and maybe WP:SP if cowardice is a major plot point. Doczilla 09:03, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - This category has a major POV problem and should be deleted. George J. Bendo 11:34, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Combination 16:59, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Dhartung Wilchett 02:01, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.