Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 July 14

< July 13	July 15 >

July 14

Category:People doing/with PhDs

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: Already empty thus nothing to rename or merge so just delete. Timrollpickering (talk) 23:31, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:People doing/with PhDs to Category:Wikipedians with PhD degrees

Nominator's rationale: Merge. Virtually the same thing. I don't think we need a separate Wikipedians category for those working on but not yet completed a PhD. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:05, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rename pernomCurb Chain (talk) 08:23, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Alt. rename to Category:Wikipedians who read Piled Higher and Deeper, per the convention of Category:Wikipedians who read comic strips. This category with an ambiguous title – which I initially read as "people doing it with PhDs" ... much more interesting, in my opinion :P – is populated by {{User:Veryhuman/Userboxes/phdcomics}}, which is about the comic Piled Higher and Deeper. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 23:38, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- What the hell? Color me confused. ("doing/with" comic books? Is this some sort of in-joke of the comic itself?) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:32, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The category creator has moved the contents of the category to Category:Wikipedians with PhD degrees. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:17, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Songs by Starsmith

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, then purge any not actually produced by. Create a separate written by category if needs be. Timrollpickering (talk) 23:30, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Songs by Starsmith to Category:Songs produced by Starsmith

Nominator's rationale: Rename As far as I understand, the structure of the category tree dealing with songs distinguishes between songs by artist, songs by author and songs by producer. This category claims to merge the last two which is a bad idea but this is immaterial in this case since all songs currently listed here are songs produced by Starsmith. Pichpich (talk) 21:14, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Recheck the articles. He has written some of them. I Help, When I Can. ^[12] 21:42, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Split into Category:Songs produced by Starsmith per the standard wording in Category:Songs by producer, and Category:Songs written by Starsmith per the standard wording in Category:Songs by songwriter. Occuli (talk) 23:54, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename as per nom. I think it a fair assumption that songs by producer was intended. However, there should be no opposition if somebody wants to also create Category:Songs written by Starsmith.--Richhoncho (talk) 20:00, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I created it to include both written and produced, but I can see what you guys are getting at. I Help, When I Can. ^[12] 00:48, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rename. Also purge any song not actually produced by Starsmith from the cat. We should be precise in relation to songs.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:35, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Soul Whirling Somewhere albums

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. Timrollpickering (talk) 20:59, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Redlink artist, sole album in this category is tagged {{db-album}}. If/when that is deleted, then this is speedy-able. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:09, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If a subject is not notable to have an article, they are not notable enough to have things categorized by having been created by them.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:36, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Songs written by Lennon/McCartney

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

The result of the discussion was: Speedy rename C2D. Timrollpickering (talk) 20:02, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Songs written by Lennon/McCartney to Category:Songs written by Lennon–McCartney

Nominator's rationale: Per main article (moved a couple of months ago by someone other than me) and WP:SLASH. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:53, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Sigmund Freud scholars

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. Timrollpickering (talk) 19:45, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. This latest category from User:Stefanomione groups four individuals whose bio articles mention using or popularizing Freudian concepts in one manner or another, but none are truly defined as scholars of Freud, it seems to me. And Freudians are already well categorized in Category:Freudians. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:40, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and populate better. There is a distinction between people whop practice Freudian psychology, and those who study it on a historical or biographical basis. DGG ( talk ) 13:58, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I did manage to find and add two such bio articles on people who are described as Freud scholars but are not Freudians: Jeffrey Moussaieff Masson and Edward Timms (although Timms may be a Freudian, I cannot tell) I actually think these two are better representatives of this category than the four Stefanomione added. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:23, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Those who study Freud as a subject of scholarly concern are not a large enough group to merit a category. They should be put in a category such as Category:Scholars of psychology or Category:Scholars of psychotherapy or Category:Scholars of psychiatry. If we get far too many in whichever category we decide to put these in, we can then subdivide it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:39, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom & JPL - how is Edward Bernays, the "father of public relations", a "Freud scholar? As a nephew, and adaptor of Freud's ideas he may belong in a plain Category:Sigmund Freud. Johnbod (talk) 09:41, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Scout Releases albums

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: Withdrawn by nominator. Timrollpickering (talk) 19:45, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: redlink record label —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:55, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mild oppose - created a stub. Rich Farmbrough, 22:09, 14 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Withdrawn —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:51, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Media in media

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 in & about the to Category:Media about media. Timrollpickering (talk) 19:48, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: This seems to me to be one example where User:Stefanomione's zeal for new category branches leads us astray. The thesis for this branch seems to me that if media A is "in" media B, it's a defining characteristic. But media that is "about" media, such as the parents Category:Media about the media and the higher-level Category:Media about media, also by necessity have media "in" them, surely? Plus, we also have Category:Metafiction and its sub-cat Category:Metafictional techniques. I'm just not seeing the need for this oddly phrased off-shoot. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:41, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge Category:Media about the media into Category:Media about media There is no difference between the two.Curb Chain (talk) 08:20, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support merge of Category:Media about the media and Category:Media about media. There may be a difference, but it requires indepth thought on the exact nature of content and terms which makes categorization unnecessarily difficult.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:56, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Theatrical media

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. Timrollpickering (talk) 19:48, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Theatrical media to Category:Media about theatre

Nominator's rationale: I can't see any meaningful distinction between these two categories. Am I missing something? The target cat seems to me to benefit from using the X of Y naming scheme, but I'd be equally open to a reverse merge to Theatrical media, which is an older and better populated category. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:27, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge these are functionally two names for the same thing. The destination name has the advantage of being more clear in what it is.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:42, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Lee Perry albums

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

The result of the discussion was: Speedy rename C2D. Timrollpickering (talk) 20:03, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Lee Perry albums to Category:Lee "Scratch" Perry albums

Nominator's rationale: Per main article —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:22, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom, but keep the current title as a redirect. Lugnuts (talk) 07:32, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Metal oxide-zinc batteries

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

The result of the discussion was: Keep. Timrollpickering (talk) 18:18, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Metal oxide-zinc batteries

Nominator's rationale: A redundant category. Every battery that uses zinc uses some kind of metal oxide as the other electrode. --Wtshymanski (talk) 17:50, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question. Do you mean the category itself is redundant to another category or that the category name contains a redundancy? If the former, what category is this one redundant to? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 11:36, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per GoF in that this cat does not appear to be redundant to anything, as well as procedural grounds: the category has not been tagged nor has the category creator been informed of this discussion. The former is a must and the latter a courtesy, I suppose, but taken together it's a no-no in my books. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:11, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment categories are not like articles. Informing the creator does not seem as important. I am pretty sure there are a few categories I created just because I found articles in them but they did not yet exist. At least in my experience category creators have less direct insight on them than article creators.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:58, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Podunk

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

The result of the discussion was: speedy deleted per G10: "Pages that disparage ... their subject or some other entity, and serve no other purpose".. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:10, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Category appears to exist to editorialize about the significance of the places included. It does not appear to serve any constructive purpose and should be deleted Monty ₈₄₅ 17:46, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Jews of Roman Alexandria

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 rename. Timrollpickering (talk) 18:19, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Jews of Roman Alexandria to Category:Ancient Roman Alexandrian Jews

Nominator's rationale: Consistent with Category:Ancient Romans. Chesdovi (talk) 17:39, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The current name is clear and avoids the oddity of having both Roman and Alexandrian in a name.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:09, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Current title is better grammatically. The Proffesor (talk) 14:56, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Roman-era Alexandrians

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 rename. Timrollpickering (talk) 18:19, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Roman-era Alexandrians to Category:Ancient Roman Alexandrians

Nominator's rationale: Consistent with Category:Ancient Romans. Chesdovi (talk) 17:36, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or change to Category:People of Ancient Roman Alexandria. We should avoid at all cost a formation that is merely Fooian Fooian, since that can be very confusing and ambiguous.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:44, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Proposed renaming could confuse ethnicity with imperial rule. The Proffesor (talk) 14:56, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Roman era Jews

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 rename. Timrollpickering (talk) 18:20, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Roman era Jews to Category:Ancient Roman Jews

Nominator's rationale: Consistent with other Category:Ancient Romans. Chesdovi (talk) 17:29, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But a different meaning, presumably the existing category means something like Category:Jews of the Roman Empire who may well not have been (indeed were almost certainly not) Ancient Romans. Rich Farmbrough, 22:08, 14 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]

I had quite a lot of trouble determining who belongs where. It seems that the "Ancient Roman Empire" cat is split between the later "Roman Empire" cat but all Roman People are listed under "ARE". It is clear that these Jews are from the later empire, and am considering spliting them of under a new cat "Jews and Judiams in the Roman Empire". Thoughts? Chesdovi (talk) 22:24, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The current title works, the new one has potential problems.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:11, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If kept rename to Category:Roman-era Jews. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:18, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Proposed renaming could confuse ethnicity with imperial rule. The Proffesor (talk) 14:56, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Ancient Jewish Roman history

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2012 September 10.
For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review.

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. Timrollpickering (talk) 18:21, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Ancient Jewish Roman history to Category:Jews and Judaism in the Roman Empire

Nominator's rationale: The new name will enable us to better categorise the emplire under countries, while still allowing for it as a sub of Ancient Jewish history. Chesdovi (talk) 16:07, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rename not exactly per nom, though I don't see how "The new name will enable us to better categorise the emplire under countries" at all. Note that there are several centuries of Roman history that are not the "Roman Empire". Other options are possible, and probably better, eg: Jewish history in the Ancient Roman period etc. Johnbod (talk) 22:07, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think all Jewish history dates from the RE period; any older stuff cn be under Ancient Roman Hstory. Chesdovi (talk) 18:01, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rename The Proffesor (talk) 14:56, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Torah events

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. Timrollpickering (talk) 15:19, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: This appears to be a completely miscellaneous category with no real value or definition as to what should be in it. What is an 'event'? Why is Miriam listed as being an event? In what way is Aaron's rod an event? If the Tower of Babel counts as an event, how come Noah's Ark doesn't? This category could potentially have every single Old-Testament-related article in it, and it simply doesn't seem remotely helpful to me. It should be deleted. ╟─Treasury Tag►Not-content─╢ 10:05, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment We already have List of Hebrew Bible events and why does Category:Hebrew Bible events not cover this? Chesdovi (talk) 16:09, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The Torah is just the first five books of the Jewish bible; the "Hebrew Bible" categories cover this period plus the later books of the Tanakh/OT. Category:Noah's Ark is in as a sub-category. As for Aaron's rod, a new category may be required for Hebrew Bible objects. - Fayenatic (talk) 18:31, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think you may have misunderstood. I am saying that "Torah events" is a nebulous, meaningless concept. ╟─Treasury Tag►Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster─╢ 18:45, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: TreasuryTag has it right here. Everything in the Torah can be considered an event... even the bloody "begats". So if the category is to be of use there needs to be a stringent definition given and I'm struggling to come up with one that is of much use. Now... "Major events in the Torah" would be quite different. Egg Centric 21:22, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If an event in the Torah is not in some sense "major" we will not have an article on it. The only place where this might be worth parsing is if something is mentioned only briefly in the Torah but is known primarily from other sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:15, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Indian astrology

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 per main article. Timrollpickering (talk) 14:12, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Indian astrology to Category:Hindu astrology

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Per main article in category, Hindu astrology. Additionally, the word "Indian" is ambiguous, as it also refers to Indigenous peoples of the Americas. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:16, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Another problem with "Indian" is it could refer to astrology done by Muslims using Muslim astrological precepts who happened to live in India. On the other hand, I would assume that Hindu astrology can include people who accept Hinduism as the central part of their astrology working ouside of India, such as the 20% of Bangladesh's population that is Hindu or astrologesrs of the medieval Hindu kingdoms in what is now Indonesia. The Hindu word also allows us to avoid the issue not only of India's disputed modern border but also the fact that India before 1947 refered to a much larger area than it does today.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:19, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Indian refers to a country and Hindu to a religion.Shyamsunder (talk) 10:44, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct that Hindu and Indian are not technically synonomous. However in this context "Indian" never refered to a "country" but to a sub-continental region which has never been clearly 100% unified and only under the British Raj came close to unification, but that was with 500 semi-indepedent states. Beyond this the Sanskrit Cosmopolis that lasted from about 300-1300 extended into modern Indenesia and Cambodia and was never in any political way at any point unified with India. The works of Sheldon Pollock are a good starting place on this theory, especially The Language of the God's in the World of Men. For the purposes of this nomination the most important fact is that the article Indian astrology is actually a redirect to the article Hindu Astrology. Hindu is a term developed in the 19th century and in origin means something like "the religion of India". Hind and India are alrernate English expressions that are synonomous.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:51, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support Most (if not all) of the astrological concepts in the category relate to Hindu astronomy, and these were created before India existed. "Hindu astrology" is much more appropriate here. Office of Disinformation 20:15, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Indian culture by ...

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 rename. Timrollpickering (talk) 14:14, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Indian culture by community to Category:Culture of India by community

Propose renaming Category:Indian culture by state to Category:Culture of India by state

Propose renaming Category:Indian society by state to Category:Society of India by state

Propose renaming Category:Indian society by community to Category:Society of India by community

Nominator's rationale: Rename. The word "Indian" is ambiguous, as it also refers to Indigenous peoples of the Americas. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:13, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to match recent renaming of head categories. (I just added two more to this nomination.) - Fayenatic (talk) 18:42, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Indian is not ambiguous .Shyamsunder (talk) 10:36, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename the renaming is clearer. DGG ( talk ) 13:59, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We can't ban the adjective "Indian" - that would be ridiculous, especially as the American sense is not used in WP categories. Johnbod (talk) 09:34, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Agreed with Johnbod's reasoning. Office of Disinformation 11:06, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification: Globally, Indian is used to refer to India. I do not see any reason to ignore the global majority and give preference to a US minority. I would imagine this is a product of systemic bias. Office of Disinformation 14:01, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. I thought the initial renaming of the head categories was silly and ill-advised. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 11:38, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Globally, Indian usually refer to India. The Proffesor (talk) 14:59, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment is is not just in the US where people use Indian to refer to Natives of the Americas. As I said before this is the standard practive of the 500 million plus inhabitants of Latin America. It is odd that people have entirely ignored my statement on this which made it clear that this is an issue much broader than just the US.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:20, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So? This list shows that there are lots of other English speakers who should be considered. Ephebi (talk) 16:54, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Tours

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:Tours, France but revisit if a better form can be found. There's a pressing need for disambiguation and no support for the current title but this one is very tricky because several diggerent naming conventions intersect and both the main article Tours and Category:Cities in France offer little help. However I note Brest is at "Brest, France" and that seems the only other case in metropolitan France so that predent helps break the tie. Timrollpickering (talk) 14:24, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Tours to Category:Tours (city)

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Very much in need of disambiguation. (I was searching for a category for WP pages describing professional sports tours.) Mayumashu (talk) 06:41, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Tours, Indre-et-Loire which matches the French naming convention. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:36, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Tours (city) or Category:Tours, Indre-et-Loire per nom;no further commentCurb Chain (talk) 08:14, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to either (or Category:Tours, France) 65.93.15.213 (talk) 05:42, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Tours, France. This is the English wikipedia, and that is the English language convention for refering to cities in France. Remember, this is an ambiguous cat name because tours is an English word, not because there is any disambiguity in its use in geography. It avoids both the oddity of having french words in the title of a category of this English-language encyclopedia, and even more helpfully allows us to avoid the dash wars, which is the #1 reason why I want to just say France.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:00, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Tours, France, per JPL. Johnbod (talk) 09:32, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment ? 'Indre-et-Loire' would be the 'disambiguate' if there were two cities named Tours, but there is only one. The WP convention in this case is to use the disambiguate '(city)', as in Category:São Paulo (city), Category:Dublin (city), Category:Hiroshima (city), etc. (As for using the name of a country as a disambiguate, the precedent is clear both for using the city,state/province/county/etc. pattern, as in Category:Birmingham, West Midlands, Category:Birmingham, Alabama, Category:London, Ontario, and for using foreign names where an anglicized form doesn't exist.) Mayumashu (talk) 14:18, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- So we should decide here to ignore the established naming convention for French places that is well established and rename places like: Anché, Indre-et-Loire, Chezelles, Indre-et-Loire, Luynes, Indre-et-Loire, Ports, Indre-et-Loire or Saint-Roch, Indre-et-Loire? Vegaswikian (talk) 21:52, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - In those cases, isn't that format used because in each case there are other "populated places" that go by the same name? In each of examples you cite except Ports, there is another place in France by the same name, so it makes sense to use the "Indre-et-Loire" to disambiguate. It seems to me if there is only one city in the word named "Tours", we don't the same detailed type of disambiguator. ", France" or "(city)" would work just as effectively. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:30, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well, in rereading the naming convention it does not limit the use of the prescribed disambiguation to cases where there is another city in France, it simply says use placename, département when disambiguation is required. Am I misreading the naming convention? Vegaswikian (talk) 05:15, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Advertising-free websites

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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:41, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Is this a defining feature of a web site--lacking something? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:20, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agreed. I don't think advertising strategy is a defining characteristic. Reso lute 15:25, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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