Cannabis Ruderalis

thcscience_admin
< December 15 December 17 >

December 16[edit]

Category:Communist parties in the Former Soviet Union[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Withdrawn. Can be brought back here is discussions on the talk page require some action on this category in the future. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:28, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Communist parties in the Former Soviet Union to Category:Communist parties in the Soviet Union
  • Amended, see subsection below. - Altenmann >t 18:52, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Unnecessary word "former": There is no "present Soviet Union". - Altenmann >t 18:04, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Amended suggestion: The discussion indeed shows that the title is confusing. The texts by "opposers" suggests that the category must be Category:Communist parties in post-Soviet states. The second group (per Black Falcon) would be Category:Communist parties in early Former Soviet Union, but what would be the third one? In addition it is difficult to split the 2nd and 3rd: Some CPs existed all wad from 1920s to 1990s. - Altenmann >t 16:22, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It any case I am withdrawing the suggestion and I will start a regular, working discussion about proper splitting this category, in some talk page. - Altenmann >t 16:22, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose but needs cleanup. This category currently groups together communist parties of the early-Soviet era (e.g., Ukrainian Communist Party), communist parties of the Soviet era (e.g., Georgian Communist Party), and communist parties in the post-Soviet era (e.g., Communist Party of Ukraine). The only criteria for categorisation seem to be self-proclaimed communist ideology and presence in one of the 15 former Soviet republics. The current title is fine for capturing the third class of communist parties, but placing the other two classes into this category is misleading. Likewise, renaming to "in the Soviet Union" would be appropriate for the first two classes, but would miscategorise the third.
    I would suggest moving articles about communist parties that existed before the dissolution of the USSR to Category:Political parties in the Soviet Union, leaving in this category only articles about communist parties that were founded after 1991. –BLACK FALCON (TALK) 18:25, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I was part of creating the regional categorizing schemes for the category:Communist parties. Usually, we would simply have had continental categories. But various parties in the former USSR posed some problems, as they organize cross borders and in some cases across continents. Thus, having a separate category for the erstwhile USSR made sense. --Soman (talk) 21:30, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Opppose per Soman, and support cleanup per Black Falcon. Given the history of the area concerned, and the significance of Communist Parties in that area, the geographical grouping "Former Soviet Union" is an appropriate one. Removing the word "former" would be misleading, as it would imply that all these parties had existed before the abolition of the USSR. However , Former Soviet Union redirects to Post-Soviet states, and there is no Category:Former Soviet Union but there is a Category:Post-Soviet states, so I suggest that we rename this category to Category:Communist parties in Post-Soviet states. I have just added Category:Post-Soviet states as a parent category, and suggest removing the othjer parent categories which incorrectly imply that these parties existed during the period of the USSR's existence. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:23, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Amended suggestion[edit]
Per talk above, Propose renaming Category:Communist parties in the Former Soviet Union to Category:Communist parties in post-Soviet states.
I have already started the clean-up of this category, introducing two new categories, Category:Branches of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, for finalized parties and Category:Communist parties in early Soviet Union, for sporadic parties before consolidation. - Altenmann >t 18:51, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No objection to the "the". English is not my forte. - Altenmann >t 19:31, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Rename to match title of parent article, with no "the" needed. Alansohn (talk) 03:07, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Could someone elaborate on the "the/no the" theme here, to make an educated decision? - Altenmann >t 18:08, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment; a problem exists in the sense that some parties existed outside CPSU, and were later incorporated into it (such as Baltic parties). Communist Party of Estonia cannot only be categorized as a CPSU branch, it also needs to be categorized as a communist party of its of own. --Soman (talk) 10:10, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is no problem with multiple categorizations in wikipedia. Only I would recommend to possibly add an in-text comment with an explanation (e.g., [[Category:Communist parties in Europe]]<!--CPE was not part of CPSU during 1920-1940-->), so that someone would not delete a category which seems "redundant". - Altenmann >t 17:47, 19 December 2009 (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:Keshet[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: category was speedy deleted as empty by a separate process --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:16, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Keshet (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: It's a category of only 2 articles that might be merged created by an advertiser. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.138.151.166 (talk) 13:16, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Is it possible to prove the reliability of the sources? Daviderudit (talk) 08:36, 17 December 2009 (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:Esperanto native speakers[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Rename per nominator. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:26, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Esperanto native speakers to Category:Native Esperanto speakers
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Per main article (Native Esperanto speakers.) Personally, I don't care which terms is chosen, but I think it's nonsense to have the article named one way and the category the other. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 12:40, 16 December 2009 (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:Power supplies[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: NO CONSENSUS. postdlf (talk) 00:04, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Power supplies to Category:Electronics power supplies
Nominator's rationale: Rename. The current name is misleading as in common use power supply means electrical power supply (generation and distribution). Beagel (talk) 09:29, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:12, 16 December 2009 (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.

Villages depopulated during the 1948 Arab–Israeli War[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: KEEP. There is not a consensus to merge these to "former settlements" (and which the arguments below establish would cause a loss of relevant information), and the disagreement below about whether "depopulated" is POV appears to have been resolved. As for the other issue of whether the "before," "during," and "after" categories should be combined into [?], there is no consensus for that within this discussion. The merits and specifics of that proposal would be best addressed by a new, separate CFD rather than relisting and continuing this meandering one. postdlf (talk) 00:26, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging and renaming: Category:Villages depopulated prior to the 1948 Arab–Israeli War, Category:Villages depopulated during the 1948 Arab–Israeli War, Category:Villages depopulated after the 1948 Arab–Israeli War, Category:Jewish villages depopulated during the 1948 Arab–Israeli War and Category:Depopulated settlements in the Land of Israel to Category:Former settlements in Israel and Category:Former settlements in the Palestinian territories repectively.
Nominator's rationale: This is to bring the name into line with all other Category:Former settlements. It is not necessary to have these 4 categories linked to a specific war; nor is it necessary to have the word "depopulated" as "former" conveys this. Also note that "villages depopulated PRIOR to the 1948 war" occured during the 1947–1948 Civil War in Mandatory Palestine - meaning that the current title is misleading. It is also unnecesarry to have specific categories when a template and specific lists for these former settlements exist. Chesdovi (talk) 11:33, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Many "X in the Palestinian territories" articles have been recently renamed to "X in Palestine." —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 12:41, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose. The depopulation of settlements during that 1948 conflict is both a central part of history of the former Mandate territory of Palestine, and the single most important characteristic of the settlements themselves. There is no reason why the categories cannot all exists as sub-categories of Category:Former settlements. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:10, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question for nominator. There are a number of Israel- and Palestine-related wikiprojects, whose members will have relevant expertise. Have they been notified of this proposal? Given the sensitivities in this area, and the historical signficance of the events concerned, I do not believe that this discussion could reasonably be closed as anything other than "no consensus" unless the wikiprojects have been notified. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:10, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree 1. These villages were not depopulated. Their inhabitants left these villages of their own accord. 2. I have a feeling these categories were created and are being actively populated to make a wp:point. Debresser (talk) 20:49, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply. Firstly, whether everyone leaves voluntarily or is driven out at gunpoint does not alter the fact a village was depopulated, and the category names do not say "forcibly depopulated". Secondly, the question of whether the depopulation was voluntary or forced has been a major point of historiographical contention since the publication in 1988 of Benny Morris's book The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem, 1947-1949 and his followup The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem Revisited — there is plentiful evidence that in some cases the inhabitants were driven out, and the academic dispute actually focuses on the extent of forcible depopulation rather than whether it ever happened.
    Recording the fact that these settlements were depopulated in the course of the conflict is no more WP:POINTy than categorising by their date or mode of establishment, and the only WP:POINTy contribution I see here is Debresser's desire to expunge from Wikipedia's historical category system a set of undisputed facts which are central both to a contentious part of history and to the ongoing political dispute over Palestinian claims of a Right of Return. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:47, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • If your first argument is true, then why don't the categories use the more neutral "abandoned"? This conclusively proves my point about the pointiness of these category names. The second point, and your claim to know what I do or do not desire, are not very relevant to this discussion. Debresser (talk) 01:40, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply. 1) I see no evidence that "depopulated" is anything other than a neutral term which allows for the possibility of either forcible or voluntary depopulation, but "abandoned" is a term which seems to exclude the possibility of forcible expulsion. "Abandoned" is also inapplicable to villages such as Deir Yassin or Kafr Saba which were repopulated after the war.
    2) The second point is highly relevant, because you made a blanket and unqualified assertion that "their inhabitants left these villages of their own accord" (which can only be read as including Deir Yassin). The fact that you base a deletion argument on a false claim and accuse others of WP:POINTiness is highly relevant to the question of what you are trying to achieve by supporting deletion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:53, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I retract my objetion to the word "depopulated", based on the convincing argument of BrownHairedGirl. English is not my first language. Debresser (talk) 15:54, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- We need a NPOV title. We are on the horns of a dilemma created by the rival propaganda of the Israelis and Palestinians. I have little doubt that some were depopulated forcibly, and some abandoned out of fear, or even due to ill-advised propaganda from their own side. Keep as far as possible. Merging before after and during categories might be possible. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:26, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If kept, then I support merging the "before", "during" and "after" categories, as Peterkingiron. The choice of the 1948 Arab–Israeli War as the dividing point is what proves the pointiness of these categories. Debresser (talk) 15:54, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No it doesn't. These departure of the population of these villages during the war is the crucial event in the creation of the Palestinian refugee problem, and one of the most significant aspects of that war. Historians take divergent views on the reasons for people leaving those villages, and the subsequent fate of the refugees and their descendants remains a major point of historical and political contention ... but the fact that the origins and consequences of something are disputed does not make the category either pointy or partisan, since nobody appears to be disputing the fact that the depopulation took place during the war. The only basis I can see for debresser's continued allegation of pointiness is that he appears to take a particular partisan view on the subject, and doesn't like the existence of categories which could in any way be useful to people he disagrees with ... and that's clearly a WP:POINTy argument for deletion. It's a similar position to arguing for the deletion of Category:People executed by the United States on the grounds that the existence of the category might be useful to opponents of capital punishment. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:09, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your lack of understanding is not a sufficient reason to ascribe a POV to me. :) Debresser (talk) 23:18, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am not ascribing a POV to you. I am noting the POV you clearly stated above, when you wrote "These villages were not depopulated. Their inhabitants left these villages of their own accord". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:30, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That just was short for "These villages were not forcibly depopulated. Their inhabitants left these villages of their own accord in most cases".
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.

ODI cricketers[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Rename all --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:23, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming:

In follow up for Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 December 4#ODI cricketers, I think these pages should also be renamed accordingly. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:16, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rename all per nom and per evident consensus at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 December 4#ODI cricketers. Occuli (talk) 11:31, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all Per consensus and intelligibility. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 12:41, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all Per nom/consensus. HOWZAT!! for a group nomination... Lugnuts (talk) 17:55, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Can the nominator (or any of the other commenters here) tell me what this will actually achieve? All this seems to be doing is creating a large and unwieldy category name to replace a compact and unambiguous name. While ODI may be ambiguous, ODI cricketers most certainly is not. Smacks of change for the sake of it to me. -- Mattinbgn\talk 19:35, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all, but rename all the "women" ones all to "women's". The sport is Women's One Day International cricket. Grutness...wha? 00:33, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The qualifier doesn't refer to the sport but the team, the teams are "India women", "Australia women" and so on, so it should remain women.-SpacemanSpiff 00:45, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all per nominator, previous consensus, and guideline to avoid abbreviations. Debresser (talk) 20:47, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Renames to spell out the abbreviation for greater clarity. Alansohn (talk) 04:50, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- Having missed the previous discussion, which correctly expanded the abbrveiation, I would question whether the categories differ from those participating in other types of international cricket. Should they exist at all?Peterkingiron (talk) 17:29, 19 December 2009 (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:Wikipedia images by quality[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: relisted to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 December 23#Category:Wikipedia images by quality by User:Phantomsteve. –BLACK FALCON (TALK) 23:20, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:Wikipedia images by quality to Category:Wikipedia images
Nominator's rationale: There are only two quality classes for images, "valued" and "featured"—both of which already appear in Category:Wikipedia images directly—so this category cannot have more than two members for the forseeable future. "Selected" is a designation for images used by portals, but it is not an assessment of quality so much as of relevance and significance to the subject of the portal. (Category creator notified using {{cfd-notify}}.) –BLACK FALCON (TALK) 05:52, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This definitely feels like a "don't we have bigger fish to fry?" issue, but I'm not opposed to the merge.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 20:32, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. Then just remove Category:Architecture Selected pictures from here. But the argument remains valid, IMHO. Debresser (talk) 13:41, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I still support merging, but for now I've removed the selected pictures category and added the valued pictures one. Cheers, –BLACK FALCON (TALK) 17:51, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Then at this point I'd say keep, but remove parent category per Wikipedia:Cat#Duplicate_categorization_rule. Debresser (talk) 16:37, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:00, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 21:51, 23 December 2009 (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.

IPFW athletics categories[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: relisted to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 December 23#Category:IPFW athletics categories by User:Phantomsteve. –BLACK FALCON (TALK) 23:20, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming:
Nominator's rationale: Rename. The school brands itself as "IPFW" for athletics purposes; see its official site at gomastodons.com. Also, ESPN (and presumably other sports media) use "IPFW" instead of the full school name. Dale Arnett (talk) 02:33, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What convention are you talking about? I see only 1-2 abbreviations among the 200 on the first page, and it is they who should be renamed, as I explained in my vote here below. Debresser (talk) 20:45, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
??? Almost every single category is abbreviated.- choster 05:27, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose per guideline of not using abbreviations in category names. Note that this guideline is not some obstruse and theoretical mindbog of some editor, but is being used in Cfd discussions every few days. Debresser (talk) 20:43, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmm, that category isn't quite as clean as I thought, but it is absolutely longstanding convention to use Institution short name + Institution team nickname for collegiate sports. I'm quite familiar with the general proscription on abbreviations, but it is not the sole governing guideline. WP:COMMONNAME also applies here, and the full name of the institution is essentially never the primary form used either in reliable sources or in everyday speech; pick your college sports authority (ncaa.com, nytimes.com, espn.com, cbscollegesports.com, etc.) and see how often "UCLA Bruins" turns up as opposed to the "University of California, Los Angeles Bruins." This is, in fact, true of all sports, and requiring the maximum level of disambiguation would be an unwelcome innovation— there is really no confusing Category:Florida A&M Rattlers for anything else, just as we can use Category:Boston Red Sox not Category:Boston, Massachusetts Red Sox and Category:Hanshin Tigers not Hanshin Electric Railway Tigers.- choster 22:46, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Coomment There are 233 sub-categories of Category:College athletic programs by college. I count 20 of them using an abbreviation in the names, which is 8.6%. That doesn't sound to me like a convention, and in any case the convention against using abbreviations in category names still stands. Wikipedia is written for a general audience, not for the narrow subset who follow a particular sport intensively enough to recognise all the abbreviations. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:14, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Are we looking at the same category? Fifteen of the nineteen teams under "A" alone use the team name. Again, we are not willy-nilly assigning abbreviations, but using the team name. It's not the UND Fighting Irish, it's the Notre Dame Fighting Irish. Why suddenly the need to expand this to University of Notre Dame Fighting Irish?
One shouldn't think of major U.S. college sports programs in the same way as a university faculty or research program. The major programs are, for good or ill, institutions in and of themselves, covered widely in mass media, and attracting many millions of fans with no ties whatsoever to the institution— in this respect, they no doubt differ from university sports in most of the world. But it also means that the team name will be by far the most common name found in reliable sources, and the name by which most people who would be interested in the topic would look for them by. Again, the team known as the "Fresno State Bulldogs" would essentially never be cited as the "California State University, Fresno Bulldogs," just as the proper name for the newspaper is The Stanford Daily not The Stanford University Daily (or The Stanford (University) Daily).- choster 23:55, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If the rename goes ahead, the full name of the college should be givne in a capnote on the category. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:33, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 21:52, 23 December 2009 (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:Guatemalans of Norwegian descent[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Keep - no non-keep !votes (non-admin closure) -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 21:55, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose deleting Category:Guatemalans of Norwegian descent
Nominator's rationale: Absurd category; One-off case category -- unlikely to ever be populated by more than the current occupant, for whom it appears to have been expressly created.Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 00:48, 16 December 2009 (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:Zambian expatriates in Namibia[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Keep - no non-keep !votes (non-admin closure) -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 21:58, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose deleting Category:Zambian expatriates in Namibia
Nominator's rationale: One-off case category, which appears to have been created for one person only. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 00:56, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments – I am not particularly keen on Expatriates categories as no-one seems to have a clear definition of 'expatriate'. However a Zambian footballer playing in Namibia does seem to be a reasonably good example of an expatriate. And we do have the established scheme, particularly for footballers. Occuli (talk) 10:07, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On those grounds, respectfully, any sports player, established in another country, is an expatriate, by which logic Roy Keane qualifies as an Irish expatriate in the UK and Yao Ming a Chinese expatriate in the United States, to list but two examples. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 11:51, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yao Ming is in Category:Chinese expatriate basketball people in the United States. This is quite an elaborate scheme, which does have its faults. Good Ol’factory (talk) 20:51, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as an established way of making a category structure. Also, if there is one, there must be more. Debresser (talk) 20:40, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as part of a well-organized structure of people by national origin. Alansohn (talk) 03:05, 18 December 2009 (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:San Marinese Wikipedians[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: RENAME. postdlf (talk) 03:37, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:San Marinese Wikipedians to Category:Sammarinese Wikipedians
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Usual demonym for San Marino is Sammarinese. Grutness...wha? 00:16, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Demonym confirms. - Altenmann >t 16:25, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As an afterthought, the only member and the creator (and defunct now) was not sammarinese himself, since he used wrong word. So the category is useless. - Altenmann >t 16:28, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Mmmm. Maybe. It's possible that he is Sammarinese but - with Italian his first language - didn't know the correct English-language demonym for SM. Grutness...wha? 00:35, 18 December 2009 (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.
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_December_16

Leave a Reply