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. — ξ^xplicit 08:01, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Songs produced by Darkchild to Category:Songs produced by Rodney Jerkins

Nominator's rationale: —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:50, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See here

• Support, As Darkchild redirects to Rodney Jerkins, and has done since 14 May 2008. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:06, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per SmokeyJoe. Debresser (talk) 11:47, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Rename' to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 21:09, 26 November 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.

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. --Xdamr^talk 14:12, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Major League Baseball All-Star Game hosts (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. I am not sure of the purpose of this category. It categorizes individual seasons of the teams who happened to host the All-Star game in that particular year. Otherwise, there is no relationship between the team of that season and the game itself. I think this is overcategorization with better information found in the article Major League Baseball All-Star Game venues and the Category:Major League Baseball All-Star Game -- Wolfer68 (talk) 22:59, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How is a catagory documenting teams that hosted a respective Major League Baseball All-Star Game any diffrent than ones concerning American League and National League championship winners, divisional and wild card winners, and most importantly, World Series champions? TMC1982 (talk) 10:07 p.m., 9 November 2009 (UTC)

• It seems like all the difference in the world to me. No one refers to the 1992 San Diego Padres season as the Padres' "All-Star Game host season," whereas it is common to refer to the 1992 Toronto Blue Jays season as the Blue Jays' "World Series championship season". Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:49, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• delete per nominator and my above comments. Not defining for a team's season. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:36, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep A wonderful way to provide a means of navigation across All-Star game hosts. Alansohn (talk) 21:18, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, postdlf (talk) 20:11, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Question – how is 1959 Pittsburgh Pirates season, a season presumably, any sort of host? (The article doesn't mention All-Star at all.) It seems to me at best a very cumbersome way of expressing a simple fact, that something happened in Pittsburgh in 1959. Occuli (talk) 01:24, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that's a good point—the category/article interface in this case doesn't quite gel. That's often a case of a category system being "forced" on a series of articles where it doesn't quite work. I still think it's a silly category; certainly not defining by any means. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 20:45, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The structure gels perfectly. It's trivial to describe that the Pittsburgh Pirates hosted the All-Star Game at some point, but rather defining to describe that the Pirates hosted the game in 1959. If lack of gel or being "silly" is an excuse to delete a category, we have finally institutionalized WP:IHATEIT into policy. Delete it if you want, this is CfD after all, but as an admin I would hope you would use policies and guideline rather than personal bias as a basis for making judgments. Sadly, this is common practice both in voting and in casting supervotes to close a CfD. Alansohn (talk) 21:13, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • You have not fully and accurately represented my opinions and reasons. Your cynical comments are beginning to look somewhat like trolling. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:40, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Cut the BS. We both participate at CfD and this is a CfD I had already participated in. If the best you can come up with is a bad faith claim of "trolling", you're Almighty-ness must be disappearing in its entirety. Alansohn (talk) 02:39, 29 November 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.

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

The result of the discussion was: Rename Category:Legislatures of federal subjects of Russia to Category:Legislatures of the federal subjects of Russia. No consensus to move to a more idiomatic form which, in any case, should be in tandem with a rename of the main article. --Xdamr^talk 14:09, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Legislatures of federal subjects of Russia to Category:Legislatures of the federal subjects of Russia

Nominator's rationale: proper English seems to be in vogue lately.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 19:50, November 20, 2009 (UTC)

• Frown Debresser (talk) 11:46, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename differently Category:Sub-national legislatures of Russia or something like that. "Subjects" are people, generally in monarchies. Johnbod (talk) 16:05, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• rename per nom Last editor should becomes familiar with Category:Federal subjects of Russia and its subcats regarding current Russian government structure. Hmains (talk) 04:08, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, all these categories, and the main article should be renamed using idiomatic English. The term is sourced to a ref in Russian in the article, and ghits are virtually all from WP or mirrors. The Brookings Institution holds its nose at the phrase: "The focus is on the 89 so-called 'federal subjects' of Russia ..." in one of only 9 Googlebook hits. There are NO news hits [1]. The subject has been brought up repeatedly by English-speakers on the talk page, and opposed by Russian-speakers. Johnbod (talk) 10:30, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How did you end up with just nine googlebooks hits? I got no fewer than 150; most from rather reputable sources (including Brookings itself—and it seems to me they are holding their noses to the concept, not to the term). Some news is also there; not much, admittedly, but the topic is hardly newsworthy and of much interest to the Western readers. Like it or not, the term exists, is in use in the area which matters the most (academia), and no other viable (yet alone established) alternative to it exists. Show me at least one term to refer to the "federal subjects" that is well-established in English and enjoys at least the same level of usage as "federal subjects", and I'll be the first to seriously consider it. All in all, however, this particular CfD is not about this term; it's about the name of a category which isn't right for a completely different reason.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:16, November 23, 2009 (UTC)

Other points continued at the main article talk page. You're suggesting 150 is a large number of ghits here?! The categories should be renamed as inadequately clear for category names, whatever happens at the main article. The "the" in the nom is not required by English grammar, as thousands of other categories show. Johnbod (talk) 20:28, 23 November 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.

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.

Relisted for futher discussion at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_November_29#Category:Indian captives. --Xdamr^talk 14:15, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Indian captives to Category:to be determined by consensus - possibly "People captured by Native Americans

Nominator's rationale: These people are not Indian (=from India), nor Indian (=Native American) - if the category is to continue to exist it needs to be renamed. Similarly, the disambiguating term for the members of the category - at present "(Indian captive)" - need to be changed. I'm not America so am not tuned in to the political sensitivities of language use in this area, though had a quick look at Native American name controversy, so not sure whether "Native American" is the right term to use, but on a global level "Indian" means from India. PamD (talk) 16:23, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to a simple Category:Native American captives. Debresser (talk) 11:45, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Category:American captivity narrative. Most of the articles are appropriate tthere; I added those which were missing. Kelly-Larimer Massacre does not (though the story was related by Fanny Kelly, a member of the party), but I would argue that the capture is not defining there. The incident is chiefly of interest as a massacre, with the capture comprising one component of the event; compare at Fort Parker massacre, Indian Creek massacre, and others. I wonder if and how such people should intersect with Category:Prisoners and detainees or Category:Kidnapped people….- choster 15:19, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per choster. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:01, 24 November 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.

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:Philippine animation. As the Philippine Manual of Style states, the term "Philippine" is used for inanimate objects, while the preference for the use of "Filipino" is used with people. The use "Filipino" with inanimate objects in other categories does not make its use in those categories correct. — ξ^xplicit 08:01, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Filipino Animation to Category:Philippine animation

Nominator's rationale: Rename. "Filipino" generally refers to people from the Philippines. For non-people, the usual adjective is "Philippine". Also changing capitalization. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:14, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename in all details per nominator. Debresser (talk) 17:30, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep / Rename to Category:Filipino animation The parent Category:Animation by country uses demonyms (e.g., we have Category:American animation, not Category:United States animation) and the preferred demonym listed at Phillippines is "Filipino". Alansohn (talk) 17:44, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment No opinion on the nomination one way or the other, but I see "Philippine" as analogous to "American". — Bellhalla (talk) 19:41, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Alansohn, a demonym is "a name for a resident of a locality which is derived from the name of the particular locality". It applies to people. This category does not call for a demonym, because animation is not people. That's why we have, e.g., Category:Philippine law rather than Category:Filipino law. I agree with Bellhalla that "American" is both a demonym and can also be used as an adjective to describe non-people things. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:06, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Good Olfactory, far more relevantly, the demonym of "Filipino" is used, even where not referring to people. See Category:Arts in the Philippines, where the demonym prevails over "Phillipine". Alansohn (talk) 22:26, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, it's wrong at worst; extremely clumsy/imprecise at best. Sorry, but it is. Dictionaries acknowledge that "Filipino" has been extended to non-persons in some instances, but that pretty much just recognises the fact that people who don't know any better have made a mistake that people from the Philippines resent. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:02, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Your condescending insistence that you know better what other people want is a sign of a real problem that manifests itself far too often. As an editor and a human, and especially as an admin, you desperately need to start respecting the opinions of others. Some God you are. Alansohn (talk) 01:27, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • Going apostate, eh? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:26, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Filipino animation. "Filipino" is the prevalent form in Category:Filipino culture, although both forms are used inconsistently. Personally, I associate "Philippine" with topics relating to the country (e.g. law, government, economy) and "Filipino" with cultural topics (arts, religion, society) of which this is an example.- choster 18:45, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is that correct usage, though? Or should these all be changed? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:01, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, postdlf (talk) 15:33, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. As far as I know the terms are interchangeable. If we were talking about usage in the vernacular there is a distinct difference between Pilipino and Filipino taught in schools and going into it may confuse things even more since Pilipino refers to the people and Filipino refers to the language, but in English usage I am unaware of any rule set by an official body to differentiate between usage of Filipino and Philippine. I get a slight sense though that Philippine is more business oriented: The Philippine Stock Exchange, The Philippine Daily Inquirer, The Philippine Star, and Philippine Airlines for example. I'm guessing it's to emphasize the connection to the country since Filipino might cause some foreigners to react with a double take. Type Philippine in Google and it suggests for autocomplete Philippine news, consulate, embassy, entertainment, and weather and shows 32 million hits. Filipino is more related to the people and language and maybe culture and seems to be used for more social or casual subjects. Type Filipino in Google and it suggests for autocomplete Filipino recipes, jokes, translation, food, dictionary, and culture and shows 24 million hits. These are rough impressions I've come up with trying to splice things very thinly. I might be imagining some of it. Lambanog (talk) 13:12, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fair enough. I know a Filipino guy, and he has told me that "Filipino" should only be used for people. But that's just anecdotal, and perhaps just his opinion. ... Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:38, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• I don't know for sure whether "Philippine" is indeed more correct, but it has the more correct ring to it for me, so I'd support the rename. Debresser (talk) 11:42, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps it would be worthwhile to (gasp) discuss this with the Philippines wikiproject (if any) and if users there agree that Filipino should only be used for people then a mass rename of the non-people categories could be done? I'm willing to follow up on this after this discussion is closed. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:51, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Please refer to the Philippine Wikiproject Manual of Style. It will help solve your dilemma. — •KvЯt GviЯnЭlБ• ^Speak! 00:10, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well what do you know; here's what it says:
    • Philippine is generally used with inanimate objects. Example, Philippine National Anthem or Philippine Senate.
    • Filipino may be used with either inanimate objects or people, though preference swings towards the latter. It is also the name of the national language.
  • My interpretation of this is that either is acceptable, though on balance and in isolation from other categories "Philippine" is probably better in this case. (Although ironically, it is "animation" that is the "inanimate object" in this case.) If it is renamed, I pledge to nominate the other categories that use "Filipino" to refer to inanimate objects for renaming. — Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:45, 27 November 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.

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. — ξ^xplicit 08:01, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Brunswick Boat Group Subsidiaries to Category:Brunswick Boat Group and subsidiaries Category:Brunswick Boat Group

Nominator's rationale: Rename. 1) Typo ("Subsidiaries" shouldn't be capitalized); 2) Category includes Brunswick Boat Group article, so it is clearly not limited to subsidiaries, but is inclusive of the entire topic (as it should be in a case like this, since this subsidiary itself, of Brunswick Corporation isn't ever likely to generate any subcategories otherwise). Alternatively, even Category:Brunswick Boat Group would be fine. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 05:21, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Modified by me to get rid of long-winded suggestion. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 22:21, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom (short-winded version). Occuli (talk) 01:04, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Rename to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 01:22, 27 November 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.