Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 September 7

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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:31, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Sitcoms to Category:Situation comedies

Nominator's rationale: Rename. To match the lead article Situation comedy. Otto4711 (talk) 23:28, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to match parent article.--Lenticel ^(talk) 23:56, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename but keep the present version as a redirect. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:35, 8 September 2008 (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. Kbdank71 13:40, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Skimo to Category:Skimo characters

Nominator's rationale: Rename. All of the articles are for characters. Otto4711 (talk) 23:24, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose rename — I added the article Skimo to the category, which strangely wasn't there. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 07:21, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also added the list of episodes. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 07:23, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom (after removing the main article and the list of episodes) and recategorise under the appropriate "Characters by series" subcategory. The material does not justify an eponymous category. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:42, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the TV show does not warrant its own category, then why should its characters, which are certainly less notable than the series as a whole? — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 21:50, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Because being Skimo characters is the single most defining characteristic of these articles, thus the most appropriate possible category. See Category:Television characters by series and you'll find any number of character categories which rightly have no corresponding category named for the show. Otto4711 (talk) 23:47, 8 September 2008 (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 as empty. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:29, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:2009 Canadian federal election templates (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: The government moved the election to 2008. There is nothing in this category. What was here was moved to Category:2008 Canadian federal election templates Nfitz (talk) 22:35, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete — the election is schedule 14 October 2008 (see main page "In the news") — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 07:23, 8 September 2008 (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. Kbdank71 13:42, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Highways and Expressways in the Czech Republic to Category:Motorways in the Czech Republic

Nominator's rationale: Rename. While this category and the matching template use highways and expressways, the common term from all other sources appears to be motorways. Motorways appears to be the common name for this class of roads in Europe. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:17, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Motorway is the UK term. It's rather a stretch to say it is common 'in Europe' where there are autoroutes, autobahns etc. It would seem a better idea to rename all the articles first (none of which use motorway ... this can be an area of some contention). 'Motorway' is a more specific term than 'expressway', I think. Occuli (talk) 23:43, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well there is the Road and Motorway Directorate of the Czech Republic which seems to be an official organization. Their home page is here and one of their English pages is here. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:10, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• It would rather depend on the translator - according to Expressway there are about 3 stretches in the UK known locally as expressways but otherwise the terms freeway, expressway, highway are not used (although often encountered in films, songs etc). A Czech person will learn either US-English or UK-English depending on various unknowns. (The second link you give uses expressway in the text and the first one uses no English at all. This one uses both motorway and expressway, suggesting there is a distinction; and its photos are not all of 'motorways' – it has several photos, viewable via reloading.) I don't know enough about these roads to be able to tell which meet the UK motorway definition (which is nearer to Freeway than Expressway). Occuli (talk) 08:12, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, while normally the the first used English variety would take precedence, the proposed alternative is shorter and more accessible. Our overall goal is to aid navigation for our readers. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 11:01, 9 September 2008 (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:Highways and autoroutes in Canada. Kbdank71 13:46, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Highways with full control of access and no cross traffic in Canada to Category:Freeways in Canada Category:Highways and autoroutes in Canada

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Use a more commonly used name for these roads. In reading the various Canada road articles, there seems to be some overlap between freeway and expressway. But freeway appears to be the dominant description for roads that meet the super long category name. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:00, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – there are also Autoroutes in Canada, which I am told are called autoroutes in (Canadian) English. I have gained the impression that this is something of a minefield - see eg this archive. Occuli (talk) 08:24, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• "Freeways" sounds like an American term to me (a Canadian), but it may be used in parts of Canada I have not been to. In Quebec these are indeed called "autoroutes", including by "naturalized" anglophone residents. Perhaps Category:Expressways and autoroutes in Canada or Category:Highways and autoroutes in Canada are better choices? I think Canadians from a broader geographical range may be needed for this discussion. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 10:20, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • If they are autoroutes, then the name should be Category:Autoroutes in Canada. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:43, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • That is just in Quebec, which is not all of Canada. There are nine other provinces and three territories in Canada. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 03:34, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I'll defer to the opinions of Canadians, but be aware of the history of these categories. The history can be found in the discussion about the U.S. version of this category below. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 00:15, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a quick, non-rigorous "Google test" from website in the Government of Canada domain (.gc.ca):

• highway site:.gc.ca — 106,000
• autoroute site:.gc.ca — 23,800
• motorway site:.gc.ca — 2,420
• freeway site:.gc.ca — 2,000
• expressway site:.gc.ca — 1,980

You can review the kinds of results returned by these searches. The roads we are discussing, at least based on the article names, seem to be largely just "highways" and "autoroutes"; see Category:Provincial highways in Canada (and subcatgs) and Category:Limited-access roads in Canada (and subcatgs). After viewing all this, I suggest renaming simply to Category:Highways and autoroutes in Canada. Once this CfD is done, I might take on the task of organizing the (seemingly) messy Category:Roads in Canada. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 00:28, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I would not oppose that rename. One question would it be better to close this discussion, then do the cleanup and see what we really need at this point? Vegaswikian (talk) 05:47, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  I would like this to finish this first; continually seeing "Category:Highways with full control of access and no cross traffic in Canada" on all the pages I am trying to organize will probably become very annoying. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 14:42, 10 September 2008 (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: has been speedily deleted in conversion to list process. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:29, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Indonesian Ambassador (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete as Category:Ambassadors of Indonesia already exists, ( the category had been created with a non english language list as content - which has since been moved into correct format as a list - but still to be translated ) SatuSuro 13:38, 7 September 2008 (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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:26, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Thai film lists to Category:Lists of Thai films

Nominator's rationale: Rename. To comply with the standard for categories of film lists, particularly Category:Lists of films by country of production. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 12:33, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to mach parent cat.--Lenticel ^(talk) 23:57, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 16:26, 10 September 2008 (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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:25, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Singaporean film lists to Category:Lists of Singaporean films

Nominator's rationale: Rename. To comply with the standard for categories of film lists, particularly Category:Lists of films by country of production. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 12:31, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to match parent cat.--Lenticel ^(talk) 23:58, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 16:26, 10 September 2008 (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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:24, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Cornwall lists to Category:Cornwall-related lists

Nominator's rationale: Rename. The convention is to append "-related", as per the parent category Category:England-related lists Tim! (talk) 09:05, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom and per its rubric – This category is for lists related to Cornwall. Occuli (talk) 14:46, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename, as the original creator of this category I would be pleased for it to be renamed in a style consistent with other such categories. DuncanHill (talk) 04:25, 13 September 2008 (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:Scholars in nationalism Category:Scholars of nationalism (sorry, my initial mistake here). The risk that this name will be interpreted to mean that the scholar is a nationalist is minimal—nationalism is not exactly an intellect-based movement that one gets into because one is convinced after a lifetime of study that it's the right political stance to take. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:02, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Researchers (nationalism studies) to Category:Researchers in nationalism studies

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Unnecessary dab. Any other options work better? E.g. Scholars of nationalism studies? Upmerge, possibly? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:19, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree that this name is needlessly cumbersome, and I would suggest renaming to Category:Scholars of nationalism. Notified creator with {{subst:cfd-notify}} Cgingold (talk) 10:38, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm the creator (thanks for contacting me), and I agree that Category:Scholars of nationalism is probably better than the original name. – SJL 04:02, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. I don't particularly mind if scholar or researcher is used here, but I do think that the word "studies" is needed here. For me, a "Scholar in physics" suggests the person is a physicist, and thus a "Scholar in nationalism" could be construed to be a nationalist. That mistake should be avoided. Deamon138 (talk) 01:01, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree, but the suggestion is "Scholars of nationalism" rather than "in". – SJL 01:11, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well yes it is, me saying "in" was a bit of a Freudian slip on my part. I meant "of". "In" or "of", either way, I think my argument applies to both. Deamon138 (talk) 19:00, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm an academic who specializes in nationalism studies, and it is common to see people like myself described as a "Scholar of nationalism" in the literature on the subject. I probably would have used that name for the category in the first place if I hadn't been creating a set of categories explicitly centred around nationalism studies. – SJL 15:47, 11 September 2008 (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. Kbdank71 13:54, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Highways with full control of access and no cross traffic in the United States to Category:Freeways in the United States

Nominator's rationale: Rename. These are freeways. I think this name goes back to some old edit wars. Shorter and accurate. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:40, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Whew, that name sure is frightfully long. But I couldn't help noticing that a bunch of different terms are employed in the various sub-categories, "freeways" being just one of many. Category creator stopped editing in October 2007 Cgingold (talk) 10:41, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, the name used by each country can vary by country and in the case of the US, by state. However in the US, freeway is the most common name to describe these contents. I did not suggest renaming the parent or the other siblings since it is not clear to me right now what they should be renamed as. This name cleanup is a bit more difficult them most since all of these possible renames could be to a name different then this proposal. As to the editor stopping edits, I think you may find something in the Arbcon archives. The parent category will not control the names of the subcats since these need to reflect local preference. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:49, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Freeways of the United States as "freeway" is the most common name for these roads (provided they aren't tollways). If that doesn't work, then Category:Limited access highways of the United States. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 19:06, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Limited access highways in the United States rather than freeways because of the scores of limited access turnpikes which are members of this category.Category:Freeways in the United States per Scott5114 Sswonk (talk) 21:21, 7 September 2008 (UTC) Sswonk (talk) 20:48, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "free" in "freeway" refers to freeflowing, not being free of charge. Most turnpikes are freeways. (There was an edit war over this on Kansas Turnpike...) —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 21:10, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Right. All toll roads are freeways. Many, but not all, parkways, turnpikes and expressways may be freeways. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:40, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Actually, not all toll roads are freeways. the Adams Avenue Parkway isn't a full freeway, but that's beside the point. The "free" in freeway is free as in freedom, not free as in beer. Imzadi1979 (talk) 09:16, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Freeways in the United States. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 21:10, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Freeways in the United State. It's the logical, and much more concise name to use. Imzadi1979 (talk) 09:16, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per common sense. --Son (talk) 16:15, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. The first thing a nominator should do is check the history of the category and link previous discussions. Before we recreate the wheel, we should take a look back down the road to see where we've been before. People should be aware that:
  • Category:Freeways was renamed back in March 30, 2006 to Category:Limited-access roads.
  • The renamed category was nominated for renaming back to "Category:Freeways" on July 1 2006 without reaching consensus.
  • the closing underwent deletion review and was relisted for renaming on July 11, 2006.
  • Ten days later, the category we are discussing and its parent and siblings were created and immediately nominated for deletion without reaching consensus.

-- ☑ SamuelWantman 22:58, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I did look at the history and the involvement of one editor who seemed to be working to confuse the issue. The poposed rename seems to be the best solution. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:58, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with Category:Limited-access roads in the United States. It looks to me that Category:Limited-access roads and its subcats have been defined to be "Highways with full control of access and no cross traffic". If so, this hierarchy should be merged into that one. I don't think this one should be renamed to Freeways, because there are already categories for Freeways and they have been more narrowly defined. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 00:04, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I had elected to not propose that as a solution at this time since I'm not sure that it is the correct move. Freeways seem to be reasonably well defined. Some expressways are limited access but are not freeways. as I understand it. So where would they go? These road categories need a review and a cleanup. At least for now, having freeways as a child of Category:Limited-access roads in the United States may be the safe way to do. The road structure was messed up for years it will take a while for someone with time on their hands to review the mess and propose additional cleanup. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:58, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are two hierarchies currently, under Category:Limited-access_roads and under Category:Highways with full control of access and no cross traffic. If you look at the definition of Category:Limited-access_roads it says that it is "for highways with full control of access and no cross traffic". The previous CFDs decided to call these "limited-access roads" instead of picking one or two geographically limited terms like "freeway" or "motorway". So there is no need for two hierarchies that have the same definition. If there is a distinction between these two hierarchies, I'm not getting what that is. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 18:54, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I have no problem with renaming the category, as the current category name is definitely the most unwieldy category name I've come across on Wikipedia. If the category is renamed as suggested, somebody is going to have to go through and make sure that all the articles listed are indeed freeways (defined as "divided highways with full control of access" in the MUTCD). The category as currently named defines a freeway, except that it doesn't mention whether the highway is a divided highway or not. As an example, a Super-2 would fit in this category as currently named, but not in Category:Freeways in the United States since a Super-2 is not a divided highway. (I have no idea whether there's any Super-2's listed in this category, but I think the point is understood.) As an alternative suggestion, a rename to Category:Access-controlled highways in the United States might better reflect the scope of the category as currently named, without invoking disagreements on the regional term preference between "freeway" and "expressway". --Ljthefro (talk) 05:13, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Category:Limited-access roads in the United States already exists. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 21:30, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  "Limited access" and "access controlled" are two separate concepts, at least in U.S. traffic engineering terms. "Access controlled" is a narrower definition which includes freeways, most toll roads and super-2's, but doesn't include expressways. Thus, "access-controlled" is a subset of "limited access", which does include expressways. Anyway, my suggestion merely attempts to point out that if the category is renamed to "Freeways in the United States", any non-freeway articles listed therein will need to be reclassified. --Ljthefro (talk) 23:18, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  On second look, it appears most of the sub-categories of Category:Highways with full control of access and no cross traffic in the United States are already listed as sub-categories of Category:Limited-access roads in the United States. Maybe a merge into the latter would be a better way to go with this. --Ljthefro (talk) 23:25, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  The road articles and categories need a good cleaning up. The editor behind most of these overly picky names was, as I recall, was banned by the arbcon over a lot of this. Any merges need to wait until more cleanup is conducted in the articles. This rename is really not contested. The open question is should there be a merge and that is not at all clear. Can we do the rename and then decide later if a merge is appropriate which it may not be. If anything, it is possible that we will want to keep this as a subcategory of limited access highways. In any case, the current name is simply wrong. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:26, 17 September 2008 (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. (Could always be moved back if the article name changes, though.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:21, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:The College of Wooster to Category:College of Wooster

Nominator's rationale: Wikipedia naming conventions suggest that this should be renamed to avoid the use of the definite article, but the category naming conventions make no mention of the subject. - Eureka Lott 01:59, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom, and to match the main article, which the cat rules does mention. Johnbod (talk) 02:58, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom, and per College of Wooster, and per the photo shown on the college's home page (assuming that reading a sign is not OR). Occuli (talk) 16:04, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom and main article Rename something per comment below (though I wonder at why the article is where it is, considering Image:COW_seal!!!.jpeg). Actually, the category naming conventions page does say that, "Standard article naming conventions also apply", and to me that would suggest not using def/indef articles like here. Deamon138 (talk) 04:14, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Incidentally, aside from the signs such as the one that Occuli pointed out, the College refer to themselves as "The College of Wooster" religiously, and in the wider world it isn't uncommon to see them known as "The" rather than "the". This would be relevant per WP:THE where it says, "On the other hand, some universities religiously refer to themselves as "... The University of X..." even in running text. If such usage is prevalent on university press releases and press kits, contact information, "about" pages, and internal department websites, and it is reasonably common in external sources (try a Google search), then it is more appropriate to name the Wikipedia article The University of X". Of course, currently renaming the category makes sense, however I'm just wondering whether it would make more sense to rename the article instead? Deamon138 (talk) 04:25, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes; this is an alternative, the photo aside. Google suggests that 'The' is used commonly if not necessarily 'religiously'. Occuli (talk) 10:56, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Well I equated 99% of the time with "religiously". Deamon138 (talk) 00:55, 9 September 2008 (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: result. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:15, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Roman Catholicism in the United States to Category:Roman Catholic Church in the United States, Category:Roman Catholicism in Slovenia to Category:Roman Catholic Church in Slovenia, and Category:Roman Catholicism in Japan to Category:Roman Catholic Church in Japan

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Per Category:Roman Catholic Church by country and the main article - Roman Catholic Church. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:48, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. Johnbod (talk) 02:49, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom.--Lenticel ^(talk) 23:59, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 07:19, 8 September 2008 (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:English conversation schools in Japan. Kbdank71 13:59, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Eikaiwa (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Rename to Category:Name to be determined. Eikawa is a very obscure term outside of Japan, and therefore not suitable for use as a Category name here on English language Wiki. I'm really not sure what the best name would be, in terms of clarity and concision, so I'm leaving that open to suggestion. Notified creator with {{subst:cfd-notify}} Cgingold (talk) 03:29, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:English language schools of Japan Category:English conversation schools of Japan. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 03:40, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I changed the phrasing of the suggested category above. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 02:03, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 03:42, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to perhaps Category:English language teaching companies in Japan - all the articles are understandably about the larger chains, which are rather distinctively Japanese. Or per Nihonjoe. Johnbod (talk) 03:49, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I see this was mooted last November without a resolution. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:57, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for linking to that, GO -- I was pretty rushed and didn't notice it when I set up the CFD. There's one comment that I think needs to be taken into consideration in our new discussion:

• Rename to Category:English conversation schools in Japan. My understanding is that eikaiwa schools differ in that they only teach oral conversational skills—there is generally no study of written language at all; the focus is on helping people be able to converse in English. (The public school system's courses in English have more of an emphasis on English writing and grammar and being able to read English.) Also, the word "eikaiwa" in Japanese specifically describes a school that teaches English language conversation—an eikaiwa that teaches a language other than English is an oxymoron. Snocrates 04:44, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What I would like to know is, if we stay with the fairly narrow name suggested here, would there also be a need for a somewhat broader category along the lines previously suggested? Cgingold (talk) 05:34, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There may be a need for something like Category:English schools in Japan to cover schools which teach English (both written and oral), and then placing Category:English conversation schools in Japan into that category, but I don't see a problem with that. In fact, I support the idea. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 02:02, 12 September 2008 (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:Foreign educators in Japan. Kbdank71 14:04, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Educators in Japan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Suggest deletion - I don't think this category serves a useful function, but rather adds an unneccesary and essentially redundant layer between its parent, Category:Education in Japan and its sub-cat, Category:Japanese educators. The articles should be moved to those categories as appropriate. Notified creator with {{subst:cfd-notify}} Cgingold (talk) 00:33, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as not all educators in Japan are Japanese or people, so it's important to have a separation between those and Category:Japanese educators. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 02:28, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 02:28, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't spot an article about a non-Japanese educator, Nihonjoe -- did I miss something? Also, the term "educators" by definition refers to people, so I'm not sure what you're referring to. In any event, the articles that are there look to me like they would do just as well -- if not better -- in Category:Education in Japan. Why do you think there's a need for this particular sub-cat? Cgingold (talk) 02:42, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are plenty of categories (I would guess at least half of the existing categories) which don't have corresponding articles, so that's not a valid reason to delete this one. I was referring to the companies Johnbod mentions below. And there are several articles about non-Japanese educators in Japan, but they apparently have not been categorized yet. I'll see what I can do about that. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 03:01, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• keep per Nihonjoe's rationale. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 02:47, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge (see below) per nom. We already have Category:Eikaiwa, and we don't have any articles yet, it seems, on foreign educators working in Japan, who could in any case go in "Japanese educators" I think. The rest can be merged up or down the tree. Johnbod (talk) 02:54, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing out Category:Eikaiwa, Johnbod. I didn't even realize what it was because the term is unfamiliar -- so I've added a new section immediately above to propose renaming that category. Cgingold (talk) 03:33, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• keep as a useful corollary/alternative to Category:O-yatoi gaikokujin. --Tenmei (talk) 00:36, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I wasn't aware of this very interesting category -- thanks for pointing it out. It doesn't really change anything, though. Even if there turn out to be enough articles about foreign educators in Japan to warrant their own category, it should be called either "Foreign educators in Japan" or "Expatriate educators in Japan". There's really no good reason to keep this intermediate level category. Btw & FYI: I'm going to propose renaming Category:O-yatoi gaikokujin, just as I did with Category:Eikaiwa, because it, too, is entirely too obscure a term. Cgingold (talk) 14:49, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

keep: I'm not convinced that my contribution to this thread has been helpful. It did not occur to me that by simply mentioning Category:O-yatoi gaikokujin, I could be opening an entirely unanticipated can of worms. I'm not sure that it matters, but I would be wondering if Cgingold and others appreciate that, in terms of Venn diagrams as show at the right,

IF Category:O-yatoi gaikokujin = A

IF Category:Educators in Japan = B

TRUE -- A ∩ B (bottom Euler diagram)

When I saw Lafcadio Hearn on the list of Category:Educators in Japan, it was easy to think of several names which were obviously missing, and I knew at once how to find names which would not have come immediately to mind -- ergo, something about the current categorization system did function just as it should have done. In other words, reverse-engineering Cgingold's implied question:

Category:O-yatoi gaikokujin ≠ educators: Louis-Émile Bertin, Franz Eckert, George Arnold Escher, Henry Walton Grinnell, Charles Le Gendre, Ottmar von Mohl, Albert Mosse, Henry Spencer Palmer, Hermann Roesler, J. R. Wasson

Similarly, when I spied Sugawara no Kiyotomo on the list at Category:Educators in Japan, I understood at a glance that

TRUE -- Category:Educators in Japan ⊂ Sugawara no Kiyotomo

FALSE -- Category:O-yatoi gaikokujin ⊄ Sugawara no Kiyotomo

What is really surprising, but which is beyond my ability to parse at present, is this:

Category:Educators in Japan ⊄ Category:Japanese educators

The fact that what one would assume were congruent categories are now like apples and oranges says a great deal about the intuitive assumptions of prospective users. Alternately, I conclude that the unexamined prejudices and assumptions of those editors who populated these categories with mutually exclusive names are likely to be mirrored in the thinking of potential users who will have never thought of contributing to Wikipedia. That said: Until I understood more about this unresolved and otherwise unexplained phenomenon, I'd be inclined to leave the categories exactly as they are, hoping to learn something in the coming months which will clarify what seems too foggy and vague now.

I hope that I've proposed a worthy foundation for further discussion about aspects of this subject which are perhaps too easily glossed over. --Tenmei (talk) 20:34, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename Since the contents of the category have completely changed since the nom, I would propose, per Cgingold, a rename to Category:Foreign educators in Japan, with a clear-out of the few other articles (to Eikawa etc), and placed as sibling rather than parent to Japanese educators. I'm afraid I don't really understand Tenmei's point, no doubt because not all the symbols show on my browser. If they are educators, they go in this category and if they are O-yatoi gaikokujin they go in that too. If not, not. There would be precedent, I think, for classing foreigners, regardless of passport, who spent a significant number of years in Japan as "Japanese educators", but since there are a large number, I see no harm in a separate category. Johnbod (talk) 20:49, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• rename to rename to Category:Foreign educators in Japan This will be clear to to the WP reader as to what is in the category and to the editor as to what should be placed in the cateogry. Hmains (talk) 04:10, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wait -- I'm a bit concerned that my efforts to be helpful might have muddied the waters, betraying the best of intentions, obscuring whatever dinstinction Nihonjoe was trying to contrive in the first place. The proposal put forward by Johnbod and Hmains is attractive, and I'm almost ready to add my support to their suggestion; but not yet. I'm only prudent in refusing to agree too quickly. Waiting for Nihonjoe's further contribution to this thread .... --Tenmei (talk) 15:26, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I would support the following: Keep Category:Educators in Japan but create a subcategory Category:Foreign educators in Japan; Category:Eikaiwa → Category:English conversation schools in Japan; As for Category:O-yatoi gaikokujin, I think the category should remain named as it is since that is the most concise way of writing it; a translated category title would be too long, I think. The only change I would suggest is getting rid of the hyphen, per WP:MOS-JA. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 01:56, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support Nihonjoe's suggested sub-category Category:Foreign educators in Japan --Tenmei (talk) 13:27, 12 September 2008 (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.