Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 September 10

< September 9September 11 >

September 10

Indian Awards

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 per nom. --Xdamrtalk 13:53, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming
Nominator's rationale: Rename to bring 'Recipients' categories in established form per precedent. Hekerui (talk) 21:58, 10 September 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:ZEDEPHIAN

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: speedy deleted by Orangemike per G11. VegaDark (talk) 06:26, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:ZEDEPHIAN (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: I've never really nominated a category for deletion, but this category seems inappropriate. It appears to be based on a neologism and looks like it is better suited for an article. TNXMan 20:53, 10 September 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:Old Testament Hebrew words and phrases

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: Renaming
per Fayenetic's summary. I agree that there is at least consensus to rename "Old Testament" to something else. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:52, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Old Testament Hebrew words and phrases to Category:Hebrew Bible words and phrases
Propose renaming Category:Old Testament Greek words and phrases to Category:Septuagint words and phrases
Nominator's rationale: Rename. All other categories about the Biblical books shared by Jews & Christians have been renamed as "Hebrew Bible". I acknowledge that the first one is not straightforward, as the word "Hebrew" in the proposed name has a double meaning: that the word/phrase is in the Tanakh/Old Testament, and that it is of the Hebrew language. I also acknowledge that the new names would not be consistent with the sub-cats of Category:New Testament words and phrases. - Fayenatic (talk) 17:57, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestions are also welcome on the appropriate category for English-language phrases from the Tanakh/Old Testament, currently in Category:Old Testament words and phrases. Maybe a new sub-cat, Category:English words and phrases from the Hebrew Bible? In that case, should the first nominated category be Category:Hebrew words and phrases from the Hebrew Bible?
Also, Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 November 23#Category:Hebrew Bible quotations may help. - Fayenatic (talk) 18:34, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If this is adopted then to achieve consistency with the middle one I will propose a further rename of the NT sub-cats to "XX words and phrases in the New Testament". - Fayenatic (talk) 20:53, 24 September 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:IQ albums

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Rename Category:IQ albums to Category:IQ (band) albums. --Xdamrtalk 13:55, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:IQ albums to Category:IQ (band) albums
Nominator's rationale: Rename. To match article IQ (band) and disambiguate from Category:IQ (girl group) albums. Tassedethe (talk) 14:04, 10 September 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:House of Bourbon du Maine

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:House of Bourbon du Maine to Category:House of Bourbon-Maine. --Xdamrtalk 13:55, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:House of Bourbon du Maine to Category:House of Bourbon-Maine
Nominator's rationale: Rename. To match the article House of Bourbon-Maine. Tassedethe (talk) 10:45, 10 September 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:Australian Top 40 radio stations

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:Australian Top 40 radio stations to Category:Contemporary hit radio stations in Australia. --Xdamrtalk 13:56, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Australian Top 40 radio stations to Category:Contemporary hit radio stations in Australia
Nominator's rationale: Rename. To match the article Contemporary hit radio (which is where Top 40 radio redirects) and the category Category:Contemporary hit radio stations. Tassedethe (talk) 08:57, 10 September 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:Rhythmic AC stations

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:Rhythmic AC stations to Category:Rhythmic adult contemporary radio stations. --Xdamrtalk 13:57, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Rhythmic AC stations to Category:Rhythmic adult contemporary radio stations
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Spell out abbreviation to match article Rhythmic adult contemporary and category Category:Adult contemporary radio stations. Tassedethe (talk) 08:47, 10 September 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:Islamic science

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Merge Category:Islamic science to Category:Islam and science. --Xdamrtalk 13:57, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Islamic science to Category:Islam and science
Nominator's rationale: Matches the page at Islam and science. The only article in this category can be moved to Category:History of Islamic science. Science crosses all cultures and while Muslims have contributed much to science it should not be called "Islamic science". -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 08:44, 10 September 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.

Bamboo and Bamboos

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:Bamboos to Category:Bamboo taxa. Keep Category:Bamboo. Jafeluv (talk) 13:21, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Bamboo to Category:Bamboo products or Category:Bamboo (material)
Propose renaming Category:Bamboos to Category:Bambuseae
Nominator's rationale: At present we have categories entitled Bamboo and Bamboos, intended for the material and plant taxon respectively. The distinction seems to be valid, and the categories are well populated. The names, however, are horribly confusing, partly because they are too similar, and because they fail to capture the intended distinction. Whilst the name "Bamboos" probably doesn't fit the material very well, the name "Bamboo" fits both taxon and material quite easily.

At least one of these categories needs to be renamed, and I suggest that both ought to be. The rationale for the move from "Bamboo" is the inherent and irreparable ambiguity of the term. The rationale for the move from "Bamboos" is the confusion factor, plus the fact that "Bambuseae" is a much more appropriate name for a category that is explicitly restricted to a taxon as opposed to the material that derives from it. Hesperian 05:24, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - as people are likely to start looking at Bamboo initially the second is probably better as Category:Bamboo (taxonomy). Twiceuponatime (talk) 08:31, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - this is not the conventional way of organising categories. There should be a 'topic' supercat Category:Bamboo, head article Bamboo, with various subcats, one of which might well be Category:Bamboos (a list subcat, for articles about particular species) and another could well be Category:Bamboo products. This could all be done without involving cfd. (Eg Category:Wine, subcat Category:Wines.) Occuli (talk) 13:06, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Firstly, it works the other way around in this case. Not all bamboo taxa produce useful bamboo material; but all bamboo material comes from bamboo taxa. Therefore bamboo (material) is a subtopic of bamboo (taxon). Secondly, you've begged the question, because you're still proposing we have categories named both "Bamboo" and "Bamboos". This nomination is based entirely on the premise that these names are too close and therefore too confusing. If you start with the presumption that this premise is wrong, then of course you'll end up concluding that the nomination is unnecessary. But you won't have proved a thing, because you haven't addressed the actual point. Hesperian 13:15, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is standard throughout wikipedia to have the pairs Category:Foo, subcat Category:Foos; not at all confusing. I would address the point by reorganising the material. All bamboo-related stuff should be within Category:Bamboo. (Category:Bambuseae might well be a better name than Category:Bamboos. I defer to others on this, on which I have no expertise.) Occuli (talk) 20:06, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Standard throughout Wikipedia"? Examples? You've given me "wine" and "wines". How many more do you have? As far as I can tell this "standard throughout Wikipedia" method only works in the rare case of nouns with two distinct plural forms for countable and uncountable plurals.

      And what is the scope of "all bamboo-related stuff". Do you mean everything related to the material, or everything related to the taxon? If you mean the material, then "Bamboos" can't be a subcategory, since not everything in category "Bamboos" will have anything to do with the material yielded by some species. Hesperian 00:55, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Category:Bamboo per Occuli and the usual way of organizing schemes, which Hesperian has apparently not yet grasped - that "Not all bamboo taxa produce useful bamboo material; but all bamboo material comes from bamboo taxa" is no doubt true, but entirely beside the point! Perhaps rename "Bamboos" although clearly the word will be unknown to many or most readers. Johnbod (talk) 20:24, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you grant that quote as correct, then "Bamboos" won't be a subcategory of "Bamboo". We would have to identify the particular bamboo species articles that produce the bamboo material, and tag them into both "Bamboo" and "Bamboos". Yeah, that'll be crystal clear. Hesperian 00:55, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's not the way categories work. Read up on it. Johnbod (talk) 04:08, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Bamboo the material is defined, or at least contrained, by the plant that it derives from: if it doesn't come from a species of Bambuseae, it ain't bamboo. Bamboo the plant is not defined or constrained by the material; a bamboo plant is bamboo whether it yields bamboo the material or not. One can imagine articles about bamboo the plant taxon that are unrelated to bamboo the material. But every article about bamboo the material is inherently about bamboo the plant taxon. Clearly bamboo the material is a subtopic of bamboo the plant taxon.

Having made more than 2000 category edits, I flatter myself I merit a little more than the above patronising dismissal. Is it possible that it is you who is mistaken here?

Hesperian 04:25, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so. Johnbod (talk) 04:48, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The alternative is to accept "Bamboo" as the name of the broader topic, defined not in terms of the material but in terms of Bambuseae in general (which includes the material). Then rename "Bamboos" to "Bamboo taxa", to indicate that this category contains articles on specific genera and species of bamboo. Hesperian 04:31, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's right. I'd be fine with "Bamboo taxa". There are a number of articles in that category that should be either in the topic one (Whangee, Bamboo shoot/flower etc) or just in the genus one - all the Phyllostachys species are repeated. I should have disclosed what I had forgotten, that I created Category:Bamboo. Johnbod (talk) 04:48, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay; let's try again: Hesperian 05:21, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Propose renaming Category:Bamboos to Category:Bamboo taxa
Nominator's rationale: The category name "Bamboos" is too similar to the parent category "Bamboo", and it is not at all clear that it is intended for bamboo genera and species. Hesperian 05:21, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see the need for the products - not really the right term anyway - myself. But whatever. Johnbod (talk) 11:03, 11 September 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:Federal Correctional Institution, Texarkana inmates

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Merge Category:Federal Correctional Institution, Texarkana inmates to Category:Prisoners and detainees of the United States federal government. --Xdamrtalk 14:05, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:Federal Correctional Institution, Texarkana inmates to Category:Prisoners and detainees of the United States federal government
Nominator's rationale: Merge. I'm not sure how it can be said to be defining to have been housed in any particular low-security prison of the U.S. federal government. Category:Alcatraz inmates I can understand. Category:Prisoners at ADX Florence (the federal supermax) I can also understand. But there doesn't seem to be anything remarkable about this prison or the inmates sent there. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:21, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- Do not prisoners in US get moved from prison to prsion during their sentences, as they do in UK. If so, being incarcerated in a particulr prison will usually be non-defining, implying delete. However, there may be some where detention would be notable, especially maximum security prisons. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:35, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - prisoners can in fact be shuttled from one facility to another in the course of incarceration. As noted in the nom, only in certain very rare instances could incarceration in a particular prison be considered defining (and at least one of the examples in the nom is questionable). Otto4711 (talk) 20:34, 14 September 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.

Remainder religious converts

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge. There is clearly consensus here that categories by these names should not exist, and no consensus to rename them. Further creation of subcategories can be done after the merger if needed. The point about whether conversion should equate to "former" is out of the scope of this discussion; the point applies to everything in Category:People by former religion, so I suggest raising the issue there. Jafeluv (talk) 11:23, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category: Converts from Islam to other religions to Category:Former Muslims
Suggest merging Category:Orthodox converts to other religions to Category:Former Eastern Orthodox Christians
Suggest merging Category:Orthodox converts to other Christian denominations to Category:Former Eastern Orthodox Christians
Nominator's rationale: Merge. These are odd little "remainder" or "other" type categories. Being lumped into a "miscellaneous" category for left-overs is not defining for the individuals. (No one is defined for joining an "other" religion. It's like when Rev. Lovejoy classified Apu Nahasapeemapetilon's religion as "miscellaneous". These types of "remainder" categories have consistently been deleted in the past. (The third of these three could conceivably be reworked as a container category for EOCs who converted to Catholicism, Anglicanism, Protestantism, etc., but at this stage if would be easier to just upmerge the contents of this category and create such a container category if it's desired.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:41, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
and the third to Category:Converts to Eastern Orthodox minor church bodies and movements. - Fayenatic (talk) 17:19, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What you just want this one created from scrach? Carlaude:Talk 05:36, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No need to populate from scratch. The existing 6 articles are all people who joined the Old Believers and similar splits. Arguably they did not leave Eastern Orthodoxy. Follow WP:PRESERVE and keep them grouped together. Rename the category according to what they converted TO. - Fayenatic (talk) 13:11, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're right to challenge those two, but the others stand. There is clearly scope for a new head Category:Converts to new religious movements with additional sub-cats.
  • For the two that you mention, I wonder if new Category:Former religions and Category:Converts to former religions would be justified. Pending that, if my proposal is implemented, I promise to check the articles one by one afterwards.
  • As for the Eastern Orthodox, my proposal for the second category stands.
  • However, the new religions of Category:Orthodox converts to other Christian denominations are not "new religious movements", in that they are not recent; they seem to fall into Category:Eastern Orthodox minor church bodies and movements. It is therefore arguable whether they are Category:Former Eastern Orthodox Christians at all. Perhaps the third one should be renamed Category:Converts to Eastern Orthodox minor church bodies and movements, leaving out the "from". - Fayenatic (talk) 17:19, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I quote from Category:New religious movements:
Carlaude:Talk 05:36, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What's your point? Ariffin Mohammed & Dwight York (in Category: Converts from Islam to other religions), Gleb Botkin and Nikolai Ilyin (Category:Orthodox converts to other religions) are all converts to new religious movements. Most the other founders of new religious movements are likewise notable and have articles about them. There is clearly enough to make a new group of categories. - Fayenatic (talk) 13:27, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Category:Orthodox converts to other Christian denominations should go to Category:Converts to other Christian denominations from Eatstern Orthodoxy per the discussion below. Debresser (talk)
  • Merge all per nom. The so-called counter proposal does not make sense. Most former Eastern Orthodox Christians do not join New religious movements-- and this would create an artifial need to sort out all the former Eastern Orthodox Christians that joined another part of Christianity or joined another older religion, etc, (before the rename process could be finnished). If there really were (or is) a need for this category it can be better done as a sub-category of the new Category:Former Eastern Orthodox Christians, once created. Then there would only be the need to sort such people in, and could be done whenever time allows.
To User:Debresser, I point out that categories of the form "Category:Converts to other Christian denominations from one-Christian-denomination" is never used elsewhere but "Category:Former one-Christian-denomination people" is part of the larger system-- if you look a little closer-- and is thus much prefered. Carlaude:Talk 05:27, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The counter-proposal may not sound obvious, but does make complete sense if you look at the actual articles that are currently in the nominated categories. - Fayenatic (talk) 13:28, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Except that in one of the categories it doesn't apply to half of the contents? Rather than muddying the waters in this way, it seems more logical to perform the merge, and then if editors want to try to subdivide the contents left in the broader category, they should create new categories rather than try to shoehorn an old category where it might not quite fit. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:14, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Half the contents = 2 of 4 articles, and I already promised to check the results afterwards. But half wrong is half wrong, so in principle you have a point. In the other cases I think WP:PRESERVE would point towards keeping the identification that has already been done. There are plenty of precedents for renaming categories according to how they currently populated. Anyway, if all these three are merged, it won't matter much, and I will take this discussion as consenting (or at least not opposing) the new categories that I have suggested. - Fayenatic (talk) 13:32, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's a fair assumption, at least for the new religious movements category. I would oppose the creation of Category:Converts to other Christian denominations from Eastern Orthodoxy. I'm unsure about Category:Converts to Eastern Orthodox minor church bodies and movements, but I'm leaning towards it probably being susceptible to deletion. I'm not sure that WP:PRESERVE is even at issue when the relevant information is still available in the article text—no information is being "lost". For that reason, it's usually not terribly relevant in a category deletion/merge discussion. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:58, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's not me that proposed the category with "other" in the title. I agree that no category should keep the word "other". My proposal for the second one was Category:Converts to new religious movements from Eastern Orthodoxy. - Fayenatic (talk) 21:50, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it wasn't. My mistake. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:17, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Right now their contents are a mess, they include completely wrong people (Avvakum never left Eastern Orthodoxy) and I assume that a lot of relevant people are missing from them. NVO (talk) 22:43, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's fair to say that the proposal to merge is a proposal only to delete the categories and merge the articles in the categories (subject to some exceptions which may have to be dealt with by hand) and not a general proposal to equate conversion to something with being a former something else. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:45, 13 September 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.

Religious converts clean-up

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 per nom (using Evangelicalism). --Xdamrtalk 14:02, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming
  • Category:Protestant converts to Bahá'i Faith to Category:Converts to the Bahá'i Faith from Protestant Christianity
  • Category:Protestant converts to Pagan religions to Category:Converts to Pagan religions from Protestant Christianity
  • Category:Protestant converts to Scientology to Category:Converts to Scientology from Protestant Christianity
  • Category:Protestant converts to agnosticism to Category:Converts to agnosticism from Protestant Christianity
  • Category:Protestant converts to atheism to Category:Converts to atheism from Protestant Christianity
  • Category:Orthodox converts to Protestantism to Category:Converts to Protestant Christianity from Eastern Orthodoxy
  • Category:Orthodox converts to Theosophism to Category:Converts to Theosophism from Eastern Orthodoxy
  • Category:Orthodox converts to agnosticism to Category:Converts to agnosticism from Eastern Orthodoxy
  • Category:Orthodox converts to atheism to Category:Converts to atheism from Eastern Orthodoxy
  • Category:Miaphysit Orthodox converts to Catholicism to Category:Converts to Catholicism from Oriental Orthodoxy
  • Category:Former Miaphysit Orthodox Christians to Category:Former Oriental Orthodox Christians
Nominator's rationale: Rename. This is a follow-up nomination to this one, where the form of "Converts to FOO from GOO" was implemented. This is essentially a clean-up: changing all of the "from GOO to FOO" categories to the "to FOO from GOO" format and adding some mal-named categories that were missed in the first batch. Undoubtedly, some of these categories are quite small and could perhaps be nominated for deletion after this nomination. I'm also still not sure about using "Protestant Christianity" when the parent category is Category:Protestantism, but following the resolution of this discussion I will nominate the "Prostestant Christianity" and "Protestantism" ones to bring some resolution to that issue. (I'm also not convinced one can "convert" to agnosticism, but putting that aside. ...) Finally, I suggest changing the reference to the (mis-spelled) "Miaphysit Orthodoxy" to the more commonly used "Oriental Orthodoxy". — Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:36, 10 September 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:Black Albums

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Rename Category:Black Albums to Category:Black (Bangladeshi band) albums. --Xdamrtalk 13:58, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Black Albums to Category:Black (Bangladeshi band) albums
Nominator's rationale: Rename. To disambiguate and to fix caps. This will match the name to the main article—Black (Bangladeshi band). The other band of the same name is Black (English band). Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:09, 10 September 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:Current events Canada

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. --Xdamrtalk 13:59, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted from Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_August_29#Category:Current events Canada for further comment. --Xdamrtalk 23:29, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Current events Canada to Category:Current events in Canada portal or Category:Canada current events portal (not sure if "portal" should be capitalized, as in Category:Canada Portal)
Nominator's rationale: I think we can find a clearer and/or more gramatically-correct title for this category, which seems to be for a sub-portal of Portal:Current events. (Category creator notified using {{cfd-notify}}. –BLACK FALCON (TALK) 05:27, 29 August 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_September_10&oldid=1144514248"
Uses material from the Wikipedia article Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 September 10, released under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license.