Knowledge:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 May 16

3250:- The problem at the heart of this is that in England, we do not usually append a state or county name to a place unless there is real room for ambiguity (as with Newport). Worcester is one of the historic cathedral cities of England, and I do not see why it should have to adopt any suffix to accomodate theneeds of places that are named after it. It is the original Worcester. The problem can be dealt with by placing a disambiguation note at the top the page. If the "People from Worcester" category has a problem, possibly that might be renamed (on the precedent of Birmningham), but other Worcester categories (and the article on the city itself) should remain as they are. 4074:(who is of African-American ethnicity/race, not Jewish) does nothing to clarify what exactly is being categorized here. CATGRS is just wrong in that it makes the leap of illogic that, e.g., Tom Cruise, Ellen DeGeneres, Cameron Diaz, Paris Hilton share something identifyingly different (all being Americans of German descent) that their next door neighbors didn't share. And perhaps as Jews have been segregated and treated differently in different places at different times, does not make any cross the board assumptions upon which to base categorization valid. 3138:. Another solution is to explain that differing naming conventions is not a reason to keep something that is clearly not the primary topic at the main name space. In cases like the article rename proposal, it just shows that in some cases, badly placed articles will stay there since with involved editors wanting to protect their article and their naming convention, they are not willing to budge. So I guess the question is, do we have to ignore guidelines and reason here too? 1861:, in an effort to save this, I am not sure how this helps; in many cases, who is the chief god is determined by archaeologists or others with little concept of the religion, which is usually dead or syncretized before being sufficiently understood and is invariably impaired. If the earth blows itself up, what would Alien archaeologists ascribe to be the chief god of Christianity? Probably the cross, based on the physical evidence around.... 1625:(reposted as edit conflict stopped me posting reply)They are all different types. Males, females, omnipotent, not so omnipotent etc. My point was mainly on "God" being the one worshiped by people believing in "one" deity as opposed to gods or a God being worshiped by people who believe in several gods at once. The content of the article and indeed it's name are in conflict with different belief systems.-- 2296:- "Educational institution" is a wider category than "school". Universities and other kinds of tertiary college are not schools. Indeed some use the term "school" for what others call a department or faculty. However I have not investigated the contenet of the two categories in detail. Alternatively, the school category might be made a subcategory of the educational institution one. 1443:. What purpose does "Names of gods" serve that "Gods" does not? Seems to be a redundant category prone for overpopulation (I mean, we could break it up into "Names of Hindu gods", "Names of Asian gods", "Names of Roman gods", but then we'd be overlapping the existing "Hindu deities", "Asian gods", and "Roman gods" categories found in 1583:

of God" the title should be corrected to at least "Names of God (Abrahamic)" so that readers are enlightened as to which god is being discussed. Always best to remember that there are many gods to choose from (although some people regard all/others/some as mythical). A rename is definitely in order if this article is kept.--

3818:. This CFD may be useful to explore ideas and rule some out. However, if any consensus emerges by the end, no action should be taken, but it should be relisted as an umbrella proposal with CFD notifications on all related categories that should be treated likewise. My own view is that the current category trees for 4556:

That may be true, but you're still comparing apples to oranges. This nomination is proposing a "CITY, COUNTRY" naming format, not a "COUNTRY, CONTINENT" or a "STATE, COUNTRY, CONTINENT" format. We can address your examples when someone proposes them. Until then, they are largely irrelevant and pretty

3222:

Thanks for the v clear explanation. The B'ham example shows though that people will mis-cat regardless, and a principle reason for that must be the assumption, wh is not unreasonable, that the cat name will follow that of the article. So renaming the cat AND the article as per above looks like a good

5465:

As an editor who has essentially agreed with Cgingold's positions throughout, and have therefore remained silent since my initial discussion with Bearcat, I see the template solution as a good compromise. Especially if, as Brewcrewer suggested, it could be placed on each category for capital cities.

4907:

On to your other remarks. In all sincerity, thank you for finally responding to my requests for some real substance by articulating that question. There is certainly nothing that sets Africa apart from other continents in this respect. As I've explained, it's sheer happenstance that this issue arose

4843:

When you say (above, in the nom) "I would like to keep the country-name in both categories, for clarity and consistency" I am entitled (in my universe) to infer that you are using a 'consistency' argument. I concede that KBdank did close the cfd as 'keep'; I am not sure why I thought otherwise. It's

4448:

as unnecessary. The clarity issues that Cgingold alludes to simply don't exist if a name isn't actually shared with other cities, and this really does look to me like a backdoor attempt to impose an invariable international "country name always required without exception" naming convention under the

681:

I don't think we ought to be categorizing by the race of the author. Didn't we have a big battle not to long ago about various stripes of science fiction by "people of color" categories? Renaming for the race of the author also excludes any AA-related plays not written by African Americans (assuming

5529:

There is only one Lilongwe. I had also forgotten which country it was in, but that does not matter. I trust you will support a rename for Hollywood to "Hollywood, California, United States" and California to "California, United States". Suffixes are only usually necessary for disambiguation, and

4602:

this. It's simply unnecessary. The current title doesn't conflict with any other potential category, imparting supplementary information about the subject isn't a category title's job in the first place, and it's backdooring behind a naming convention that was established by thorough discussion and

1582:

I see what you are getting at. The problem is that some will always see "God" (which was the redirect for "singular God" above by the way) as the only option because of faith reasons. This being an encyclopedia as such we cannot support just the monotheistic religions. With an article called "Names

4956:

to the way geographic categories have been named up until now. It would necessitate a comprehensive review of the entire geographic category structure to create whole new rules for how to distinguish categories which are "obscure" enough to require the country name, even if they're unique names on

3177:

The scope for confusion is surely increased rather than reduced if the article is called one thing and the cat another. Nor am I clear under what circumstances you are envisaging that people are likely to be confused by a cat, since it will either occur (with other cats) attached to articles, from

3115:

Strewth - it gave me a headache... but I still think that the sensible way is for the cat to follow the article, and until the article is settled is there much point changing the cat(s)? More generally perhaps it should be a guideline if not a policy that these clumps of related cats and articles

3670:

I'm still trying to understand what it is that you want to do here. Your proposal says "Rename", but the "target category" already exists -- so I'm guessing that you're thinking of some sort of merger? I looked at the edit histories for the 3 super-cats, and it looks to me like there was a clear

4633:

back at me when I've given a very clear explanation of the problem as I see it. However, I do take your point about the question of whether this is the appropriate forum for what would ultimately amount to a change in the naming convention. I'd like to see what other editors have to say on that

1844:

by capitalization of God, we imply the Abrahamic one, in normal punctuation. We say Jupiter was a (note the lower case) god. Now, more narrowly, we may be really talking about Christianity's God the Father, since interestingly Jesus is a name of God yet fails to be so categorized; but the Holy

5073:, in the very first line. You don't need to go anywhere else to find it. So would you please explain to me exactly why it would be so terrible to provide our readers with that extra bit of info in the name of the category? Also, I was hoping you would retract your comment that questions the 2932:. While the current name matches the article, it is completely ambiguous as there are many uses for this name. It is not clear that any of these uses is the primary usage so having this disambiguated makes the most sense. In fairness I'll state that the article failed a rename attempt to 4341:

per nom. WP should be for the benefit of the info-seeking reader, not a place to impose abstract theories or standards or haughty nationalism ('my city' is so important, people 'ought' to know the country is it in-and if they don't, too bad for them), which do not help the reader at all.

2191:

which points to a Further Education College and a University College in the UK. Neither of these are called Schools in the UK. There could well be others. So, whatever the problem here is, I support a solution that does not put all these articles in a category with "School" in its title.

1857:, which is Arabic for "God"; I don't know what the Arabic word is for non-Islamic gods. If we are meant to be talking about the first person of the Christian trinity, His names certainly don't include Jupiter, Baal, etc., so this cat serves no useful purpose. If we want to create a 1414:

Thanks for sharing your belief. Now please let the discussion that you started come to consensus before the community. It is highly inappropriate for you to make a proposal, and then (without waiting for consensus) start implementing the proposal. I'll write if off as a newbie

727:, which was a three-way intersection. The debate certain didn't reach consensus that works should not be given categories by race of their author, only that such categories must be as broad as possible. "Plays" is big enough that it should have its own category, I think.-- 4474:

per nom and Hmains for clarity, which can and does subjectively exist for many when all they see is a place name. WP "contingents" from countries (are people really so tribal here?) don't hold a veto over the names of particular categories that involve that country.

4825:, it most assuredly was closed as "Keep" -- the term "no consensus" is nowhere to be found. I'm still hoping that you will explain why we should not give our readers an extra bit of info (the country name) that will assist them in making use of these categories. 792:

There is a reason why hyphens are useful when AA is used as an adjective. Many of the above terms are potentially ambiguous otherwise. The case that it is not common to use the hyphen in adjectival forms has not been made above. I note the Stanford University

4656:

format that's being proposed is not relevant to the comparison — when you get right down to it, what you're proposing is to extend a category name, despite the fact that it's not in any disambiguation conflict with other topics, on the grounds that some users

1520:. The nominator's reasoning given is based on a fundamental misinterpretation of the category itself. At no point does the category propose that Allah, Brahman, and the others listed here are the same entity; the category is referring to names applied to any 5660:

is a redirect to it). More to the point, "online magazine" is currently the more popular term; "webzine" sounds very mid-'90s. Proof: Google Blog Search finds 14,809 results in the past month for "online magazine" (with quotes) but only 6,759 for "webzine."

5411:

That is indeed a very useful template, and appears to go a long way towards addressing my concerns. But I'd like to take my time with this before I "sign off" on it. I'm also hoping there are analagous templates available for the other continents.

4882:

First, my apology for any confusion I inadvertently introduced by using the word "consistency" in that one instance, since that is in no way at the heart of my argument. Please note that I only threw that in in connection with the sub-cat

3929:, a very useful tool and it would be foolish to squeeze categories about either "Jews" into categories about "Judaism" only or categories about "Judaism" into categories about "Jews" only as well as for many more sub-categories. In turn 827:

Thanks for this bit of research, Johnbod. It so happens that I had arrived at those same conclusions in my personal approach to usage & spelling. I strongly favor the hyphen in adjectival terms; I can live with either in the nouns.

4019:

appply to any of this because if you look at all the sub-categories and examaine the articles they hold you will see that they fulfil and important non-trivial purpose and function of use to the serious scholar and reader. Thank you,

700:

Those "people of color" categories were novel, and were problematic for a number of reasons -- as such they were not comparable to the African American categories, which are well-established. This particular category is a sub-cat of

4908:

in connection with an African city; it could just as easily have been a city in Asia or South America. The same principle applies across the board: we owe it to our readers to facilitate their use of the Knowledge category system.

5274:

of pages just to find out where all of those African capitol cities are located -- all because we refuse to provide that extra bit of info that would save them the bother of loading those pages. Of course, the reality is that

3747:

the words "renaming" (and "Rename") in your initial proposal and replace it with "merging". Also, if you want to merge all of those sub-cats into a different parent category, each of them needs to be properly tagged for CFD.

4519:

Your own statement that "clarity, which can and does subjectively exist for many when all they see is a place name" is not one iota less true of states or provinces than it is of cities. It's not even any less true of

1438:

is problematic. The way it has started to be populated seems to be one catch all category for every article about every god. Seems like it is completely ignoring the established hierarchy and categorization scheme of

4661:

not recognize the name by itself. That situation applies equally to cities, subnational divisions (states, provinces, etc.) and countries themselves. There isn't a single geographic topic on Knowledge, not even

5544:

This is another "apples to oranges" comparison. The proposal is for a "city, country" format, not a "city, state, country" format (3 locations, as opposed to 2) or a "state, country" format (no city involved).

3158:

Unless the category name is ambiguous as a result. Can anyone say that the current name is not ambiguous? There have been many exceptions to following the article name when that produces an ambiguous result.

2210:

Those pages not called "Schools" can have their talk pages tagged with {{WikiProject Education|class=Dab|importance=NA}} instead of {{WPSchools|class=Dab|importance=NA}}. That will place the talk page in

1550:

for your proposed category? The category and its respective article imply the major gods of monotheistic and polytheistic religions are the same. The problem is that they aren't even the same types.--

4813:

Oh, dear... we seem to be operating in parallel universes or something, Roundhouse. I didn't make a "consistency argument", I made a "clarity argument" -- which extends to all of the other capitals in

2955:. It may be the original Worcester, but it's not even the largest (population-wise) among them all. The category as it stands now should be a DAB category, as should the article page of the same name. 4700:

When one immediately resorts to exaggeration verging on caricature instead of dealing in a straightforward way with specific issues that have been raised, I think that meets the legal definintion of

3873:

in many countries, but more about Jews and Jewish affairs, would be shoved into a "Judaism" category that they have no connection to and don't belong to, and it would also leave the sub-category of

5559:

for reasons already stated. ("Haughty nationalism" has nothing to do with it -- I've never even been to Lilongwe, let alone consider it "my" city. Although ... I wouldn't mind having a city.) –

4004:

article which could never be. The purpose of the category under discussion is to serve as a parent for two connected sub-categories, such as is the case with many others. You see seem to be

3178:

which it must be apparent anyway which Worcester is meant, or as a sub-cat of an over-cat which puts it in context. As for the cat's own page, a three-word headnote will remove all doubt.

1698:

right now it's an unclear hodgepodge of unrelated concepts relating to monotheistic single gods, supreme gods, pantheistics all-gods. It's also highly skewed towards abhramic god. If kept

4304:

for clarity, to assist the many readers who may not be sufficiently familiar with African geography to know what country it is in. This exact issue has already been raised in the CFD for

4036:

Evidently you're not aware, IZAK, that Carlossuarez opposes all categories for "race/religion/ethnicity" across the board, every time they turn up at CFD, regardless of the particulars.

4143:

per IZAK. There is an important distinction between Jews (people) and Judaism (religion), and the current structure recognizes this in a way the proposed merger would not. For example,

3958:. Categorization of people by race/religion/ethnicity serves no purpose. Putting the Jewish history, synagogue, organization, etc. articles into a Judaism by country seems reasonable. 888:

for asking for clarification. It's always nice receiving such positive, constructive responses, as opposed to the sarcasm that one can encounter. I've clarified in my comment above. -

498:, but rather a stylistic choice, so it doesn't fall under the criteria for Speedy renaming. There have been a number of attempts to get concensus on this, but to date all have failed. 4098: 2564: 518: 4320:, on the same grounds. I would like to keep the country-name in both categories, for clarity and consistency. I also want to use this CFD as a test case for renaming other cities in 3683:

has only 16 country sub-cats. Perhaps you could offer some sort of explanation of what things would look like if whatever it is you're proposing were to be implemented? Btw, I have

4996:. Unnecessary. No other Lilongwes of note. This whole city, country issue smacks of editors who cannot get their way with article naming trying it instead with category naming. -- 4118:

per the arguments already given by many above. It is a logical supercat, and the existing structure works fine as is. The merge as suggested would leave many subcats orphaned. --

3647:. They were made on seperate tracks, and only later the former make a subcat of the latter because it looked like it made sense. Indeed, both cats have the same type of subcats. -- 4712:. The notion that exercising sound judgement when naming categories is somehow frowned upon is simply ludicrous. Surely you can come up with something better than that, Bearcat. 724: 1611:, as exemplified by the Abrahamic faiths. Belief in a singular God is not unique to monotheistic religions, so your comment about different "types" of gods is a non sequitur. - 5466:

It's clear from the preceding discussions that there's no consensus to rename, but I do believe that such a solution addresses any concerns I myself had about "clarity", etc.

2616: 2613: 4792: 4309: 2452:. I can tentatively agree to this as now pretty much a housekeeping change, on the assumption that there will be a clear definition at the top of the category with a link to 42: 37: 4178:

per IZAK and Malik Shabazz. The distinctions between Jews as people and Judaism the religion are important, and the proposed merger would not preserve this distinction. --

3671:

rationale for the way things were set up (back in 2004). The "by country" trees came along a couple years later -- that's when things get really complex. As it stands now,

4795:

on Pple from Lil closed as 'no consensus'. Consistency requires us to drop the country, unless there are good reasons to include it (ambiguity being the most persuasive).

3395: 1045: 4674:

and Knowledge's injunctions against arbitrariness to decide that some topics need this and others don't on the basis of some arbitrary and unverifiable estimate of how

5442:

This and the explanatory intro should alleviate the problems raised by nom. Kudos to Roundhouse. However, wouldn't we want to place the template on each capital cat?--

2608:. Given the Google search results, I don't understand why Dominica should get the default "Dominican", when the demonym is associated with the Dominican Republic by a 2472:- in view of the possibility of miscategorisation of members of the Dominican Order and People from the Dominican Republic. Sometimes consistency cannot be perfect. 4510:

California is a state, Lilongwe is a city. The proposal has two place names, yours has three. Seems fairly substantially different on a number of grounds to me ...

3631: 5842: 4453:

world country whose Knowledge contingent has decided that disambiguation is always necessary for geographical topics whether they're actually ambiguous or not;

3549:. Secondly, the title is a disconnect - Jews aren't necessarily connected to Judaism and a person that is closly connected to Judaism isn't necessarily Jewish. 5252:- completely unnecessary for reasons given (and rather patronising). As for clarity, the information that Lilongwe is in Malawi is available in the over-cats. 1493:

which I see has been done. "Names of God" should only be a cat for articles on names used for the monotheistic god of the Abrahamic religions in my opinion.--

5323:

too, for that matter) would be able to identify more than a handful of those 60 or so capitol cities. The same is undoubtedly the case for other continents.

1845:

Spirit is. Alas.... We have a category for Jewish names of God even though to my understanding Judaism forbids the writing or pronouncing God's name (hence

1753: 1464: 338: 5319:. Certainly there's no intent to patronizingly single out Africa. That said, it is most certainly the case that few readers outside of Africa (and possibly 705:, and it has 3 sub-cats -- all of which are for plays by African American authors. So I don't really see a good reason to broaden it to "AA-related plays". 396: 5297:

Patronising to Africa - you seem to be making the huge and unwarranted assumption that there is something intrinsically "obscure" about African capitals.

1795:. Similar categories might be introduced for other religions, and best, a description of what the categories should include can be added to their pages. — 3404: 4928:

I'm obviously not explaining myself clearly enough if you think it's a red herring, so let me try again: the practice for geographic category names has

3941:. If this vast category were to be eliminated it would leave an illogical and sorry gaping whole in a perfectly well-constructed categories arrangment. 4557:

much standard fare "slippery slope" arguments (or "camel's nose", "thin edge of the wedge", "domino theory", "reductio ad absurdum", etc., and so on.)

5270:

There's nothing in the least "patronising" about this. I'd say the operative word here is "disdainful": So what if our readers are forced to download

3806:(which I would oppose). It does not make sense to challenge only the "by country" categories as a "disconnect"; the same applies to the supercategory 2756: 3705: 3552: 222: 3612:. (I'm wondering if perhaps B/C might want to consider withdrawing the nomination?) In any event, I'm going to ask for input from the WikiProject. 5846: 3905:

that may not be "equal" in meaning to each other because that is the nature of creating and using categories. Therefore, the nominator's concerns

309: 21: 4844:

really up to you to explain why capitals in Africa need to have a country attached when capitals in every other continent have none (apart from

4576:

Bearcat so much about the very idea of giving readers an additional bit of info in the category name. In all sincerity, all I'm getting is that

1858: 2533: 2240:

Makes the whole structure easier to follow and cuts down on the proliferation of schools categories. No real drawback if done conscientiously.

5363:; this may reduce the burden on our readers. A list of African capitals with more info (populations etc) might be a good idea too. There is a 3826:

are the proper way to recognise the "disconnect" mentioned in the nom, and that there is also such a strong "connect" that the head category

535:

No, that was actually on a different issue, nothing to do with the hyphen; but there have been discussions on this - links would be useful.

425: 110: 106: 4386:

There is no "city, country" standard for categories anywhere outside of the United States, except where their names are actually ambiguous.

660: 4144: 3930: 3926: 3713: 3709: 3676: 3644: 3601: 3556: 3527: 2967:

per nom: city-and-country is just right, the county (Worcestershire) is less helpful to non-British readers, anyways. And I might add that

2041: 1356:: Would you be good enough to clarify your proposal? Are you asking for straight deletion, or do you merely want to rename the category to 702: 2033: 1909:

isn't implied by the current category. On the hand, they same users insist on using the singular "God" to denote the plural chief gods.--

4166: 3807: 2537: 1824: 1658: 1569: 1551: 1338: 1297: 915: 17: 4489: 2730: 2722: 2453: 2430: 197: 193: 5047:. Why is that clear, whereas the category isn't? Are people reading categories somehow more ignorant than those reading articles? -- 2184: 2161: 2137: 2061: 2024: 1703: 579:

It is not standard in current American English to use a 'dash' in the case of African Americans. WP should reflect this common use.

3815: 3264:

So the fact that it is not the primary topic is not a concern? The naming convention is not justification to ignore primary use or

1910: 1707: 458: 454: 367: 255: 251: 4957:

their own, from those which are "famous" enough to stand alone. The question of whether there are any other Lilongwes in the world

4788: 3980:, so would you say that should go as well? How does it serve "no purpose" when Jews are a objectively known and defined as both an 4857: 752:

Comment: This entire discussion will be moot unless somebody takes care of properly taggaing all of these categories for full CFD.

342: 5833: 5730: 5450: 4408: 4367: 3770: 3728: 3655: 3567: 3391: 2713: 2429:

and to match naming used for this page's sub-category pages. there's no need to maintain this page naming to avoid a mix-up with

2099: 1932:

means. I could see an argument for renaming to 'Conceptions of God', though, since these articles really aren't about the names.

1788: 1737: 1066: 1016: 400: 135: 5132: 3201: 1024: 630: 280: 226: 3197: 2426: 2212: 634: 313: 5675:...And Google Book Search finds 324 books published from 2004 to 2008 using "webzine" versus 648 using "online magazine." -- 3196:

The confusion arises when an article is placed in a category - it's very easy to misplace someone from Worcester, Mass into

1007: 5103: 4884: 4822: 4305: 1048:. A category is not the way to do this, especially because there is no inclusion criteria for Japanese supervillains, like 429: 4317: 2866: 2861: 2779: 2133: 2065: 3400: 2279:. Current name sounds too much like a "real" category; "Disambig-Class school pages" is clearly an editor-focused one. -- 168: 164: 4603:

consensus. If you think the naming convention is wrong and needs to be changed, then you always have the right to go to

3283: 2989: 2968: 2870: 854: 371: 5360: 4814: 4784: 4678:

readers are likely to be confused by a particular geographic name on its own. It's not "slippery slope", and it's not

4321: 4155:

because they haven't made any significant contributions to Judaism (the Jewish religion) in Germany (or elsewhere). —

4152: 3938: 3862: 3858: 3717: 3680: 3640: 3605: 3531: 3307:

the UK is relevant for WP, in light of the fact that we're dealing with places and readers from all around the world.

3301:"...in England, we do not usually append a state or county name to a place unless there is real room for ambiguity..." 2921: 2750:

Unnecessary and inconsistent with all other countries, where races are included in the "Motorsport in <country: -->

1525: 1226: 1053: 638: 470: 441: 412: 383: 354: 325: 296: 267: 238: 209: 180: 151: 139: 122: 552:: These all need to be re-tagged for full CFD -- there's no point in discussing this if they're not properly tagged. 284: 2568: 3834: 2853: 2413: 5876: 5858: 5821: 5757: 5740: 5711: 5684: 5670: 5629: 5565: 5549: 5539: 5521: 5486: 5470: 5460: 5437: 5421: 5402: 5376: 5332: 5306: 5288: 5261: 5240: 5214: 5191: 5169: 5147: 5119: 5086: 5056: 5034: 5005: 4982: 4917: 4900: 4873: 4834: 4804: 4774: 4748: 4721: 4695: 4643: 4624: 4589: 4561: 4549: 4514: 4505: 4479: 4466: 4432: 4418: 4395: 4377: 4351: 4333: 4255: 4187: 4170: 4133: 4110: 4083: 4045: 4029: 3967: 3950: 3837: 3780: 3757: 3738: 3699: 3665: 3621: 3592: 3577: 3513: 3454: 3427: 3379: 3311: 3295: 3277: 3259: 3232: 3213: 3187: 3168: 3147: 3125: 3106: 3080: 3063: 3042: 3026: 3005: 2980: 2959: 2945: 2907: 2795: 2768: 2707: 2643: 2627: 2594: 2580: 2549: 2532:

We have a solution for problems like this, which is to use the country name when the demonym causes problems. See

2517: 2498: 2481: 2464: 2442: 2401: 2387: 2373: 2305: 2288: 2268: 2249: 2228: 2201: 2173: 2016: 2009:

template categorises articles and the X-class Y-project articles categorise things categorise article talk pages.

1941: 1918: 1882: 1870: 1836: 1806: 1769: 1742: 1715: 1666: 1640: 1620: 1598: 1577: 1559: 1537: 1508: 1480: 1453: 1421: 1409: 1391: 1369: 1346: 1305: 1214: 1144: 1132: 1115: 1094: 1071: 1001: 936: 919: 892: 879: 861: 841: 818: 784: 763: 736: 714: 691: 672: 650: 622: 605: 588: 561: 544: 530: 507: 478: 449: 420: 391: 362: 333: 304: 275: 246: 217: 188: 159: 130: 97: 5894: 5797: 5773: 5641: 5605: 5581: 5364: 5353: 4739:

Lilongwe is the capital of Malawi, population 600,000, and there are no other Lilongwes. So what is the problem?

4227: 4203: 4058:(and will that be split among those ethnically Jewish or Jewish by religion if someone got the notion, ready for 3914: 3827: 3803: 3494: 3470: 3355: 3331: 3090: 2933: 2835: 2811: 2683: 2659: 2417: 2345: 2321: 1984: 1957: 1186: 1160: 976: 952: 74: 5893:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

5772:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

5580:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

5428:

I would also like to run this by the other editors who supported the proposal to rename to see what they think.

4202:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

3811: 3469:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

3330:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

3116:

should all be decided in one go, rather than being fought out separately one after the other. Is that feasible?

2810:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

2658:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

2320:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

2094:. The second way used by 300+ WikiProjects is to use "|class=Dab" in a WikiProject template on the disambiguous 1956:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

1159:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

951:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

659:

I take your point, Otto -- but I would rather maintain the original intent of the category. Perhaps a rename to

5796:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

5604:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

5517: 5477:

I have, assisted by AWB, added the template + an explanatory intro to each of the African capitals categories.

4301: 4226:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

4079: 4051: 3963: 3493:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

3415: 3354:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

3265: 3135: 3059: 2834:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

2682:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

2605: 2560: 2527: 2361: 2344:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

1983:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

1866: 1444: 1185:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

1128: 975:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

867: 780: 73:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

3934: 3874: 3850: 3672: 3609: 3546: 1565: 1081:

I think that its better to categorize articles but what they are, instead of by what they are not else we get

904:

In the titles of articles and the names of (most) categories, Knowledge doesn't hyphenate African American. —

4059: 1662: 1573: 1555: 1342: 1301: 5535: 4160: 3510: 3255: 2904: 2590: 2545: 2477: 2301: 2091: 2013: 1657:

and other gods which don't fit the name. Hence the name of the category is not correct. User:Names of gods

1490: 1435: 1405: 1387: 1357: 1234: 909: 732: 618: 474: 445: 416: 387: 358: 329: 300: 271: 242: 213: 184: 155: 126: 4783:

I read your suggestions. Your 'consistency' argument is completely undermined by all the other capitals in

1914: 1711: 4961:

the current and established precedent for whether a category name needs its country in it or not, whereas

4271: 3877:

hanging without a major context. The nominator is touching upon old debates about the differences between

3418:

etc., however this renaming makes it clearer (that the soccer is not necessarily American, the clubs are)

2224: 2169: 5829: 5174:

I have added the country (and continent) to the first (and only) line of the category page, so it is now

5817: 5625: 5482: 5398: 5372: 5302: 5257: 5187: 5143: 4869: 4800: 4744: 4630: 4595: 4577: 4156: 3831: 3375: 3291: 3273: 3228: 3209: 3183: 3164: 3143: 3121: 3102: 3076: 3001: 2941: 2703: 2576: 2433:

as a statement of disambiguation at the top of the nominated page can handle this perfectly well enough

2397: 2383: 2369: 1784: 1765: 1476: 1397: 1379: 1222: 1170: 905: 601: 93: 5637: 1791:

which is plenty useful and accurate—mincing whether they are titles or proper names is superfluous and

5735: 5680: 5666: 5455: 5052: 5001: 4568: 4413: 4372: 4148: 3775: 3733: 3660: 3572: 2789: 2764: 2494: 2284: 2216: 1733: 1062: 1265:, etc. simply is false. By the way, Brahman is not even a being, I only know of Hindus who worship 5854: 5546: 5513: 5467: 5210: 4558: 4511: 4476: 4279: 4075: 3959: 3686: 3589: 3423: 3308: 3055: 3038: 2956: 2752: 2639: 2461: 2457: 2438: 1862: 1400:

with the support of others because my efforts to empty the category have been reverted by a user.--

1124: 855:

Knowledge:Overcategorization#Non-notable intersections by ethnicity, religion, or sexual preference

802: 776: 5156:

Yes, you're right. I wrote that very hastily and was simply trying to convey the fact that it was

5872: 5753: 5531: 5433: 5417: 5328: 5284: 5236: 5165: 5115: 5082: 5030: 4913: 4896: 4830: 4770: 4717: 4639: 4585: 4329: 4249: 4041: 3753: 3695: 3617: 3507: 3251: 3014: 2976: 2917: 2901: 2586: 2541: 2473: 2297: 2144: 2116: 2106: 2010: 2003: 1832: 1633: 1591: 1501: 1451: 1419: 1401: 1383: 1365: 1208: 1090: 837: 759: 754:

I've refrained from commenting because I didn't want to waste my time on a pointless discussion.

728: 710: 687: 668: 646: 614: 557: 503: 5077:

of my argument. I have no connection with this issue other than what I have openly stated here.

3414:'American' is the accepted, convention adjective for 'United States of America' on wikip, as in 1752:

pending a discussion with a clearly articulated nom and fewer mysterious i.p. contributors. The

4940:

in a state of ambiguity conflict with another valid category. What you're proposing is a major

5561: 4978: 4845: 4691: 4620: 4572:

hits the nail on the head. But more importantly, I'm still not hearing what it is that really

4545: 4501: 4462: 4428: 4391: 4262: 4183: 4106: 2245: 2220: 2165: 2154: 2126: 2080: 875: 814: 540: 525: 3303:

I'm not sure why this view of what is common in the UK and whether a name is ambigous or not

5813: 5621: 5478: 5394: 5368: 5298: 5253: 5183: 5139: 4865: 4796: 4740: 4347: 4012: 3922: 3823: 3371: 3287: 3269: 3224: 3205: 3179: 3160: 3139: 3117: 3098: 3072: 2997: 2937: 2699: 2572: 2393: 2379: 2365: 2136:

for the article talk page. Merge proposed: (1) All article talk pages of articles listed in

2076:, Modernly, disambiguous pages may be categorized two ways. The first way is by placing the 1937: 1801: 1780: 1761: 1646: 1608: 1472: 932: 597: 584: 90: 5725: 5676: 5662: 5653: 5445: 5048: 4997: 4403: 4362: 4071: 4055: 3845:, because this VERY extensive category is a parent for two diverse sub-categories of: (1) 3765: 3762:

Done, and I struck through the proposal re the subcats. We'll take it a step at a time. --

3723: 3650: 3562: 3450: 3442: 3022: 2784: 2760: 2623: 2490: 2280: 2197: 2188: 1816: 1728: 1616: 1533: 1111: 1057: 794: 613:

With luck this will lead to a rename for all the outstanding "(X)-Americans" categories.--

466: 437: 408: 379: 350: 321: 292: 263: 234: 205: 176: 147: 118: 4457:

else wants, needs or uses that particular standard. There's no need for this whatsoever.

2187:

contains entries that are not called Schools in places other than the USA. An example is

5850: 5702: 5206: 4861: 4449:

noses of the 192 world countries that have already flat-out rejected it. The US is the

4025: 3946: 3419: 3094: 3034: 2857: 2635: 2434: 1889:

On the one hand, some have said that the "God" is not the same. That is, Baal=Brahman=

1850: 1682: 1285: 992: 853:

intersections of ethnicity and occupation. - To me this just seems to be an example of

772: 3604:

is the parent to a pair of sub-cat trees, one of which is the proposed rename target,

1489:

I found this discussion via the AfD you mention. I tend to agree with the renaming to

5868: 5749: 5429: 5413: 5324: 5280: 5232: 5161: 5111: 5078: 5026: 5022: 4909: 4892: 4826: 4766: 4713: 4663: 4635: 4581: 4325: 4243: 4037: 3977: 3918: 3819: 3749: 3691: 3613: 2972: 2897: 2514: 2265: 1898: 1828: 1654: 1626: 1584: 1494: 1448: 1440: 1416: 1361: 1250: 1202: 1086: 833: 755: 706: 683: 664: 642: 553: 499: 3445:

was clarified; but, it looks like the soccer/football cats are still hanging around.

1687:

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Category_talk:Names_of_God&oldid=212867999

4974: 4705: 4687: 4671: 4616: 4604: 4541: 4497: 4458: 4424: 4387: 4179: 4102: 2893: 2241: 1902: 1792: 1757: 1724: 1604: 1521: 1468: 1262: 871: 810: 536: 522: 2887: 2112:

was created to populate Category:Educational institution disambiguation. However,

4070:(a Roman Catholic nun and saint) with those who are religious but not ethnically 2508:

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.

2259:

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.

1528:

to address the claims that some of these names are actually titles or epithets. -

1249:

maybe categorized together because they are very similar. However, Allah=Yahweh=

806: 5317:

it's sheer happenstance that this issue arose in connection with an African city

4860:, Antigua and Barbuda, which have obvious disamb problems). Of which country is 4758: 4709: 4540:

are countries if the titles aren't "Djibouti, Africa" or "Nepal, Asia", either.

4343: 4119: 4067: 3976:

Hi Carlossuarez46: What you say is not clear. There is a huge super-category of

1933: 1796: 1237:. Note that the attributes and powers of the gods in the category aren't equal. 928: 580: 5065:

As I've already said, the entire point is that if you happen to be reading the

771:

as unnecessary race/ethnicity categories - isn't the top one supposed to be at

3446: 3204:

contained a lot of Americans (it has 2 misplaced English persons as I write).

3018: 2993: 2619: 2193: 1612: 1529: 1107: 798: 462: 433: 404: 375: 346: 317: 288: 259: 230: 201: 172: 143: 114: 2489:

as above. Too many "Dominicans" around for this to be clearcut otherwise. --

5696:

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.

4021: 3981: 3942: 3054:, and until it's moved, we should keep the cat consistent with the article. 3051: 2849: 1906: 1879: 1254: 1141: 889: 858: 830:

But I note again that these categories still haven't been properly re-tagged

5790: