Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2005 September 8 Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2005_September_8

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. ∞Who?¿? 21:09, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Unhelpful category, with potential for controversy. Only one entry so far anyway.

• The JPS 23:14, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete another cat that produces a random "X is Y" overlap. We've had a few similar cats through here lately (see 1 and 2: they've all been deleted (or merged as appropriate). -Splash 00:15, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per my previous objections to people by religion categories. siafu 00:09, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. ∞Who?¿? 21:09, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if it should be renamed or deleted. At a minimum, I know that we don't want the word Notable in category names. But there is also only one person in the category, so I'm not sure it makes sense to keep it at all. TexasAndroid 22:23, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. One article does not make a cat, and to add other articles to it would be overcategorization. By state is specific enough usually, imho. Plus, as the nom says, we don't put such adjectives in cat titles. -Splash 00:15, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Per Splash; "People from <city>" categories could be possible under certain circumstances, IMHO, but not for this one. siafu 00:10, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. ∞Who?¿? 21:09, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Appears to be a duplicate of Category:Arabic words. The only entry is in both categories. TexasAndroid 22:09, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unless there is any chance this could be repopulated to be a suitable subcategory of Category:English words of foreign origin. The sole entry does not fit: "algorithm" is not a loanword, but a derivation—apparently an Arabic one at that—and WP does not categorize article titles by etymology. - choster 23:47, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment This needs massive cleanup, since Arabic and Farsi are not the same language. 132.205.45.110 21:26, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Misnamed, parentless, empty. siafu 00:14, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep. ∞Who?¿? 21:09, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Empty category. TexasAndroid 22:06, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep (I know, I'm shocked too :). I've started to populate it. --Kbdank71 18:35, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete just redundant ccwaters 18:54, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Submitter, changing my vote. Thanks for the finds, Kbdank71. TexasAndroid 19:14, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Changing vote...I see potential in this. ccwaters 20:09, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. ∞Who?¿? 21:09, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Empty category. (Another chemical one, so there may be hope for this one getting populated by someone with the correct knowledge.) TexasAndroid 21:29, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No articles to populate cat. siafu 00:19, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. ∞Who?¿? 21:09, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Empty Category. TexasAndroid 20:16, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Also vague and miscapitalized. - choster 20:50, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• What's this about? India? Delete Carina22 22:04, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Empty and confusing. Could as well be about Germany as India! -Splash 00:15, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete all. ∞Who?¿? 21:09, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Products:primary

Category:Products (primary)

Submitting these three linked categories. Even looking at the three articles contained in the first one, I cannot make any sense of these things. If anyone can make these things useful, more power to you. But if not, they look to me to simply be an unneeded mess. TexasAndroid 20:10, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all. Only the third is potentially a useful concept and it would be better off as Category:Raw materials. Christopher Parham (talk) 22:35, 2005 September 8 (UTC)
• Delete all. Just about everything man-made belongs in one of these! Judging from the blurbs in the cats, I wonder if someone has just slightly misunderstood how categories work. -Splash 00:15, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all widgets. Er, just these cats, really. siafu 00:21, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. ∞Who?¿? 21:09, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Empty Category. TexasAndroid 18:45, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Difficult for me to think of what might go in here that doesn't go in Category:Signal processing or a subcat thereof. -Splash 00:15, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No argument. siafu 00:22, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Reverse Merge from Category:Rai albums. ∞Who?¿? 21:09, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Empty Category. TexasAndroid 18:13, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Move entries there from Category:Rai albums, and delete the latter, misspelled category. -Hapsiainen
• Reverse Merge, as described by Hapsiainen. If he says that Raï is the correct spelling, so be it. (Changed vote) TexasAndroid 15:17, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. ∞Who?¿? 21:09, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Empty category. No idea what this is/was about, so I don't feel 100% confident tossing it up for Speedy. So I'll put it here instead just in case there's some reason it should be salvaged. TexasAndroid 18:10, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The term Realm of Foo is used to refer to all territories that share the same monarch as Foo, and for which Foo is seen as the superior entity. While Sweden has no such territories now, the territories that it held in the Holy Roman Empire would have been seen as such, and thus part of the Realm of Sweden but not the Kingdom of Sweden. The category is thus either a duplicate or a parent of the existing Category:Dominions of Sweden depending how one views the other Unions that the Swedish crown has been involved in such as that with Norway in the 19th century. I don't know enough about Swedish history to know if the term Dominions of Sweden is restricted in meaning so that the two categories should not be the same. Caerwine 00:36, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• speedy delete Properly covered by Category:Historical_provinces_of_Sweden and/or Category:Lands_of_Sweden, it's empty anyway so get rid of it. --Sherool 00:39, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. ∞Who?¿? 21:09, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Residential Colleges

Category:Liberal Arts Colleges

Category:Catholic universities

Category:Catholic Liberal Arts Colleges

Category:Catholic colleges

Here we go again. One article, five categories created that have only the same one article as their only member. Sorry, but no. (Like the last similar one, I'm not submitting the article for deletion, only the categories.) TexasAndroid 17:16, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all. I don't think "Residential colleges" is a meaningful distinction, and would contain thousands and thousands of entries. The others looks like a case of flinging pasta at the wall; note the partial duplication of Category:Liberal arts colleges and Category:Roman Catholic colleges and universities. choster 21:12, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Come to think of it the three obvious duplicates could be speedied if I'm not mistaken. - choster 21:25, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per both above. -Splash 00:15, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No argument. siafu 00:24, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. ∞Who?¿? 21:09, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Empty category. Could be populated, but I haven't been able to find any other examples of "Film by Actor" categories. So, while theoretically usable, I don't see where it fits in the current category structure. TexasAndroid 16:53, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No argument. siafu 00:25, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted. ∞Who?¿? 21:09, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I created this category before realizing Category:Drama television series already exists. Mea culpa.

• Al 14:39, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy - If you created it yourself, it's valid for speedy deletion. TexasAndroid 16:21, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have put the speedy tag on it. Al 17:09, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

Deleted. Niteowlneils 22:42, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. ∞Who?¿? 21:09, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This category was created by user:Huaiwei and populated with subcategories previously under category:countries (see special:recentchangeslinked/category:political entities starting from Sept 8 or Huaiwei's edit history). She/he has a record of equating countries with sovereign states, and removing/relocating non-sovereign territories from lists or categories by countries. Relevant policy: WP:POINT. — Instantnood 11:26, September 8, 2005 (UTC) (modified 11:45, September 8, 2005 (UTC))

• Reject nomination "Political entities" is a far more nuetral and all-encompassing term then to have all kinds of political units classified under "countries". I do not see the above as being "disruptive" behavior at all. May I also remind to nominate a category based on its worth, rather then to judge it based on its editor.--Huaiwei 12:00, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I agree "political entities" is far more encompassing, but it is so all-encompassing that it can be everything from counties, townships to provinces (subnational entities), and colonies, protectorates, dependent territories, sovereign states, and even supranational organisations like the EU. The original category was intended for what the word "country" in English may include. The English word "country" carries little connotations.. don't think it's less neutral than "political entities". — Instantnood 18:31, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: That is precisely the point. It is meant to be all encompassing. And yes, it does allow contemporary entities like the EU to appear there as well. Does that apply to the term country? No, so in what way is classifing all the above you list as countries any better? You say the word "country" carries little connotations. Look in the article for country, and please tell me if that is true. And yes, please also validify your statement that the term country is as nuetral as "political entities".--Huaiwei 20:57, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Your edits was in effect re-defining the word country. From when on non-sovereign territories are not countries, and only sovereign states are? — Instantnood 07:32, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
        • I simply do not think I am redefining anything. As already explained in the country article, we DO have exceptions, but notice they all connote the idea of self-determination, and the utilisation of the word to connote a desire for an increased level of independence to that of a "normal" country. I do not think I dispute this fact at all, and I even helped contribute to this text. However, to then make use of this definition to call all dependencies, subnational entities, special territories, enclaves, exclaves, and what have you is clearly pushing this way too far. Have wikipedia become an advocate in refering to all political entities as countries as thou we are advocating greater self-determination for all? You claim doing so is nuetral. Are you sure calling Tibet a country is a politically nuetral statement, compared to calling it a political entity which does not specify its status in anyway? You call for all views to be heard. May I then also remind the related policy for NPOV. (You appear to exhort the virtue of NPOV when it works your way, Mainland China comes immediately to mind. Yet i am surprised you are suddenly willing to let it take a backseat in this discussion. The double standard is disturbing.)--Huaiwei 12:14, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • What you are saying is like as though I were the one to have categorised subnational entities and all those things into category:countries to illustrate my point of view. No I didn't do it.. the fact is that I am totally uninvolved in these categories. I did not advocate any form of greater self determination either, and as far as I can recall nobody has ever said ordinary subnational entities, be it provinces, counties.., are countries. Please go ask a true native speaker of English what the word "country" means. — Instantnood 17:49, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
        • I dont think I am saying you are involved in those edits. However, there is no escaping the fact that you have consistently tried to include Hong Kong in country lists and categories, and extended this to other forms of subnational entitis, dependencies, and the like when this effort was opposed. You justify your political agenda in highlighting HK's autonomy from the rest of the PRC by insisting that Country = political entities, thus implying that Hong Kong is a country despite the one country, two systems formular which paves the way for the Hong Kong handover in 1997. Does this not describe the works of a nationalist, as described in the country article? My call to use "political entities" is much more nuetral, and does not advance the political views of any party, not even my own. By avoiding a political label, we avoid future complications on the status of political entities. In fact, we may even consider using this phrase in place of "XXX by country" throughout wikipedia. Is there any valid reason to counter this?--Huaiwei 10:55, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • The real side of the fact is that nobody has ever said ordinary subnational entities are countries. And no.. it was you who insisted countries ≡ sovereign states. — Instantnood 11:13, September 12, 2005 (UTC)
        • The "real side of the story" is we are not even talking about ordinary subnational entities, are we? I do not see how I could be insisting countries ≡ sovereign states when the article country says the same thing. I dont think I wrote that article alone. While we are at it, are you insisting countries ≡ sovereign/non-sovereign states, and since we know Hong Kong = non-sovereign state, therefore you are saying Hong Kong ≡ country?--Huaiwei 11:27, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Definition of country from the Oxford English Dictionary: "The territory or land of a nation; usually an independent state, or a region once independent and still distinct in race, language, institutions, or historical memories, as England, Scotland, and Ireland, in the United Kingdom, etc." or "A tract or district having more or less definite limits in relation to human occupation. e.g. owned by the same lord or proprietor, or inhabited by people of the same race, dialect, occupation, etc". Countries was therefore fine before without added complications. Delete. -- Necrothesp 18:22, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is ironic we are now refering back to a dictionary definition when Instantnood himself has been consistently rejected them for a more all-encompassing one. May I remind, that our own article on Country does not state that every political entity is a country. Do we intend to incorporate the above definition into it? Note from the article, that "Sometimes, the term is used more loosely by nationalists, or by those that sympathise with that nationalist cause, to refer to parts of states with a distinct history, culture, or political view.". Are we therefore playing the role of nationalists now?--Huaiwei 10:41, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The category system should not be used to express or enforce unusual points of view. CalJW 20:57, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • From the above, what "unusual point of view" is being enforced?--Huaiwei 10:41, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As above. Osomec 17:19, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per CalJW. We already have very good lists for non-country political entities, e.g., List of active autonomist and secessionist movements, etc. Such entities do not, generally speaking, have categories that would possibly be subcatted here. siafu 00:30, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not too sure what you mean, but those entities exist in Category:Disputed territories, which in turn was formally classified under Category:Countries until I moved them to Category:Political entities. They still fit in perfectly well, and by your own statement "non-country political entities", I see you do not consider them as countries too? Precisely why, then, are they in the country category?--Huaiwei 09:52, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• More information: See also the edit history of lists of country-related topics. — Instantnood 09:20, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Notice to admins and all I would like to hereby appeal to admins and all members of wikipedia, that going by the above process, we appear to be moving dangerously away from the basic tenants behind which wikipedia strives to be a viable source of information on the internet, that of its neutral point of view. It is without saying, that we have had numerous disputes over "country lists" precisely because wikipedians sometimes cannot agree over the political status of various entities. I recognise the fact that we do have conflicting definitions of what a country means, although we cannot deny that the dominant view of the world's English speakers assumes it to refer to a politically-independent entity, and this it the backdrop behind which much disputes took place. If I may recall, we have had disputes in pages such as List of countries, Lists of country-related topics, List of city listings by country and List of countries that only border one other country, amongst many others.

Besides having conflicting views involving the addition or removal of entities, why not use a term which does not incite arguments over their political status besides their very existance? I would think this would cut down very much on future disputes. We may consider replacing out articles named "XXX by country" as "XXX by political entities" in future as well.--Huaiwei 09:52, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is an odd (and somewhat hypocritical) comment, since my reading of it is that is you who is trying impose a POV. It is you who is trying to complicate the issue by refusing to accept that "country" is a neutral term. It is you who is trying to upset the status quo by changing the category title. You then complain that "we appear to be moving dangerously away from the basic tenants behind which wikipedia strives to be a viable source of information on the internet". So, you're right and everyone else is wrong? Very NPOV! -- Necrothesp 11:21, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

By your logic, I suppose anyone who attempts to correct an NPOV issue is himself having NPOV isues, isnt it? So therefore, no one is in the moral right to correct them? I would certainly like to hear your views on this one. Meanwhile, is your failure to accept the fact that multiple definitions of the term country exists by claiming I am "complicating the issue" to the good of wikipedia's scholarly value? Is your insistance on maintaining the status quo with your pretense that no disputes exists over the political statuses of political countries helpful? May I further note, that you came into the picture after Instantnood drops a message in your talk page [1]. Fair, unbiased, and well-researched comment?--Huaiwei 11:55, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Necrothesp helped fix Category:Law enforcement in Macau (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), and naturally she/he would be interested with what's going on here around the word country. Don't think anybody's comment would be biased merely because of a message in the user talk page. Everyone acts independently and has clear mind.. and you cannot assume the opposite. — Instantnood 12:31, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was No change Not a valid Cfd. ∞Who?¿? 21:09, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Stoned_and_toped is an article about a series of parties where kids get drunk and stoned, with no context to suggest that these are in any way notable. There's an 'artists impression' in the form of a movie poster, but no evidence that such a movie exists. Googling the term turns up very little. Unless anyway can assert that these parties are notably huge, this has to go. TheMadBaron 10:47, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• I think you were looking for AFD (Articles), not CFD (Categories). Anyway, someone has already submitted the article in question for speedy deletion, so that should handle it. TexasAndroid 16:28, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Merge/Rename. ∞Who?¿? 21:09, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This Italian region is known as Piedmont in English, and that is what the article itself is called, but the categories are inconsistent. category:Piedmont already exists. I would like to see the following changes:

• category:Piemonte merged into category:Piedmont and deleted.
• category:Towns in Piemonte renamed category:Towns in Piedmont
• category:Natives of Piemonte renamed category:Natives of Piedmont.

This is just the same as calling Roma Rome and Milano Milan and hopefully is not controversial. London is spelled around 20 different ways in various Wikipedias. CalJW 03:15, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No vote yet. The weird thing about this is that there are plenty of Italian regions for which there are no Anglicized versions (Abruzzi, Calabria, etc. So it feels worrisome to me to be referring to some by Anglicized names and the others by their Italian names. So part of me leans towards being consistent. It feels to me like cities "stand alone" in some sense that regions do not. On the pro-rename side, I note that Category:Tuscany already exists, as does Category:Brittany instead of Category:Bretagne. So there seems to be precedent. Nandesuka 04:24, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The only difficulty I see is that unlike Tuscany or Brittany, the name Piedmont is used for other regions with similar geography, most notably Piedmont (United States) which is what I think of when I hear the unqualified term, but then I live there. On the other hand, context should be sufficient to alert people that the region in Italy is what is meant, if Category:Piedmont is used Caerwine 05:04, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Although I agree that the English name for this place is Piedmont, and that would be the sensible name for the category, I also agree with Caerwine that it has become a generic term for any major set of foothills. Might I suggest the compromise of Category: Italian Piedmont or Category:Piedmont (Italy)? Grutness...wha? 07:35, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• What about category:Piedmont, Italy? — Instantnood 18:20, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Where is it a generic name? I've never heard about that. Rename it Piedmont, Italy if it will otherwise be confusing for some people. This encyclopedia should certainly be written in English. Carina22 22:07, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where is it not a generic name? The term piedmont is used to refer to the foothills of many chains of mountains. The term is also used in geology as an adjective, meaning formed in or as foothills. Grutness...wha? 01:36, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think it's well known in the UK. I got an A in A Level geography when that still meant something, and I'd forgotten this until it was mentioned. In the UK non professional-geographers/geologists call foothills foothills. It may be different in New Zealand where you have bigger mountains. CalJW 20:55, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, they're foothills here, too. But geologists in particular use the word piedmont as a generic term worldwide, and I'm fairly sure geographers do too. Grutness...wha? 06:18, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to "Piedmont". It's not that common to use the term to refer to foothills, but it wouldn't be likely to cause a problem as "foothills" are more commonly known as "foothills" anyway, and any category or article should use that word. The place name should use the common English usage per wikipedia policy, though it's always been personally bothersome. siafu 00:35, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep at Piedmont. The category for foothills, if there's any, would be category:piedmonts. — Instantnood 19:45, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep at Piedmont and Rename other cats. The Italian Piedmont is by far the best-known. I've never heard it used as a generic term (although I accept it may be a technical term), and I don't think there is likely to be a great deal of confusion with much smaller Piedmonts elsewhere. -- Necrothesp 11:26, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.