Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 May 19

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< May 18 May 20 >

May 19[edit]

Category:Films released on Special Edition DVD Sets[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:23, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Films released on Special Edition DVD Sets (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete, as a non-defining attribute of a film. -- Prove It (talk) 23:55, 19 May 2007 (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 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:Video games based on wrestling[edit]

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

The result of the debate was merge per nom. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:29, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Video games based on wrestling (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Very redundant category, as Category:Professional wrestling games already exists. I see no reason for overcategorization, when the original category does the job fine. RobJ1981 22:35, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep my thinking was that "pro wrestling games" are a not the same as "Video games based on wrestling". Firstly there are computer games in pro wreslting cat that aren't pro wrestling (backyard wresting for example and it could also include amateur wrestling or other forms of wreslting). Equally games aren't video games and could include a range of things including video games. If they are considered to be too close then I'd vote for a merge to "Video games based on wrestling." (Emperor 22:51, 19 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]
  • Merge into Category:Professional wrestling games. -Sean Curtin 02:01, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge "Professional wrestling" here refers to the style of wrestling, not to whether or not the wrestling is performed by amateurs. So in this context "backyard wrestling" is in fact an amateur format for engaging in "professional wrestling style competition". Now that being said, Emperor makes a good point that it's possible there is a video game that is based on "collegiate style wrestling" or "Olympic wrestling" or some other form of wrestling other than "professional wrestling". If that's the case, then the merge should be into the category "Video games based on wrestling" so that it includes all styles of wrestling in one category. If there are no such games, though, and all the articles are about professional wrestling style competitions, then the merge should be into the already existing category. Dugwiki 20:06, 21 May 2007 (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 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:Star Trek behind the scenes[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:30, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Star Trek behind the scenes (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Delete - this is overcategorization per strong consensus against categorizing people by the projects on which they worked. Otto4711 21:53, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. and because it's just a vaguely named category like all the "associated with" cats. Doczilla 06:37, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete vague, ill-defined, badly-named and inappropriate people-by-project category. Xtifr tälk 20:23, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Alex Middleton 10:02, 26 May 2007 (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 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:Animanga images[edit]

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

The result of the debate was rename per nom. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:33, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Animanga images to Category:Anime and manga images
Nominator's Rationale: Rename. This is the only category which uses "animanga" in its title, everything else uses "anime and manga". (Additionally, Category:Animanga was deleted as a neologism way back in 2005.) --tjstrf talk 21:02, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment not a neologism, per VfD at Talk:Animanga of 3 Nov 2004. Why the other category was deleted, neologism is obviously not a valid reason for it. 70.55.87.252
  • Reply Be that as it may, that's not the primary reason for this nomination, consistency within a subject is. --tjstrf talk 06:21, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename Probably not a big deal, but whatever. -- Ned Scott 07:36, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename Inconsistent naming again, Animanga isn't the terminology that the WikiProject is using to classify things, we're WikiProject Anime and manga after all. --Squilibob 06:32, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. Jamie Mercer 23:09, 27 May 2007 (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 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:Western Illinois Leathernecks men's basketball coaches[edit]

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

The result of the debate was rename. Rationale makes sense and no objection has been raised. — CharlotteWebb 22:54, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Western Illinois Leathernecks men's basketball coaches to Category:Western Illinois Fighting Leathernecks basketball coaches
Nominator's Rationale: Rename. First, the school's official MEN'S nickname is "Fighting Leathernecks"; see the existing Category:Western Illinois Fighting Leathernecks football and its associated subcats. Second, the school's women's teams are known as Westerwinds. Dale Arnett 20:27, 19 May 2007 (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 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:Entertainment Weekly Entertainer of the Year[edit]

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Vegaswikian 02:14, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Entertainment Weekly Entertainer of the Year (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete, as non-defining, there are dozens of magazine awards like this. -- Prove It (talk) 20:19, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom as non-defining. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:27, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Greg Grahame 20:01, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Pavel Vozenilek 11:51, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sure, they may be awards like this, but none of them are as important. This one is considered the award of its kind to aim for. Free-encyclopedia 19:20, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Looking at the list of winners, I just don't see any value in this category. That is, no one that reads it will be better informed about anything but the award itself. Ravenhurst 01:46, 25 May 2007 (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 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:Notable Tall Men[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:36, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Notable Tall Men (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete, as subjective, see also discussion of May 17th. -- Prove It (talk) 20:06, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete subjective category. Any inclusion criteria would be arbitrary. Side note: It's inappropriately capitalized. Doczilla 06:39, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Doczilla--Pinkkeith 13:42, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Ravenhurst 01:47, 25 May 2007 (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 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:Korean honorifics[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:44, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Korean honorifics (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

This category would have only one article (Korean honorifics), so the parent categories seem adequate. Rod (A. Smith) 18:54, 19 May 2007 (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 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:Keeping Up Appearances actors[edit]

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Vegaswikian 02:16, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Keeping Up Appearances actors (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Delete - per strong consensus against performer by performance categories. Otto4711 17:05, 19 May 2007 (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 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:Families of Rome[edit]

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

The result of the debate was rename per nom. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:38, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Families of Rome to Category:Ancient Roman families
Nominator's Rationale: Rename, for clarity and per convention of Category:Families by nationality. Honbicot 17:00, 19 May 2007 (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 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:Chinese Mausoleums[edit]

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

The result of the debate was Rename. I am not an admin. --tjstrf talk 22:18, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Chinese Mausoleums to Category:Mausoleums in China
Nominator's Rationale: Rename: "X in Y" convention for buildings. Perebourne 15:46, 19 May 2007 (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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Rivers in Foo[edit]

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

The result of the debate was rename all to Rivers of Foo per nom. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:18, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename all to Rivers of Foo, per naming conventions, see also May 12th discussion. -- Prove It (talk) 15:17, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all per nom. I disagreed that there was previously a convention on this issue, hence my opposition to similarly-titled speedy-CfR requests. However, I suppose this is now the new convention (and probably an improvement). Hence, this also ought to be established as a new formalised convention worthy of speedy renaming. Bastin 13:42, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Rename per nom. Alex Middleton 10:03, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all per WP:NCCAT#Landforms. --Kralizec! (talk) 18:42, 30 May 2007 (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 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:Mythical Creatures[edit]

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

The result of the debate was Merge with Category:Legendary creatures. I am not an admin. --tjstrf talk 22:58, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Mythical Creatures (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Merge into Category:Legendary creatures, or Rename to Category:Mythical creatures. -- Prove It (talk) 13:44, 19 May 2007 (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 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:Pilgrim route[edit]

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

The result of the debate was rename. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:41, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Pilgrim route to Category:Pilgrimage routes
Nominator's Rationale: Rename: capital letter / style. Jamie Mercer 13:03, 19 May 2007 (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 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:Peace treaties of the Ottoman Empire[edit]

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: keep. There may be something to be said for merging this to "treaties" in general, but that should be discussed for the tree as a whole, in a new nom. >Radiant< 10:38, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Peace treaties of the Ottoman Empire (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Delete, It only has two pages, and seems more than a bit redundant to its parent category, Category:Treaties of the Ottoman Empire, which also doesn't have all that many pages. -Bbik 09:08, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge How do you define a "peace" treaty? Annandale 11:31, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • <s->Merge per Annandale changed to Keep per bhg belowJohnbod 15:09, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep as part of Category:Peace treaties. It clearly is possible to define a peace treaty, as ilustrated by the existence of a promising head article on the subject at peace treaty, where the definition is "is an agreement between two hostile parties, usually countries or governments, that formally ends a war or armed conflict." Treaties exist for all sorts of other purposes (trade, arms control, military alliance, dynastic succession etc), but a peace treaty has a particular historical significance as the end-point of a military conflict. The category is therefore useful to both military historians and diplomatic historians. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:49, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per BrownHairedGirl Tim! 19:51, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per BHG. A Musing 00:20, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: if keptr then the parent category should be combed, e.g. Treaty of Karlowitz. Pavel Vozenilek 11:54, 24 May 2007 (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.

Battlefield 2 modifications[edit]

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

The result of the debate was No consensus on Battlefield 2 or Total War, as proposed names match naming convention but gathered enough opposition that the naming convention as a whole may need reconsidered. (I could not find a previous discussion on the issue.) Rename Quake 3 -> Quake III as it is a simple title correction which does not change the debated portion of the name. I am not an admin. --tjstrf talk 22:46, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently moved from speedy. Vegaswikian 08:15, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article about games modifications is entitled mod. Main article title is Quake III Arena, not Quake 3 Arena . —Visor (talk • contribs) 21:39, 16 May 2007 (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 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:Jerusalem culture[edit]

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. Suggest making a standardization proposal for the entire parent cat. >Radiant< 10:39, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Category:Jerusalem culture to Culture in Jerusalem, per Category:Jerusalem hierarchy naming. TewfikTalk 05:20, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose Neither a speedy nor a good idea. Haddiscoe 11:55, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Non-conformance with "x by y", "x of y", or "x in y" categorization conventions - as this is the only category in the hierarchy using a different system, there is 'no doubt' and it fits speedy criteria 4. TewfikTalk 20:58, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose as there are dozens of categories in Category:Culture by city that use the current form there is no doubt that it doesn't fit criteria 4. Category:Jerusalem is irrelevant as it includes categories from different subject areas to which different conventions apply. And in any case, criteria 4 only applies to category types where the convention has already been agreed and listed on the page, not to newly emerging or non-agreed category types. Honbicot 23:21, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I understand that some categories use that formulation, but why are those points good reasons for keeping this category out of the standard employed by the rest of its hierarchy? Whatever categorisation principle is at stake, I don't think its intent is to create non-uniform naming. TewfikTalk 01:11, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • The rules are there to stop bad and non-consensual decisions being made in haste. Items either meet the criteria or they don't, and this one doesn't. This is not the place for ongoing debates, so if you want to take this any further, you can move it to the main section. Haddiscoe 00:22, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Moved from speedy.--Mike Selinker 04:11, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I would prefer to see standardization to "X culture". Annandale 11:32, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The WP:NCCAT guideline for categorizing culture of countries [1] calls for "[Nationality] culture," e.g. "American culture" or "Mexican culture." The analogy here would be "Jerusalemite culture," which doesn't sound good, but "Jerusalem culture" is close. To me, the latter convention sounds more like it would be for categories containing sociological studies of the place's culture, or at least a guide to the cultural particularities of the place. "Culture in ...," however, makes it clear that we are talking about cultural insitutions in the place, which is what's relevant for this cat. It is also similar to the "Sports in ..." which is standard. Glancing at Category:Culture by city, I see that the majority are either "culture in ..." or "... culture", so there is no standard, and we are free to pick. Thus for these reasons, I personally prefer "culture in ..." nadav 06:45, 20 May 2007 (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:Economic problems[edit]

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

The result of the debate was Keep, category has been populated and refined to address objections. I am not an admin. --tjstrf talk 23:04, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Economic problems (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Delete Unpopulated and never likely to be useful JQ 02:11, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete as empty and dubious. Mangoe 03:31, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unpopulated and vaguely named, subjective category. Doczilla 06:41, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep -- I'm going to populate this category right now. This is a subset of economic theory and economic history, and can certainly be a useful category to group articles on topics dealing with economic problems like stock market crashes, recession/depression, inflation, etc. --Wassermann 06:28, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I created it - it was a vague term trying to capture what I thought was the glimmer of connexion between Paradox of value and Economic calculation problem as examples of thought experiments that problematise economic discourses. I wasn't too happy about it, but I think there is something of a set there if it could be properly captured. Subsequently an economist editor removed the cats from the above pages without comment, and I didn't feel it was strong enough to defend.--Red Deathy 07:22, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- Seems quite useful now that Wassermann has populated it. —Psychonaut 09:59, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Well-defined and clearly useful grouping of issues in the study of economics. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:29, 22 May 2007 (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 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:Kosovo politicians[edit]

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 obvious consensus, note that we have many categories with "Kosovo" in their name, would suggest new discussion in a group nomination. >Radiant< 10:40, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Kosovo politicians to Category:Kosovar politicians
Nominator's Rationale: Rename, the correct term for people from Kosovo would be Kosovar, not Kosovo (their ethnicity), e.g. Kosovo Albanian or Kosovo Serb, it's actually supposed to be Kosovar Albanian, Kosovar Serb --CrnaGora 00:43, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't have time to check this one out now, but there are two questions I would want answered before supporting this nomination: a) is Kosovar the adjective in both the Albanian and Serbian languages? b) Do Serbian politicians in Kosovo accept being called Kosovar rather than Serbian? I have no axe to grind either way, except a reluctance to use adjectival forms if they exclude or mislabel people. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:36, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The adjective Kosovar means a person from Kosovo, and AFAIK, Kosovar is an adjective in the English. The category is mainly filled with Kosovar Albanian politicians. People, however, have been making the same mistake over and over again, putting Kosovo instead of Kosovar where Kosovar belongs. --CrnaGora 14:33, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, but that doesn't answer my questions. :) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:15, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment ISTR this is a horribly politicised terrain, between calling the state Kosovo and Kosova? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Red Deathy (talk • contribs) 08:42, 22 May 2007.
    • I share that concern, though I don't know enough about the subject to be sure. It would be helpful if we had some clarification on what the noun and adjectival terms are in the two languages. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:32, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment BBC seem to use Kosovan. --Red Deathy 15:34, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • May I point out the Kosovar article, it should help you all realise the mistake made by a lot of people, which I pointed out in the nomination. --CrnaGora 17:20, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Indeed you may. Its only source is the OED, which gives equal status to Kosovar and Kosovan. Although the Kosovar entry has the note "The term is frequently used to refer specifically to an Albanian-speaking inhabitant of Kosovo". I suspect there is no settled English adjective--Red Deathy 07:29, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Hmm, that would at least suggest that the current name is wrong, even if it doesn't tell us what's right. I will say that "-an" is obviously more of a standard English adjectival ending, but I also don't want to start a political war here, so...I dunno? I'm tempted to say: go with nom, and see who screams. Xtifr tälk 07:15, 26 May 2007 (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/2007_May_19&oldid=1079189342"