Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 October 27

< October 26	October 28 >

October 27

Category:Buildings and structures in Greater St. Louis

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:

Relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 November 5#Category:Buildings and structures in Greater St. Louis. postdlf (talk) 05:21, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Buildings and structures in Greater St. Louis to Category:Buildings and structures in St. Louis, Missouri

Nominator's rationale: Found this nomination tagged with a merge template. I would consider a reverse merge, because the article is just Greater St. Louis. Debresser (talk) 23:53, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support the reverse merge. Not all in St. Louis, Missouri are or would be in Greater St. Louis Mayumashu (talk) 22:28, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How come? Usually that whould be the case. Debresser (talk) 11:31, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Both are valid groupings and the area is a logical parent for the city related material. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:48, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:National liberation movements

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: NOT MERGED. postdlf (talk) 05:03, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:National liberation movements to Category:Independence movements

Nominator's rationale: Found this nomination tagged with a merge template. The proposal is explained at Category_talk:Independence_movements. Debresser (talk) 23:53, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: These do belong separately though clarification on each page would be helpful. Looking at the relevant articles:

National liberation movements: Wars of national liberation are conflicts fought by indigenous military groups against an imperial power in the name of self-determination, thus attempting to remove that power's influence, in particular during the decolonization period.
A category of Independence movements might include national liberation (anticolonialist) movements, but mostly it includes movements to withdraw from a long standing indigenous political entity, movements to overthrow leaders perceived as being puppets of some other government or movements for Partition (politics), like Czechoslovakia agreeing to part into Czech and Slovak republics. CarolMooreDC (talk) 12:59, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose -- not quite the same thing. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:09, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Secessionist organizations

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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:03, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Secessionist organizations to Category:Independence movements

Nominator's rationale: Found this nomination tagged with a merge template. The proposal is explained at Category_talk:Independence_movements. Debresser (talk) 23:53, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, these seem to be two different things; secession and independence describe them differently and they are apparently distinct topics in political science. Independence movements want freedom from external control (one nation wanting to end subjugation by another), while secession movements want to break away from or completely dissolve an independent country (one internal faction or region wanting separate governance). Contrast the American Revolution with the American Civil War. I'm open to arguments that the line is too blurry to be meaningful, but without seeing such an explanation I don't see a reason here to presume that's the case. postdlf (talk) 15:04, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose::These do belong separately though clarification on each page would be helpful. Looking at the relevant articles:

Independence movements may include national liberation (anti-colonial) movements, movements to withdraw from a long standing indigenous political entity, movements to overthrow leaders perceived as being puppets of some other government or movements seeking Partition (politics), like Czechoslovakia agreeing to part into Czech and Slovak repubics. It is not necessarily secession per se.
Secession is specifically an act to withdraw from a nation; it also can be a strategic threat to gain more autonomy or seek a partition. CarolMooreDC (talk) 12:56, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose decolonisation movements are not necessarily secessions. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:10, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
oppose Reading the definitions provided in the relevant articles shows that they are quite different with no valid reason to combine them. Hmains (talk) 02:45, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:People from Dumfries

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: NOT MERGED. postdlf (talk) 04:58, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:People from Dumfries to Category:People from Dumfries and Galloway

Nominator's rationale: Found this nomination tagged with a merge template. I'd oppose this, since both categories are quite large already. Debresser (talk) 23:53, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose As above, the sizeable Category:People from Dumfries should remain a subcat of the sizeable Category:People from Dumfries and Galloway, reflecting geography. Am at a loss as to why anyone would think this merge a good idea. Declan Clam (talk) 02:14, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Category:People from Dumfries relates to the town and is also a subcategory of Category:People by city or town in Scotland. It is as it should be. AllyD (talk) 08:22, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Merge as this is an appropriate level of organization for navigation purposes and the structure is propely constructed. Alansohn (talk) 15:09, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps somebody close this per wp:snow? Debresser (talk) 11:29, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose -- Dumfries and Galloway consists of several former counties. There is no reason not to have a category for each old county, as well as one for the town of Dumfries. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:12, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Rusyns

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

The result of the discussion was: merge. — ξ ^xplicit 02:03, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Rusyns to Category:Rusyn people

Nominator's rationale: Found this nomination tagged with a merge template. I agree with this nomination, and disagree with what was written on Category_talk:Rusyn_people over a year ago, because that is not the way we do it. Debresser (talk) 23:53, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support nom. I am in favour of 'Fooian people' across the board, for any ethnic group or nationality, as being slightly less ambiguous (just as we already do exclusively for modern sovereign nation-state nationalities) Mayumashu (talk) 22:27, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Organizations by activity

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. --Xdamr^talk 19:31, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Organizations by activity to Category:Organizations by subject

Nominator's rationale: Found this nomination tagged with a merge template. Debresser (talk) 23:53, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

do not merge no reason whatsoever provided for a merge to proceed Hmains (talk) 04:59, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That's hardly the point; this was clearly a procedural nom, not advocacy by Debresser one way or the other. It's up to us to evaluate whether it's a good thing to do or not. postdlf (talk) 17:55, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I was noting that whoever left the merge template on the category did not offer any reason why a merge should be accomplished. Hmains (talk) 02:57, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, from what I can see the former category groups by method of operation, the latter by area of concern. postdlf (talk) 17:53, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Lotion albums

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

The result of the discussion was: rename. — ξ ^xplicit 02:03, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Lotion albums to Category:Lotion (band) albums

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Per main article. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:26, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nominator. Debresser (talk) 23:54, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy rename per WP:CFDS, Section C2 Part 6. --Wolfer68 (talk) 00:11, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Lotion (band) albums (note the "s" on the end). Lugnuts (talk) 08:27, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Fixed, thanks. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:31, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support Rename to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 15:10, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Reggae musicians \Kruxial Selecta

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

The result of the discussion was: Speedy deleted per C1 as an empty category for more than 4 days. VegaDark (talk) 04:26, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Incorrectly named category, seems like an attempt for self promotion. — ξ ^xplicit 20:53, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Villages in Nevada

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. — ξ ^xplicit 02:03, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete, empty and unnecessary. The only two included articles actually belonged in Category:Unincorporated communities in Nevada, and there are no incorporated settlements designated "village" in Nevada, so this will never be (accurately) populated. postdlf (talk) 20:34, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Village is not a unit of municipal organization in the state. Alansohn (talk) 15:10, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:12, October 28, 2009 (UTC)

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:Olympiacos footballers

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

The result of the discussion was: merge. — ξ ^xplicit 02:03, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Olympiacos footballers to Category:Olympiacos F.C. players

Nominator's rationale: Merge. Procedural nomination; category was emptied out-of-process by Sthenel (talk · contribs), and cannot be speedy deleted, so I am listing it here for discussion. R'n'B (call me Russ) 20:03, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree: The second category was made using a name in accordance to the vast majority of the other relative categories, see categories here. If I could, I would have just moved the first category into the second, as a renaming. - Sthenel (talk) 01:47, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Merge to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 15:11, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Alansohn. Debresser (talk) 11:25, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Córdoba province

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

The result of the discussion was: rename. — ξ ^xplicit 02:03, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Córdoba province to Category:Córdoba (Spanish province)

Nominator's rationale: Rename. To match the main article Córdoba (Spanish province) and to disambiguate from Category:Córdoba Province (Argentina). Tassedethe (talk) 16:51, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support Rename to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 15:11, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Good catch. Debresser (talk) 11:24, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Cycling executives

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

The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:Cycle racing executives as suggested by lil2mas. This is a good at least interim solution to the ambiguity. The other cycling categories could be nominated to confirm that this is the way we want to go with these. Any consensus that develops with the other categories should also be applied to this one. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:10, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. This category is ambiguous as is, Executives who cycle? As it contains only a single subcategory Category:Presidents of UCI it should be deleted and that category categorized with Category:Sports executives and administrators and Category:Cycling people. Tassedethe (talk) 16:29, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It matches the other subcategories of Category:Sports executives and administrators, and deleting it doesn't really avoid the problem; if Category:Cycling executives is ambiguous, then so is Category:Cycling people. The underlying problem is that the name of the sport is also the verb for doing it. So if that's too ambiguous, we should come up with a rename for all cycling people categories that meaningfully allows them to be identified as connected with the sport without suggesting that they are just people who cycle. Another issue is that the article cycling is actually about the generic activity of riding a human-powered wheeled vehicle, while bicycle racing is about the sport. I've asked for input here from WP:CYCLING members. postdlf (talk) 15:44, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly a red herring, and not wanting to hijack this thread, but as someone has raised the issue of the breadth of Category:Cycling people, others might like to look at a discussion about whether a person who had been a promising amateur before an accident as an 18 year old, but subsequently became noteworthy in a very different field, should be in a cyclists cat. Returning to the present thread, cycling is not unique in being both competitive sport and recreational activity, but is perhaps more prone than most to allowing confusion of the two in unspecified talk/writing. Consistency is good, but clarity is more important in an encyclopaedia, so maybe we should move the article to something less ambiguous:Category:Executives of competitive cycling? Category:Cycling (sport) executives? Kevin McE (talk) 09:51, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Doh. Now it's pointed out Category:Cycling people is as ambiguous as Cycling executives. A rename to Category:Cycling (sport) executives or Category:Bicycle racing executives (to match the main article), and further nomination of Category:Cycling people and its subcats is in order. Tassedethe (talk) 11:30, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Cycle racing executives. I made this category in accordance to the parent articles: Category:Cycling people and Category:Sports executives and administrators. As nominator states, this category is ambiguous. All subcategories of Category:Cycling people were "cycle racing"-related categories, so I recategorised it from Category:Cycling to Category:Cycle racing. After looking at the different categories at Category:Sports executives and administrators, I find Category:Auto racing executives similar to the one we're dealing with, and its parent category is Category:Auto racing people. Since we already have Category:Cycle racing organisations, Category:Cycle racing by country, Category:Cycle racing by discipline, and other categories with "cycle racing" instead of "cycling", I suggest we should rename it; Category:Cycle racing executives, its parent; Category:Cycle racing people, and that category's subcategories; Category:Cycle racing announcers and Category:Cycle racing coaches. lil2mas (talk) 00:20, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Cycling at the 2008 Summer Olympics

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:50, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Superfluous layer of categorization. Both subcategories are correctly categorized in Category:Cycling at the Olympics, Category:2008 Summer Olympics events and Category:Olympic cyclists by year. Tassedethe (talk) 16:22, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

PSMS Medan

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

The result of the discussion was: delete/rename/merge etc. Everything to Category:PSMS Medan players, as Debresser said. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:22, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Current players for the PSMS Medan to Category:PSMS Medan players

Propose renaming Category:Former players for the PSMS Medan to Category:PSMS Medan players

Nominator's rationale: Delete. We don't categorize people by their current or former status. The first category just contains the 2 subcategories and so should be deleted. Tassedethe (talk) 16:06, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, you want to merge everthing into Category:PSMS Medan players. Ok. Debresser (talk) 11:23, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Crystal Palace F.C. Player of the Year award winners

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:28, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Delete as overcategorization, and by precedent of the deletion of Category:Sir Matt Busby Players of the Year. All information is in the main article Crystal Palace F.C.. Tassedethe (talk) 15:26, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete if already listified. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:14, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

ER categories

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

The result of the discussion was: Rename All. NW (Talk) 20:13, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:ER to Category:ER (TV series)

Propose renaming Category:ER characters to Category:ER (TV series) characters

Propose renaming Category:ER episodes to Category:ER (TV series) episodes

Propose renaming Category:ER images to Category:ER (TV series) images

Nominator's rationale: Rename, to avoid ambiguity and to match the parent article, ER (TV series). The same naming solution was used in Category:House (TV series) and its subcategories. postdlf (talk) 14:58, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename all. ER is to ambiguous, should be renamed for clarity. — ξ ^xplicit 20:38, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
rename all to disambiguate the eponymous category; the others then follow by convention. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:42, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all per nominator. Debresser (talk) 11:22, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Super Star

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

The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:Super Star (Arabic television show). Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:39, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Super Star to Category:SuperStar

Nominator's rationale: Rename. To match the article SuperStar. Tassedethe (talk) 13:15, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose every instance in the article, except the title uses "Super Star". Even then, this naming is highly ambiguous, especially considering it's not even an English language title, but a translation of an Arabic title, so will not represent a concept well known in the English language world. It should be renamed Categotry:Super Star (Lebanese Idol) or something. 76.66.194.183 (talk) 01:18, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to either with "(Lebanese remake)" or like disambiguator. ^{Carlaude:Talk} 20:02, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 14:48, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article has been moved to Super Star (Arabic television show), but Category:Super Star (Arabic television show) would be a bit of a mouthful. Category:Super Star (Lebanon) would be clearer and match with similar categories Category:Idols (Finland) and Category:Idol (Sweden). Tassedethe (talk) 14:56, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Super Star (Arabic television show) or Category:Super Star (Arabic TV series) (preferred) to disambiguate and match the article at its new title. postdlf (talk) 15:04, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Super Star (Arabic television show) to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 15:13, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Even though it is long, I tend to agree with Alansohn. Debresser (talk) 11:22, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Intercollegiate athletics in the United States, sub-cats

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

The result of the discussion was: Rename:

--Xdamr^talk 14:58, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming

Extended content

(will list the remaining sub-cats links in a later nomination)

Nominator's rationale: following up on recent rename to Category:Intercollegiate athletics in the United States and some of its sub-cats. Listed at 'student athletes' (as they are called in the States) of only universities in the United States. 'intercollegiate' is a more formal American term for 'college' (ie. university or college) Mayumashu (talk) 15:12, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename these nine categories for the players, etc., per nom.

Extended content

Comment: Why are we not using Category:American intercollegiate basketball, etc., instead of the longer Category:Intercollegiate basketball in the United States, etc., for most of these categories? ^{Carlaude:Talk} 20:02, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We could use the shorter ones. The longer one however more closely resemble Category:Basketball in the United States etc. Mayumashu (talk) 03:41, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The shorter name is the more used one. And the more intelligible one. Guys, keep it simple! Debresser (talk) 19:26, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But the name as it stands isn't wholly clear. There are colleges in different countries but these are for 'American colleges'. Then how about Category:American intercollegiate basketball etc. as per User:Carlaude? It s shorter and less ambiguous Mayumashu (talk) 02:39, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- my first instinct is to support, but what about the fact that Simon Fraser University, located in Canada, participates in American college sports? --Kevlar (talk • contribs) 02:50, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – My first reaction would be to oppose renaming to "Intercollegiate..." per Debresser. However, what about the current category names appended with "in the United States"? Football vs. soccer is not an issue because most of the world considers "soccer" to be an Americanism despite its British origin, and "in the United States" would mitigate the American-Canadian football dichotomy (though SFU might be a conundrum per Kevtar, especially since SFU is now in the process of joining NCAA Division II). — Dale Arnett (talk) 04:49, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. With the exception of football/soccer, which I agree deserves a greater debate, I think these names are precise enough. "College" is a better-known word than "intercollegiate", and I see no reason Canadian or French basketball teams can't have rivalries or trophies or whatever in these categories. I say leave it alone, but please, let's fix the capital S in Category:College Sports in California.--Mike Selinker (talk) 01:12, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 14:44, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why not Category:American college basketball, etc.? That way we can have the word "American", which Mayumashu correctly pointed out should be specified, without deviating too far from the short and well known word "college". Debresser (talk) 11:20, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Towns in Iowa

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. — ξ ^xplicit 02:03, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete, empty and unneeded. "Towns in [U.S. state]" categories are exclusively for municipalities designated as towns, of which Iowa does not have any. Because "town" means something more precise in many U.S. states, we use "settlement" as the generic term. So this will never be populated. It was instead being used just to house Category:Ghost towns in Iowa, which has been moved to the more accurate Category:Former settlements in Iowa. postdlf (talk) 14:18, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Iowa does not have any "towns", only "cities".—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:14, October 28, 2009 (UTC)

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:Defunct towns in Maryland

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. — ξ ^xplicit 02:03, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete, redundant to Category:Former settlements in Maryland and misleading as named. As towns are a type of municipality in Maryland, one would expect this to contain disincorporated communities, but instead it was using "town" generically to mean any "settlement," and "defunct" to mean "former." Its contents have already been merged into the Maryland categories for former settlements, ghost towns, and unincorporated communities (for those places where the name is still in use though it's just an area or neighborhood within a municipality). postdlf (talk) 13:37, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:15, October 28, 2009 (UTC)

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:Child rearing

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

The result of the discussion was: MERGE. postdlf (talk) 05:07, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Child rearing to Category:Parenting

Nominator's rationale: Merge. The terms child rearing and parenting are basically equivalent. The article Child rearing redirects to Parenting. This category contains a few valuable items which are otherwise rather lost to readers focusing on Category:Parenting. So I would simply merge these into that category. Rixs (talk) 11:05, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nominator. Debresser (talk) 11:16, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Binational solution

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

The result of the discussion was: MERGE. postdlf (talk) 05:12, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Binational solution to Category:One-state solution

Nominator's rationale: Merge. Duplicate categories. The binational solution and the one-state solution are different terms for the same thing. Binational solution redirects to One-state solution. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:49, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with merge; oppose solution. :) Debresser (talk) 21:26, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with both merger and solution but let's not get into a debate here... :) Grutness...wha? 23:09, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Towns in Hawaii

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

The result of the discussion was: rename. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:42, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Towns in Hawaii to Category:Unincorporated communities in Hawaii

Nominator's rationale: Rename to conform to its contents. Every included article is an unincorporated community, which belong in the state-specific subcategories of Category:Unincorporated communities in the United States. Because many U.S. states use "town" as a designation for municipalities, we don't use "town" in its generic sense of a populated, named place, but instead use "settlement"). postdlf (talk) 05:11, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question First of all, who is the "we" you are talking about? Are you from Hawai? Secondly, could you please explain yourself more at length, because I didn't understand you. Debresser (talk) 21:28, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "We" meaning Wikipedia, and how its categorization scheme for settlements in the U.S. by state have always worked since categories were implemented. I don't understand what you don't understand, so I'll just try and explain the whole system. Every state in the U.S. has municipalities (also called municipal corporations in old-timey speak), which are incorporated communities/settlements that have local governments. Every state has their own particular designations for these, which is reflected in the municipality's official name and charter (City of Foo or Village of Foo) and census data. The particular designation of the municipality often has legal consequences beyond just naming differences (a city in a given state may have greater local legislative power than a village, and/or the designation may depend upon the municipality's population reaching a certain number). Accordingly, all municipalities are categorized by their class of municipality (e.g., Category:Cities in Ohio, Category:Towns in Nevada). And because the terms "city," "village," and "town" mean particular classes of municipalities from state to state, we do not use those terms colloquially or interchangeably (like "village" could just mean small community), but instead categorize them purely based on local government structures.
- Here, there is no official designation of "town" in Hawaii. Instead, it is clear that "town" is just being used imprecisely and colloquially, because every included article within Category:Towns in Hawaii is about an "unincorporated" community—a settlement that has a name and possibly census data, but that lacks a municipal government. We categorize such places as "unincorporated communities" (see subcategories of Category:Unincorporated communities in the United States). Hence, this category should be renamed to Category:Unincorporated communities in Hawaii. postdlf (talk) 22:15, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree then. To a non-American like me, all of this is completely unfamiliar. Taking myself as an example of an intelligent, well-educated, non-American. Debresser (talk) 11:16, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. Good explanation, too.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:16, October 28, 2009 (UTC)
Rename per nom. To expand on Postdif's rationale, the only incorporated urban entity in Hawaii is the City and County of Honolulu, which is a consolidated city-county government that covers the entire island of Oahu. All other municipal government in the state is conducted at the county level. Also, all communities in Hawaii recognized by the United States Census Bureau are census-designated places, even Honolulu (which, by Census Bureau definition, is only a part of the City and County). — Dale Arnett (talk) 04:46, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename, I've always found this situation somewhat awkward, because as you note, all other states' communities are classified by their precise municipal status or as unincorporated communites. The only other parts of the country where a name other than "unincorporated community" is used for the category name is New York and parts of New England, because the official New York term for these settlements is "hamlet" and the official term in much of New England is "village". Because there's no official term for these communities in Hawaii, we need to go with the default name, which is alerady used by most of the country. Nyttend (talk) 04:53, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Coastal towns in California

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

The result of the discussion was: merge. — ξ ^xplicit 02:03, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Coastal towns in California to Category:Coastal settlements in California

Nominator's rationale: Merge, duplicate. "Towns" are municipalities in California, but based on its contents this category seems to use it in the generic sense, as it includes cities, towns, and unincorporated communities. Which makes it the same as "settlements." postdlf (talk) 04:12, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support merge to use more generic term. Alansohn (talk) 15:14, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:17, October 28, 2009 (UTC)
Merge per nom. — Dale Arnett (talk) 04:47, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Europe categories

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

The result of the discussion was: Rename all. NW (Talk) 10:57, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming:

Nominator's rationale: Rename to match parent article, Europe (band), to avoid potential confusion with Europe. Note that Category:Europe (band) songs and Category:Europe (band) members are disambiguated. — ξ ^xplicit 03:20, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

rename; undoubtedly more helpful. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:38, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per Europe (band). Occuli (talk) 15:28, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. Urgently. Is very confusing now. Debresser (talk) 21:28, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. — Dale Arnett (talk) 04:47, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Adult contemporary albums

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

The result of the discussion was:

Relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 November 5#Category:Adult contemporary albums. postdlf (talk) 05:17, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. ~~I am not necessarily proposing deletion if the child categories placed in this can be better defined.~~ Half the artists' categories I would not consider adult contemporary, even though individual songs by these artists have been adult contemporary hits. But I find it hard to call their albums "adult contemporary", which is what being placed in this category suggests. Also, the genre (and I'm not sure it really can be called a genre, rather a radio format) changes over time more than most. What wouldn't be played 10 years ago on AC may be a staple today. The point is AC seems to be more song based and cannot be defined to any particular album or artist for this to exist as is being utilized. Wolfer68 (talk) 02:27, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment: Note that there is no category for adult contemporary songs, although songs can be better defined as AC than albums. Also, in the U.S., Billboard magazine has only an AC songs chart, not an AC albums chart. --Wolfer68 (talk) 23:58, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

delete. I essentially agree with what Wolfer68 has written about this not being an album genre as such, or even a very viable one for songs since "contemporary" is constantly changing. I remember that on a self-proclaimed "adult contemporary" radio station I once heard a Gun N' Roses ballad, so ... Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:41, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

U.S. case law

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

The result of the discussion was: Rename. Per Hmains and the rest per nomVegaswikian (talk) 03:42, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming:

Nominator's rationale: Rename. These subcategories of Category:United States constitutional case law need to specify that they are "United States" categories, as do the other subcategories of Category:United States case law by topic that are already named in this way, such as Category:United States habeas corpus case law and Category:United States First Amendment case law. I also suggest standardizing to "case law" to match the parent. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:11, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose for the most part, but we can probably figure it out. Category:Equal protection cases should not be renamed as nom suggests because equal protection case law is more broad than just what arises under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. SCOTUS has read equal protection guarantees into the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment (which applies to the federal gov't; the 14th only applies to the states), and most/all U.S. state constitutions have the same or similar guarantees patterned after the federal constitutional provision.
Otherwise...I agree with standardizing to "case law", but the proposed names are awkward in many cases, to the point of adding confusion rather than clarifying; "United States Article Five" is a meaningless phrase. And the disambiguation is unnecessary for categories that have no equivalent in other countries, such as Commerce Clause, Dormant Commerce Clause, substantive due process...even equal protection, I believe. Let's work on better names. postdlf (talk) 05:25, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm all ears for better suggestions. But what we have now is unacceptable. Many other countries have law on substantive due process, a constitutional "Article Three", etc. The equal protection one is well-taken, and I've adjusted the nom. We could insert "Constitution" after "United States" on the ones that refer to clauses if you think that reads better. "United States Article Five" may be meaningless, but "Article Five case law" is not, and "United States" modifies that phrase, but I can see why it could be confusing. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:34, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I put a request for input from my buddies at WP:SCOTUS. But where else but U.S. jurisprudence do you find use of the term "substantive due process"? postdlf (talk) 05:41, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Canada came quite close to adopting the distinction in interpreting its Charter Article 7, and there are Canadian cases discussing it in depth, but it backed away from it. I would be a bit surprised if no other jurisdiction had adopted the traditional American approach (though I admit I haven't researched this and don't have an in-depth knowledge of how it's been treated outside of the U.S.—I was overstating when I assumed "many" countries had this). Incidentally, how are the Article rename suggestions any different from the existing ones for Amendments, e.g., Category:United States Fourteenth Amendment case law? Or are the Amendment ones badly-named too? And there is Category:United States procedural due process case law, so that one seems to match nicely. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:23, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Let me think about it and see if anyone else posts other options. I might just be being persnickety. postdlf (talk) 13:38, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. Speaking from the UK point of view: we have 'case law' so the categories need to be clarified with the US prefix. I am happy with the proposed renames - it makes it crystal clear that they have no relevance to me. I accept that some of them are a bit of a mouthful - how about Category:United States case law (Article Five). Twiceuponatime (talk) 14:01, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Is there a guideline or precedent regarding parentheticals in category names?--Chaser2 (talk) 14:47, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, that's a far more confusing name than what Good Ol'factory suggested. postdlf (talk) 14:52, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the bottom six, although I'm also OK with standardizing from "cases" to "case law". Each is essentially a US only area of law, so geographic disambiguation is not necessary. Commerce Clause, Contract Clause, Dormant Commerce Clause, Treaty Clause, Equal Protection Clause (equal protection redirects there), and Substantive due process are all articles without hatnotes to disambiguation or pages at similar topics, indicating that they are probably particular to the US. The only example of something similar that's been proffered so far is substantive due process. But it seems to me we would classify this as either fundamental justice clause case law or simply "Canadian substantive due process" case law. Category:English case law by topic contains generic case law like "criminal", "tort", and "trusts", so I don't think it follows that uniquely American topics need geographic identification. How would one find these categories except through one of their parent categories or a member article (invariably American cases)?--Chaser2 (talk) 14:47, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As to the others, the top four, I'm ambivalent. Looking at the disambiguation pages for Articles Two, Three, Four, and Five, the only links to other articles are European Convention on Human Rights Articles 3 and 4. I don't know whether the Court has a developed body of law in this area. Although there are not significant articles for Two and Five, there are still reference to various national and American state constitutions, so there's also some potential case law here. However, even if there could be other Article X case law, it's not unreasonable to ask whether there will ever be articles about those cases or whether confusion is likely. All these cats have reference to the U.S. in the lead and are in U.S. parent categories (with the exception of Treaty Clause, whose parent is the Article Two cat).--Chaser2 (talk) 14:47, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What percentage of non-American readers would instantly know that Category:Article Two case law is a U.S. case law category? To assume that it's anywhere near what we need to be is not safe, I don't think. It also makes little sense to have the Amendment categories use the "United States" format but not the Article ones. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:21, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Your second point convinced me, Good Ol'factory. The question remains of what to rename them to. United States First Amendment has a bit more meaning than "United States Article Five". Do they have to be consistent? Or can we leave the Amendment one's alone and switch to "United States Constitution Article Five case law"?--Chaser2 (talk) 03:05, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'd be fine with the latter—"United States Constitution Article Five case law" is probably better, in fact. They don't necessarily have to be consistent, though I assumed that would be desired, but it's not necessary from my viewpoint. I'm open to any sort of clarification, however it can be worded. (Changing the Clause ones are less necessary, in my opinion, but I would still prefer to add "United States" or "United States Constitution" to those; however, I can understand the hesitance in doing this because of the names of the articles for those clauses.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:23, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all per wp:bias. Debresser (talk) 21:30, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
comment so many problems would be solved by including 'Constitution' in the names of the relevant categories, as in 'United States Constitution Article Five case law'. After all, their parent category is Category:United States constitutional case law Hmains (talk) 03:06, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
REname all but inserting Constitution in all or most cases (I will leave others to recommend any exceptions. (from England) Peterkingiron (talk) 20:19, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer Good Ol'factory's proposed renames to any of the others proposed here, which are even more awkwardly worded. postdlf (talk) 20:31, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
rename as follows:

Category:Article Five case law to Category:United States Constitution Article Five case law;

Category:Article Four case law to Category:United States Constitution Article Four case law;

Category:Article Three case law to Category:United States Constitution Article Three case law;

Category:Article Two case law to Category:United States Constitution Article Two case law;

Category:Commerce Clause cases to Category:United States Constitution Commerce Clause case law;

Category:Contract Clause cases to Category:United States Constituation Contract Clause case law;

Category:Dormant Commerce Clause cases to Category:United States Constitution Dormant Commerce Clause case law;

Category:Treaty Clause cases to Category:United States Constitution Treaty Clause case law--this is what these are all about, the US Constitution so this makes it clear and obvious. Hmains (talk) 03:13, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename all, as Hmains proposes. bd2412 T 04:36, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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