Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 March 22

< March 21	March 23 >

March 22

Category:Final Fantasy XI

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. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 09:38, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Category now has one article in it. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:50, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, also, that article is the game itself. Delete, until it's actually needed. FusionMix 00:44, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Martarius (talk) 12:23, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unnecessary at the moment. --Beloved Freak 11:50, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are too many underpopulated categories.--Habashia (talk) 12:36, 27 March 2008 (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:100 Longest-Running Broadway shows

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: listify. Kbdank71 13:20, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Listify or include in a template and then delete. This is a category that requires constant maintenance. Likewise it is not clear how anyone determines if a production remains in this category. Either a list or template would be easier to maintain and it would also allow listing these productions in a way that conveys more information and makes the content verifiable. I would think that most readers would rather see these listed in the order of number of performances, something we can't do in the category. As it is, this is not defining for most of these shows. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:03, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Listify per Vegas. Johnbod (talk) 00:49, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Listify per Vegas. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:54, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Listify. When I saw this category, I went to it, hoping to find somewhere an ordered list, and was disappointed. Assuming this happens, it would be good to see markings of musicals, comedies, shows that opened Off-Broadway, and shows that were--at one time--the longest-running in history. Lemme know if you want help. Ma^t_chups 02:09, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Feel free to create a list. That can be created at any time. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:23, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Textbook example of something that's valid as a list, but absolutely not as a category. Listify. Bearcat (talk) 20:31, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Listify - per all above, this would work much better as a list. --Beloved Freak 11:52, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Listify provided that the articles do mention whether they are exceptionally long-running shows so the info is available in each article.--Habashia (talk) 12:37, 27 March 2008 (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:Airport railway stations in London

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:Railway stations serving London airports. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 09:40, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Airport railway stations in London to Category:Airport railway stations serving London

Nominator's rationale: Not all of these stations are located in London but are at airports that serve London. Simply south (talk) 22:50, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Is this category really needed? Vegaswikian (talk) 23:24, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Johnbod (talk) 00:48, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename, not to suggested title, but to Category:Railway stations serving London airports. I agree with the nominator's rationale, but think his title doesn't solve the problem. --RFBailey (talk) 03:47, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename, agree with Category:Railway stations serving London airports. Seems fair enough. Category useful particularly for looking up Heathrow, which now has a glut of stations and complex lines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cnbrb (talk • contribs)

Yes, that's better. Johnbod (talk) 01:54, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to RFBailey's suggestion. Name makes more sense. --Beloved Freak 11:54, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename I'm not sure how useful this category is, but certainly Luton and Gatwick are a long way out of London.--Habashia (talk) 12:39, 27 March 2008 (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:Proposed railway stations in the United Kingdom

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: reverse merge. the wub "?!" 11:38, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Proposed railway stations in the United Kingdom to Category:Future stations in the United Kingdom

Nominator's rationale: The category basically duplicates the other category. Simply south (talk) 22:08, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - No point in having two categories doing the same thing. --Stewart^(talk) 22:11, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reverse Merge. Category:Future stations in the United Kingdom is ambiguous. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:44, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The ambiguity is explained in the category. Simply south (talk) 18:37, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - But that does not fix the ambiguous category name. Category names should not be ambiguous. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:23, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - How about an intermediate name of Category:Future railway stations in the United Kingdom? Not all stations stay proposed. Simply south (talk) 21:58, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reverse Merge per Vegaswikian. Neier (talk) 08:57, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reverse Merge per Vegaswikian. --Kitchen Knife (talk) 13:44, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - leaning towards Vegaswikian's choice of category. --Beloved Freak 11:57, 27 March 2008 (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:Russian vegans

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: Withdrawn. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:46, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Only one article, fairly unrelated to the subject, besides the fact this guy teaches it. MalwareSmarts (talk) 21:24, 22 March 2008 (UTC) Forget it, how do I withdraw my nomination? MalwareSmarts (talk) 21:44, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as part of Category:Vegans by nationality. Vissarion seems to qualify for the category as "His followers observe strict regulations, are vegans, ...". Occuli (talk) 21:36, 22 March 2008 (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:Centre

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:Centre (region) to match the article. Kbdank71 13:57, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Centre to Category:Région Centre

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Seems a very ambiguous cat name. The article is at Centre, France, which isn't much better, though plausible. There are some subcategories which would also need renaming to agree with whatever is decided with this category. Grutness...wha? 20:31, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree it's too ambiguous. However, none of the article names for the regions use the French term/spelling région (or likewise département, for those articles), so I'd suggest instead that it be renamed to Category:Centre (region), or Category:Centre (region of France). Or else, to match the main article's current title at Centre, France, though I don't think that's ideal, either. But one way or another, let's try and get the three or so variants of this (including the stub category) down to approximately one. Alai (talk) 22:58, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

rename to match the article; whatever the article name is. If the article is renamed concurrently to support one of the alternatives with the French term/spelling, that is fine. Neier (talk) 08:59, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Centre, France isn't ideal, since it makes it seem like a town or city. The following is a list of redirects to Centre, France - one of them is likely to be a better name for the article:

Centre (Val de Loire)
Centre - Val de Loire
Centre (region, France)
Centre (région française)
Centre (region of France)
Région du Centre
Centre (région)
Centre (France)
Region Centre
Center (France)
Centre (region francaise)
Region du Centre
Centre (region)

If we remove those with specifically French spelling and those incorrectly using the American spelling, we still have both Centre (region of France) and Centre (region) as possibilities. All other French regions which need disambiguating use the form Foo (region) - that format and Centre (France), another possibility, both seem to link to at least as many articles as the current title, so I doubt there would be many complaints if the article (and categories) was moved to either of them. For that reason, perhaps Centre (region) would be the best bet. Grutness...wha? 00:09, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename, preferably to Category:Centre (French region) - or with accent "région"; I would support renaming the article in the same way. Johnbod (talk) 03:57, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
First move the article to whatever you think the best title would be (I have no clue), then count me as supporting a rename of the category to whatever new title the article uses (on the grounds of "titles should match", common sense, etc.). — CharlotteWebb 20:56, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- OK - I've boldly redirected it to Centre (region), to match the other dabbed French region articles. Grutness...wha? 01:20, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename "Centre" is the English spelling of the American "Center", so that a category such as this is likely to attact inappropriate entries. I would prefer Category:Centre (French Region), all other spellings should be merged into this. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:18, 27 March 2008 (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:Goof Troop

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. the wub "?!" 11:40, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Eponymous overcategorisation for an animated series. All of the category members, including the characters subcategory, are already otherwise categorised, and the articles are adequately interconnected via in-text links and Template:Goof Troop. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:30, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom and extensive precedent. Otto4711 (talk) 12:25, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unnecessary overcategorisation. --Beloved Freak 12:01, 27 March 2008 (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:Rush

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. Kbdank71 13:25, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename Category:Rush to Category:Rush (band)

Nominator's rationale: To match the title of the main article (Rush (band)) and to avoid confusion with other uses of "Rush". – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:39, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Is there a need to, based on the outcome of this prior CFD? Are there any other (notable) bands called Rush? Lugnuts (talk) 17:46, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While I'm not aware of any other notable bands by the name of "Rush" (there is Mahogany Rush), there are sports teams, people, locations, films, game series, and music albums that use the name. Moreover, "rush" is an adjective, so "rush tours" and "rush songs" (and the others) could be interpreted as being types of tours, songs, etc. Incidentally, I would like the outcome of the March 17 CFD to be reversed (it wasn't really a discussion - just a speedy rename), but I'll hold off on a nomination pending the result of this discussion. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:51, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If nothing else is presently competing for the name-space, I would rather it be left the way it is... like, why fix something that's not broken? Redirects from the newly proposed Rush (band) format, to the existing layout would be my suggestion, IF there's a need... but I really don't think it's a problem. These categories are probably easier to locate the way they currently exist. On another note, though Rush may be an adjective, it's also a noun ;) WikHead (talk) 18:42, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

...And a verb. :) As for fixing something that may not be broken ... there's really no effort required, since a bot does virtually all of the work. That said, I don't agree that this isn't broken. When I saw Category:Rush songs (looking through Special:Prefixindex), I thought it was a category for songs belonging to a specific genre of music (e.g. jazz songs, death metal songs) rather than one for songs by a certain musical group. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:11, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ahhhh... so you were hoping to find "Rushed songs", LOL. Having been a huge fan of this trio for 30+ years, "Rush (the noun)" is usually the first thing that comes to mind the moment I see the word... so perhaps its my receptors that are a bit slanted. If your plan means that nothing gets merged or deleted, and includes a full round of redirects from the current name-structure, I could probably go along with that. WikHead (talk) 20:53, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, essentially ... I clicked on the category link to determine whether it would need renaming to "Rushed" songs. With regard to the nomination, it's just a straightforward round of renaming, and I wouldn't be opposed to category redirects pointing to the new titles. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:12, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename with redirects, as discussed above. WikHead (talk) 21:28, 22 March 2008 (UTC) - Withdraw. Decided to remain Neutral. WikHead (talk)[reply]
Keep. I don't see any likelihood of confusion here. The disambiguator should be used only when the likelihood is high.--Mike Selinker (talk) 21:28, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I wouldn't mind it being deleted (I'm no Rush fan), but there's no reason to do this, no ones going to get confused. MalwareSmarts (talk) 21:36, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was (confused) ... at least until I clicked on the category page. I don't think we can assume that everyone is familiar with Rush and will automatically recognise the band. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:53, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom to match main article Rush (band). Confusion definitively could result and category names should conform with main articles, generally. If "Rush" was unambiguous, article on band would be located there. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:26, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename due to high probability of confusion--I'd guess that most readers would misguess what these categories meant. Rush songs, for example, could plausibly refer to songs written in a hurry, on either of two albums, written by Jennifer or Bobby Rush, or sung by Tom Rush; and Rush member could implausibly refer to Matthew Rush's member. Ma^t_chups 02:19, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Or Rush Limbaugh's... — CharlotteWebb 21:09, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename - User:Matchups demonstrates admirably some of the possibilities for confusion. Occuli (talk) 17:49, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per above. "Rush albums" could be those which are recorded in haste, and mixed courtesy of FedEx. — CharlotteWebb 21:09, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename for consistency to match the name of the main article, and also to avoid the confusion mentioned above. --Beloved Freak 12:05, 27 March 2008 (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:Supercar

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. the wub "?!" 11:42, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: This category existed before as Supercars but was deleted as per this discussion: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Automobiles/Archive_11#Supercar_eradication. swa q 16:50, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(speedy) delete per nom and per result of last month's discussion: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 February 11#Category:Supercars--79.212.220.171 (talk) 11:18, 25 March 2008 (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:Magic

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. the wub "?!" 11:43, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename Category:Magic to Category:Magic (paranormal) to differentiate from Category:Magic (illusion) Many laymen mistake Category:Magic for Category:Magic (illusion). The disambiguation at the top of the page at Category:Magic is not sufficient - a renaming would help prevent people from wasting their time visiting a page they mistake for another. Indeed, the main article for this cat is Magic (paranormal). Gjs238 (talk) 14:55, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from WP:UCFD. VegaDark (talk) 15:33, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename, per nom. FusionMix 00:46, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom, to match main category and to avoid confusion. --Beloved Freak 12:16, 27 March 2008 (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.

Media by city

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. Kbdank71 13:28, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:American media by market contains a hodgepodge of naming styles from City, State media (Albuquerque), to Media in City (Austin), to City media (Louisville), to Media in City, State (Houston). I propose to standardize them to either City, State media or Media in City, State. The second is preferable, since it would bring them to match the city cats which serve as parent categories (as well as the city categories themselves, and in many cases articles which are in the categories, such as Media in Cleveland, Ohio). Neier (talk) 13:50, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom Neier (talk) 13:50, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose per other discussions. These are market based categories and are not restricted to the cities. By renaming we are in effect limiting the scope of these categories to be city only based on previous consensus. Since most of these categories currently cover more then a specific city, any renaming should be to a reasonable name that makes it clear that the broader area is included. In many cases, this broader category is all that is needed. Frequently there will not be a need for a sub category for the specific city. So either leave as is or propose a better name. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:55, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The scope of an individual category should not affect whether or not it is named according to a convention; nor should it be used as justification for omitting the state when the cities' main articles and categories all have the state name. Doing a quick scan of allpages, most of the articles are already titled Media in City, State, and open with sentences such as This is a list of media of Albany, New York and the Capital District of New York State or The Billings Metropolitan Area is served by ... Is The Covington News any easier or harder to locate (or any more or less correctly categorized) if its category changes from Category:Atlanta media to Category:Atlanta, Georgia media or Category:Media in Atlanta, Georgia? If it is not in Atlanta, Georgia, then saying it is in Atlanta is equally wrong. If you look at Category:American media by market, you'll see that some categories are already named according to a larger area, and not just the city. I'm not opposed to that; but, unless there is a well-known name for a region (San Francisco Bay Area), omitting the state name from those titles would be equally wrong, and assuming we can decide on a standard here, I plan to nominate those remaining articles (including the ones with state abbreviations) next. I did not want to cloud the basic issue with those minutiae though. If you have a name in mind for these categories above which addresses the region/city limits issue, while also sticks with the , state standard of all city articles except Chicago and NYC, then feel free to make your suggestion. Neier (talk) 22:57, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

'most of the articles are already titled Media in City, State', and open with sentences such as This is a list of media of Albany, New York and the Capital District of New York State or The Billings Metropolitan Area is served by ... makes my point that these are not city categories and should not be named following the city naming conventions. Since they clearly are area related, they should be named to indicate the area they cover. Your Atlanta example actually leaves out what may be the best choice and they is Category:Media in the Atlanta area (or another like name based on local convention) which makes it clear that the category does not simply cover the city. Following the city name for the category means by previous discussions and working consensus that it is city only. Many of the comments supporting renames added the need to remove articles that were not in the city proper. Removing is a poor choice since they really need to be recategorized and not simply dropped. Nothing prevents a city level category from being created within an area category if one is really needed. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:13, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support All - A consistent naming structure is a good thing. - TexasAndroid (talk) 18:05, 24 March 2008 (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.

People from cities without states

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. Since most of the regular closers (including me) have commented here, I'll close this. There are two opposition arguments here. First is the theory that people will be miscategorized if the state name is added. I don't see how the current names quell this fear either. Second is the theory that other major cities use their names alone, since no confusion can take place. The fact is, these don't. The parent categories all use the state, so their subcategories should too. The analogy to non-US cities is flawed (and based on, of all things, confusable cities like London and Paris), since states are not the same as countries. There remain about a half a dozen metropolises in the United States that do not use the state name, so this nomination may serve as a basis to reexamine those. (Note: I'm relisting Manhattan, since the correct form is not necessarily clear.)--Mike Selinker (talk) 03:35, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

These People from categories are titled without the corresponding state in the name. The parent category (and the city's article) is "City, State". Adding the state to the category name would provide consistency within the city's categorization tree and within Category:People by city in the United States. Similar nominations were closed in favor of "City, State" on March 10 for Houston, Texas, and Los Angeles, California. Neier (talk) 12:01, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People from Amarillo to Category:People from Amarillo, Texas (parent cat Category:Amarillo, Texas)
Category:People from Atlanta to Category:People from Atlanta, Georgia (parent cat Category:Atlanta, Georgia)
Category:People from Bakersfield to Category:People from Bakersfield, California (parent cat Category:Bakersfield, California)
Category:People from Baton Rouge to Category:People from Baton Rouge, Louisiana (parent cat Category:Baton Rouge, Louisiana)
Category:People from Dallas to Category:People from Dallas, Texas (parent cat Category:Dallas, Texas)
Category:People from Detroit to Category:People from Detroit, Michigan (parent cat Category:Detroit, Michigan)
Category:People from Honolulu to Category:People from Honolulu, Hawaii (parent cat Category:Honolulu, Hawaii)
Category:People from Indianapolis to Category:People from Indianapolis, Indiana (parent cat Category:Indianapolis, Indiana)
Category:People from Jersey City to Category:People from Jersey City, New Jersey (parent cat Category:Jersey City, New Jersey)
Category:People from Las Vegas to Category:People from Las Vegas, Nevada (parent cat Category:Las Vegas, Nevada)
Category:People from Miami to Category:People from Miami, Florida (parent cat Category:Miami, Florida)
Category:People from Milwaukee to Category:People from Milwaukee, Wisconsin (parent cat Category:Milwaukee, Wisconsin)
Category:People from New Orleans to Category:People from New Orleans, Louisiana (parent cat Category:New Orleans, Louisiana)
Category:People from Rapid City to Category:People from Rapid City, South Dakota (parent cat Category:Rapid City, South Dakota)
Category:People from San Diego to Category:People from San Diego, California (parent cat Category:San Diego, California)
Category:People from San Francisco to Category:People from San Francisco, California (parent cat Category:San Francisco, California)
Category:People from Schenectady to Category:People from Schenectady, New York (parent cat Category:Schenectady, New York)
Category:People from Seattle to Category:People from Seattle, Washington (parent cat Category:Seattle, Washington)
Category:People from Sioux Falls to Category:People from Sioux Falls, South Dakota (parent cat Category:Sioux Falls, South Dakota)
Category:People from Spokane to Category:People from Spokane, Washington (parent cat Category:Spokane, Washington)
Category:People from Tacoma to Category:People from Tacoma, Washington (parent cat Category:Tacoma, Washington)
Category:People from Tampa to Category:People from Tampa, Florida (parent cat Category:Tampa, Florida)

These two are not so clear-cut, and, if there is much controversy, I am not opposed to removing them from this nomination and dealing with them separately. This is my recommendation, though.

~~Category:People from Kansas City to Category:People from Kansas City, Missouri (parent cat Category:Kansas City, Missouri) (Possible, split between Missouri and Kansas)~~ (removing this for now)
Category:People from Manhattan to Category:People from Manhattan, New York City (parent cat Category:People from New York City)

Rename all per nom Neier (talk) 12:01, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose per other discussions unless it can be shown that any of these only cover people from the city. By renaming we are in effect limiting the scope of these categories to be city only based on previous consensus. Since most of these categories currently cover more then a specific city, any renaming should be to a reasonable name that makes it clear that the broader area is included. In many cases, this broader category is all that is needed. So either leave as is or propose a better name. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:57, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The scope of an individual category should not affect whether or not it is named according to a convention; nor should it be used as justification for omitting the state when the cities' main articles and categories all have the state name. I'm not opposed to categories named such as Category:People from the San Francisco Bay Area; but, subcats like Category:People from San Francisco which omit the state name are wrong. If there are people currently classified as being from a city, while they are actually from a city's metro area, feel free to create the category to correct that mislabeling, and include the appropriate sub-cats from the list above. But, unless the name is well-known for an area (SF Bay Area being one example), the area should have the state name in it too. Neier (talk) 23:04, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - However your proposal does not even consider the possibility that an appropriate area category rename could be made. That is why this nomination is simply wrong. I'm not opposing using the fully qualified city name for the category if it is really only restricted to the city per previous consensus. I am opposed to a city specific name when it covers more then the city and this is not supported by previous consensus. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:49, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support rename of:

And allow the creation of city specific categories as needed. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:52, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I was originally going to oppose for very large cities where there is no possibility of confusion (e.g., Atlanta, Detroit, New Orleans), but renaming all will make it easy for people to add categories to articles without having to think about what is correct. Ma^t_chups 03:29, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- How do you propose to deal with the fact that many individuals are not associated with the cities? Isn't it better to rename to a broad category and then create a city specific category if needed? It is not an issue with the names, it is an issue with the content and names that don't reflect the actual content. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:22, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Changing the category names simply to match the apparent miscategorization of people seems like a backwards approach to me. I don't see why someone would put a from xyz tag on an article if the person wasn't from xyz; but, that's beside the point. If there are people who are in a category and who do not belong in the category, then they need to be recategorized. These categories are all subcats of Category:People by city in the United States, not Category:People by metropolitan area in the United States; and as city categories, the name should match the city parent category. Creation and population of metropolitan area cats is separate from naming these categories correctly. Neier (talk) 06:44, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - The previous consensus was to allow these categories to include people from the surrounding area. They were not restricted to the major city. So the only way to correctly rename and preserve the spirit of the previous consensus and the actual contents is to pick a new name that reflects the area contained. If you want to then create a city level category then feel free to do that. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:51, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Something tells me that if I create Category:People from Atlanta, Georgia and start de-populating the Category:People from Atlanta parent cat, there would be scads of protests. I think it's fair to say that the majority of people from these categories is from the city. So, it just makes more sense to recat the people who aren't; not the other way around. Neier (talk) 08:51, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        But it would not cause any issues if it was left alone of renamed to say, Category:People from the Atlanta metropolitan area, using your example, since everyone listed would still be a valid member and the scope would not be ambiguous. No need or reason to remove anyone and then have to find another category for all of those who are not from the city proper. The city people can be broken out at any time if and when someone feels that is necessary. Why create a huge amount of manual work that can not be automated? Vegaswikian (talk) 23:29, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose, Is there seriously another notable Indianapolis, San Francisco, Detroit, Las Vegas, or Atlanta out there? Although I support renaming the smaller cities like Amarillo, Bakersfield, Baton Rouge, Rapid City, etc. Also if you're going to rename them why not include Chicago and New York in this? HoosierState^Talk 02:37, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support. Without state names, it automatically assumes the reader has some prior knowledge of American geography, and therefore, is really no more effective than using acronyms or abbreviations. Even with state names, many readers throughout the world still may not immediately acknowledge the fact that they pertain to locations within the US. Before shrugging these comments off, ask yourself if you would be able to list just ten major cities from one of your neighbouring countries in a timely manner, along with their associated state or province, and without looking it up. I don't know many people who can. The Wikipedia manuals encourage us to write for the world, and to refrain from applying terms which may only be clearly understood in our own little corners of the globe. The manuals also strive for uniformity of articles of any given type... so what applies to one category of this type, should definitely apply to all. WikHead (talk) 04:30, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I think you need to take this discussion to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (settlements) and discuss all of the place names that most readers have no idea where they are. Many editors feel that including anything other then the city in an article name is horrible. The US is for the most part the exception to the rule. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:10, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support All - A consistent naming structure is a good thing - TexasAndroid (talk) 19:58, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Renaming is fine but to be fair ALL OF THEM need to be renamed if we're taking that route, including Chicago and New York. HoosierState^Talk 22:01, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While I don't particularly disagree, Chicago renames were just defeated within the last few days, and I fully expect that if I was ever stupid enough to try to mass-rename the NYC categories, such a nomination would go down in a bonfire of flames much bigger than the Chicago rename dabate. - TexasAndroid (talk) 12:43, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. People from London, Greater London; People from Paris, Ile de France should be unnecessary as well. adding the state should only be to disambiguate and a number of cities should be changed, people from Detroit, Michigan to people from Detroit, Category:People from Los Angeles, California to Category:People from Los Angeles Mayumashu (talk) 21:52, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment AS an Englishman, I only add the county or country where there is ambiguity. The scope of this discussion should thus be limited to USA. It is desirable that the subcategory should conform to its parent. However, I doubt it is necessary to append the state to large cities unless there is ambiguity with other places of the same name. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:25, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. A good step in the right direction.--Mike Selinker (talk) 13:49, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. --Kbdank71 17:34, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral as to applying this rule within Category:People by city in the United States as it is a common rule in the US. Oppose generalising this worldwide as it is not followed everywhere. - Nabla (talk) 22:34, 31 March 2008 (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:Manchurian rivers

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. Kbdank71 13:51, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. We categorize geographical features by countries and by political subdivisions, i.e. for example Cat:Rivers of Canada and Cat:Rivers of Alberta. "Manchuria" is a historical term referring to territory in nowadays' China and Russia, therefore it is ineligible and since this region is a part of several Provinces of China and Oblasts of Russia which do not have their own river categories, this category should be deleted. Darwinek (talk) 11:33, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Why can't geographic features be categorized by historic political regions? Anyways, it should be listified if deleted. 70.51.8.110 (talk) 05:40, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Because it would create complete mess, you have no idea how many former political subdivisions existed. Our conventions are pretty clear, oh and please, register ... - Darwinek (talk) 11:15, 23 March 2008 (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:A Silver Mt. Zion members

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. the wub "?!" 11:46, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:A Silver Mt. Zion members to Category:Thee Silver Mt. Zion Memorial Orchestra & Tra-La-La Band members

Nominator's rationale: To match name of renamed article. Lugnuts (talk) 11:15, 22 March 2008 (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:A Silver Mt. Zion 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. the wub "?!" 11:48, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:A Silver Mt. Zion albums to Category:Thee Silver Mt. Zion Memorial Orchestra & Tra-La-La Band albums

Nominator's rationale: To match name of renamed article. Lugnuts (talk) 11:13, 22 March 2008 (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:Aircraft manufacturers of the Soviet Union and Russia

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. the wub "?!" 11:58, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Aircraft manufacturers of the Soviet Union and Russia to Category:Aircraft manufacturers of the Soviet Union

Nominator's rationale: The Soviet Union and Russia are and were two different entities, and whilst Russia is the legal successor to most issues relating to the Soviet Union, economic and industrial entities were split up amongst the various Soviet countries upon their independence, e.g. Antonov was an industrial entity of the USSR, but since the breakup of the USSR, it is an Ukrainian enterprise, not a Russian one. Category:Aircraft manufacturers of Russia already exists, so this category should renamed to reflect the Soviet heritage of the enterprises concerned. The Russian stand-alone category was created as there are enterprises which were formed after the independence of Russia from the USSR, so they can not be classified at Soviet aircraft enterprises by any stretch of the imagination. Although, of course, it is entirely possible to have an enterprise existent in both the standalone Soviet Union and Russian categories; reflecting the continuation of the enterprise post-USSR. This category move could also have implications for other categories of the aviation project. Russavia (talk) 05:02, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, cjllw ʘ TALK 04:17, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per the rationale provided by the nominator. Carom (talk) 04:37, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. Fine logic here.--Mike Selinker (talk) 04:41, 22 March 2008 (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:Alumni of BRA

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. the wub "?!" 11:58, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Alumni of BRA to Category:Alumni of the Belfast Royal Academy

Nominator's rationale: The acronym should be expanded to clarify that it refers to the Belfast Royal Academy. I first noticed this category when my watchlist showed it being added to John Cole, and I wondered why he had ever needed a bra, let alone how he was an alumnus of brassieres. I am relieved to find that my initial fears were misplaced, and a renaming would save others from suffering a similar shock. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:11, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, BHG, can't we simply rename this to Category:Alumnas of BRA and restrict it to women? Cgingold (talk) 06:15, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tsk tsk: it would have to be "alumnae" </latin-grammar-pedantry>.
But even so, how does a woman graduate from bra-wearing, unless we are going to revert to burning them? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:36, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The suggested change is fine by me, thanx. Londonscribe (talk) 12:39, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Johnbod (talk) 22:47, 22 March 2008 (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:Radio stations in Saint Joseph, Missouri

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. Kbdank71 13:54, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Only 5 stations are licensed to St. Joseph, Missouri, not enough to warrant a specific subcategory. JPG-GR (talk) 02:36, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Given the number of stations in Missouri is having this category all that bad? Vegaswikian (talk) 01:51, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment There are currently 369 radio stations licensed to the state of Missouri, 5 of which are licensed to St. Joseph - that's 1.4%. Whether you want to argue that 5 isn't enough to warrant this category or 1.4% of a parent category isn't enough to warrant this category, I think the result is the same. JPG-GR (talk) 00:57, 28 March 2008 (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:Re-Flex 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: withdrawn by nominator.--Mike Selinker (talk) 05:25, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: small without potential for growth. Wolfer68 (talk) 02:13, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as always. This is the category header of Category:Albums by artist: Please note that all single-artist album articles should have subcategories here, even if it's the only album the artist has recorded.--Mike Selinker (talk) 03:19, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I see. Thanks. Keep. May I withdraw the nomination? --Wolfer68 (talk) 05:24, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Absolutely. Thanks for listening. I'll close this now.--Mike Selinker (talk) 05:25, 22 March 2008 (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:Afro-Irish

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 to Category:Irish people of African descent. the wub "?!" 12:00, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose delete of either Category:Afro-Irish OR Category:Irish people of African descent

Nominator's rationale: Duplication/redundancy. Both categories have precisely the same members, and are (in turn) members of almost exactly the same parent categories. Guliolopez (talk) 01:41, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE - neither category tagged. Johnbod (talk) 22:46, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Afro-Irish. the later naming is more self-explanatory as to who is meant to populate the page Mayumashu (talk) 02:39, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Afro-Irish, which is ambiguous. Occuli (talk) 14:28, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge both to Category:Irish people of African descent Johnbod (talk) 22:46, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Category:Irish people of African descent. --Beloved Freak 12:33, 27 March 2008 (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.