Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 August 10: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Latest revision as of 12:09, 9 February 2023

< August 9	August 11 >

August 10[edit]

Category:Simon Fraser soccer players[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: rename. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:01, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Simon Fraser soccer players to Category:Simon Fraser Clan soccer players

Nominator's rationale: Simon Fraser University sports teams are known as the Simon Fraser Clan and as per naming convention with North American college (ie. university) sports teams (eg. Category:Duke Blue Devils soccer players) Mayumashu (talk) 22:26, 10 August 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:Nuclear Rabbit albums[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: delete; only article was deleted. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:57, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It only has one article in it. I think it is therefore redundant. Hiding T 21:45, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep Part of a grander scheme. All artists are entitled to name of artist albums categories, even if they only have one album. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 21:53, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Nomination is also part of a grander scheme. The album article and band are up for deletion too. The band article has been deleted three times already. We don't have categories for every single artist, so I reject the notion that "All artists are entitled to name of artist albums categories". Generalisations don't move the situation forwards and solve little. Better to discuss the specifics involved in this instance. Hiding T 21:56, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Didn't realize that the album and artist were up for deletion too. Album and band aren't likely to survive afd , so we might as well get rid of this too. Note that we do have plenty of one-shot artist-album categories, which are commonly accepted. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 22:10, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redundant cfd - if the article and album are deleted then the cat will be empty and speediable (after 4 days). If the album survives then the cat survives as it is part of a grander scheme. (Can we have a notable album by a non-notable band, or vice-versa?) Occuli (talk) 22:54, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Have done for a period of over a year with regards this band. Hence this nomination. Also, people are going to have to explain this theory of a grander scheme, since Wikipedia doesn't tend to have rules as such. There seems to be an insistence that if we have an article on an album, it immediately gets placed in a category per artist. I find that redundant and a symptom of misuse of the categorisation structure and over-categorisation. I appreciate that it has been a while since I invested time in categories, but it never used to be the done thing to have a category for every single artist. Since it appears consensus has moved, I would be interested in debating to move the consensus again. Why is it thought that such an idea is not over-categorisation and makes a mess of our categorisation structure, disrupting navigation through it? Hiding T 23:53, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep IF articles survive AfD, as part of the albums by artist categories. Lugnuts (talk) 07:19, 11 August 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:Beach Records albums[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: delete; only article was deleted. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:59, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It only has one article in it, and we have no article on Beach Records. I think it is therefore redundant. Hiding T 21:45, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless a page is made for the label. No point in categorizing by a nonexistant trait. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 21:56, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note - the album in this cat is Vicuna, the Nuclear Rabbit album above. Occuli (talk) 23:10, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Which alters little. Do we categorise by record label if we do not have an article on the record label? If so, I will start creating cats asap. Hiding T 23:54, 10 August 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:Arabic Music[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. All the articles are already in subcategories of the target. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:12, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Arabic Music to Category:Arab music

Nominator's rationale: Merge, Duplicate category. Ian Cairns (talk) 21:04, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well at face value the first sounds like "music written in the Arabic language" and the second sounds like "music performed by Arabs". While there would be a significant overlap there would plausibly be some music that belongs in only one category. Of course who knows what the creator had intended. I shall have to study this more closely. — CharlotteWebb 14:47, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just Delete these are all about albums etc of the Lebanese singer Nancy Ajram and are also correctly categorised in sub-cats of Arab music. Johnbod (talk) 14:55, 11 August 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:Districts of Helsinki[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: close per CharlotteWebb. Nothing for CFD to do. Kbdank71 14:21, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Split into Category:Districts of Helsinki and Category:Neighbourhoods of Helsinki. As per the article Subdivisions of Helsinki, "district" is a larger entity consisting of several "neighbourhoods". In Finnish, a "district" is "peruspiiri" and a "neighbourhood" is "kaupunginosa". All this time I have been thinking a "district" meant "kaupunginosa" but apparently the official terminology is different. This is a massive undertaking as it needs reviewing, and potential rewriting, of every article in the category. The article Subdivisions of Helsinki should be consulted as an official guideline. JIP | Talk 18:26, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you only want to move some articles from one category to another category (even a newly created one) without deleting or renaming the first category, there is no need for a formal CFD nomination. I'm confident that you, my Finnish friend, know more about the subject than any of us who frequent CFD, and can handle this more efficiently without our intrusion. I'm inclined to close this unless you are proposing some action toward "Category:Districts of Helsinki" (other than removing select articles from it). — CharlotteWebb 14:22, 11 August 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.

Freemasonry categories[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: rename. Kbdank71 14:19, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Per yesterday's Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 August 9#Category:Spanish freemasonry (note: moved from speedy as there does not seem to be an established convention for freemasonry by place). — CharlotteWebb 17:23, 10 August 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:Univerity of Pisa[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: speedy re-cat/delete. — CharlotteWebb 14:27, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Univerity of Pisa to Category:University of Pisa

Nominator's rationale: This should be a speedy, but I didn't find an appropriate template for merging. Admiral Norton ^(talk) 14:08, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - I took the liberty of moving its one article (Museo storia naturale di Pisa). Occuli (talk) 16:50, 10 August 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:Sportspeople from Singapore[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. Kbdank71 14:18, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both - These categories were both created to serve as parent cats for Category:Footballers from Singapore (which is proposed for renaming, below). They have no other contents, and there are no other analagous categories for other countries. In short, they amount to excessive categorization, as well as impeding navigation by interposing unnecessary intermediate-level categories between Category:Footballers from Singapore and the higher level parent for that category (which is currently Category:People from Singapore). Notified creator with {{subst:cfd-notify}} Cgingold (talk) 13:29, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – I created these two categories in the process of trying to clean up "Category:Singapore" and its subcategories. My rationale for doing so was that it seemed inappropriate to place an article about a British national who had been born in Singapore in the category "Category:Singaporean footballers", which seemed to suggest Singaporean citizenship or nationality. However, the issues of whether "XYZian" categories are suitable for non-nationals, whether there should be two separate families of categories ("XYZian" categories for nationals, and "from XYZ" for non-nationals), or whether "from XYZ" categories should replace all "XYZian" categories, are matters that probably need to be resolved at a wider forum such as the Village Pump. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 15:10, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, issues of this sort are resolved right here at CFD every day, Jacklee -- there's nothing particularly unusual about this one. It's pretty amazing what goes on here in the basement! Cgingold (talk) 21:18, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, right. Has this matter been discussed and resolved before, then? — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 06:57, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both per nom, if for no other reason that they will be empty (of articles) if the footballers one is deleted, which seems inevitable. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:44, 10 August 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:Roads in Hamburg[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: keep. Unfortunately the category has been emptied, which will require some repopulation efforts. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:25, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Hi, I think the correct category is Category:Streets in Hamburg, I have been bold and moved the roads into the category street. Thank you. Sebastian scha. (talk) 13:19, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eh Sebastian I highly recommend you read this brilliant bit (before somebody guts it as original research) because it's rather enlightening. Now do explain this in words everyone can understand: How in the hell can you refer to Autobahnen as "streets"? — CharlotteWebb 20:54, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - streets and roads are different. There is Category:Roads by country and also Category:Streets by country. Put the roads back into their correct category and withdraw the nom. Occuli (talk) 21:09, 10 August 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:Songs written by Leslie Satcher[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: no consensus. A repeated CfD this soon after the last one might usually warrant a procedural keep, but in this case it's understandable how the nominator could have been confused by the CfD for Category:Songs written by Anthony Smith or thought that consensus had somehow changed about these types of categories in general. But in this case, there's no consensus to delete and the Anthony Smith CfD may indeed be seen in the future as an out-of-the-ordinary "outlier" result. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:45, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Last time I CFD'ed this, it got kept on the basis that it's part of a grander scheme; it was compared to the "Songs by artist" and "Albums by artist" categories which often have singular entries. However, I should point out that Category:Songs written by Anthony Smith was deleted even though it had two entries, so I see no point in this category sticking around either. I think that songwriters have to work harder (usually) to gain recognition. Furthermore, some acts are only part-time songwriters (for instance, Keith Stegall occasionally writes songs, and at least two of his songs have pages, but I don't see a need for a cateegory, as he's more known as a producer than songwriter). Therefore, I feel that one-shot songwriter categories like this are overly narrow in scope and should be deleted. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 12:23, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep - you nominated this on 20 July and it closed as a keep. No need to keep discussing it every few weeks. Its author/writer/composer/lyricist is obviously a defining characteristic of a song; other qualities the songwriter may or may not possess have no bearing on this. Occuli (talk) 19:03, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Anthony Smith cfd you refer to is a most surprising decision. Occuli (talk) 19:08, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not sure why a category with only one article would be kept. At very least I'd say delete until this songwriter has a one or two more hits notable for a WP article. Just out of curiosity and for future reference, can someone please explain the "wider scheme" that I see referenced in some CfD discussions? No one is denying that a songwriter is a defining characteristic of a song; I just don't understand the reason behind a scheme that would keep one-article-categories around. Thanks in advance! - eo (talk) 10:01, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The wider scheme in this case is Category:Songs by songwriter. Small categories are permissible if part of a wider scheme, eg Category:English popes, Category:Presidents of Zimbabwe. I'm not sure why more significance is not attached to the writer of a song - little glory is attached to an orchestra which plays a Beethoven symphony, or an actor who declaims a T S Eliot poem, and yet Sinatra or Sid Vicious seem to get all the credit for My Way. Occuli (talk) 11:05, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Without taking a position either way on the merits of this category, I really must object to the practice of repeat CFD nominations before a decent interval has elapsed. It reminds me of "judge shopping". If an editor takes a somewhat debatable category to CFD enough times, he's bound to hit the jackpot at some point. Cgingold (talk) 10:38, 11 August 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:Footballers from Singapore[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: rename. Kbdank71 14:14, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Singaporean expatriate footballers. The current name is non-standard, proposed name is consistent with all other sub-cats of Category:Expatriate footballers by nationality. Notified creator with {{subst:cfd-notify}} Cgingold (talk) 10:38, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support – I was the creator of the category, and was unaware of the existence of the category "Category:Expatriate footballers by nationality". — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 15:04, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please check out more carefully how new categories will fit into existing structures. Cheers Johnbod (talk) 18:05, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. Johnbod (talk) 18:06, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom, and change parent categories to the usual suspects for these types of categories. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:46, 10 August 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:Roman Catholic dioceses in Timor-Leste[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: rename. Kbdank71 14:16, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Roman Catholic dioceses in Timor-Leste to Category:Roman Catholic dioceses in East Timor

Nominator's rationale: Rename. The English WP uses "East Timor" over the alternate name, "Timor-Leste", almost invariably. Timor-Leste redirects to the main article East Timor, and the main parent category is Category:East Timor. (The only exception to this that I can find is Template:Country data Timor-Leste.) Notified creator with {{subst:cfd-notify}} Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:40, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment what does the church call it? 70.55.85.40 (talk) 09:44, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know, but even if the answer is "Timor-Leste", I'm not sure that it's terribly relevant. WP needs an internally consistent naming system for countries. If every category was named according to what name the relevant organisation used, we'd have chaos in the category trees for countries that have multiple acceptable names. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:48, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename:The church calls it Timor-Leste. That said, however, per the discussion on Talk:East_Timor/Archive_1#Requested_move, East Timor is the accepted name for now. This category should be named in a way that is consistent with all East Timor/Timor-Leste issues.Npeters22 (talk) 20:02, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. This should be speedied as the creator has requested it be renamed.Benkenobi18 (talk) 06:34, 12 August 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:Inter-Earths[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: delete per consensus here and at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Inter-Earth. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:11, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: This type of planet doesn't exist, it's been made up. The related articles are up for deletion at AfD. 70.55.85.40 (talk) 09:28, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support—Agree with nom. No evidence this term exists in the scientific community.—RJH (talk) 14:59, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—Term not in use. Spacepotato (talk) 01:55, 12 August 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:Inter-Jupiters[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: delete per consensus here and at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Inter-Jupiter. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:08, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: This type of planet doesn't exist, it's been made up. The related articles are up for deletion at AfD. 70.55.85.40 (talk) 09:28, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support—Agree with nom. No evidence this term exists in the scientific community.—RJH (talk) 14:59, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—Term not in use. Spacepotato (talk) 01:56, 12 August 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:Interplanets[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: delete per consensus here and at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Interplanet. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:09, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: This type of planet doesn't exist, it's been made up. The related articles are up for deletion at AfD. 70.55.85.40 (talk) 09:28, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the sum total of the members of this category (Neptune, Uranus) are normally considered ice giants, a subtype of giant planet 70.55.85.40 (talk) 09:54, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support—Agree with nom. Doesn't appear to be used academically, although it shows up on some web sites where it may be a typo of interplanetary.—RJH (talk) 15:03, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—Term not in use. Spacepotato (talk) 01:56, 12 August 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:People by country by status[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: no consensus. Kbdank71 14:12, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:People by country by status to Category:People by nationality and status

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Using "people by country" instead of "people by nationality" was recently discussed, but there was no consensus for making the change at this point. The subcategories are people by nationality categories. Using "by foo by goo" is a bit confusing, and most categories simply use "by foo and goo", where "foo" is the first attribute in the subcategories (nationality) and "goo" is the second (by status). See, e.g., Category:People by nationality and religion, Category:People by nationality and occupation, etc. Notified creator with {{subst:cfd-notify}} Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:07, 10 August 2008 (UTC)}}[reply]

Oppose – I was the editor who created the category, and unfortunately wasn't aware of the discussion about the matter. I agree entirely with "country by status" being changed to "country and status", but it seems to me that there is a difference between "country" and "nationality". For instance, an article about a person who holds British nationality but who has lived and worked in Singapore for some time would be appropriately placed in a subcategory of "Category:People of Singapore by status" or "Category:People from Singapore by status" (themselves possible subcategories of "Category:People by country and status" but not in "Category:Singaporean people by status" (a subcategory of "Category:People by nationality and status". — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 09:23, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Of course there is a difference between the two, but the important point is that both subcategories are nationality categories. If we kept the category name, both current subcategories would be removed from it and the category would be deleted anyway as an empty category. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:43, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sorry, I don't quite follow. Which two subcategories are nationality categories? I agree that the matter should be aired at the Village Pump. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 15:02, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - The two subcategories of the category under nomination. They are Category:Canadian people by legal status and Category:Singaporean people by status. Both are nationality categories. Re: the Village Pump, I'm not sure who you are agreeing with. I didn't suggest that, nor do I think it's necessary in this case. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:39, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Right, I see what you mean. Yes, I agree that the two subcategories that you mentioned are nationality and not country related. Wasn't it you who suggested the matter be raised at the Village Pump? I'm sure I saw that somewhere. My mistake. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 07:00, 11 August 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:Prime Ministers of RSFSR[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: rename. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:25, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Prime Ministers of RSFSR to Category:Prime Ministers of the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic

Nominator's rationale: Full name, per main. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:03, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. - Darwinek (talk) 13:23, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to match parent article.--Lenticel ^(talk) 02:57, 11 August 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:Jewish Singaporeans[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: merge. Kbdank71 14:09, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming/merging Category:Jewish Singaporeans to Category:Singaporean Jews

Nominator's rationale: Rename/merge. Per standard conventions of Category:Jews by country. The creator inexplicably emptied the target category and replaced it with the new category, essentially performing a manual rename. Notified creator with {{subst:cfd-notify}} Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:58, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – I was the editor who renamed the category. I did so because it was out of line with the naming of the other subcategories of "Category:Singaporean people by ethnic or national origin", some of which include "Category:Chinese Singaporeans", "Category:Indian Singaporeans" and "Category:Malay Singaporeans". — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 09:14, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If you thought it was misnamed it would have been more appropriate to propose a rename rather than just doing it. Anyway, I think conforming with the cross-nationality Category:Jews by country probably takes precedence here. It's the whole religion vs. ethnicity debate for Jewishness, but if we choose to adopt the ethnicity route then every single one will have to be changed. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 10:16, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment – I agree that the issue of whether Jewishness is more a matter of ethnicity or religion is a particularly fraught one. Since the matter has already been discussed here, I've no objections to the category being renamed back to "Category:Singaporean Jews". Can I suggest that when an issue has been discussed here and some decision reached, usage notes should be placed on appropriate categories (in this case, perhaps at "Category:Jews by country"? — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 14:56, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - That is generally done, at least it's supposed to. Whether or not a closing administrator remembers to place the note on the talk page is another matter. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:41, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I personally would support "Jewish Xians" rather than "Xian Jews". However, that change was debated here some months back, and the current naming scheme was retained. So for the time being, Category:Singaporean Jews is the correct name. Cgingold (talk) 12:17, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Whichever one is chosen as the proper title (I don't care frankly) the other one should {{categoryredirect}} to it. — CharlotteWebb 14:57, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Singaporean Jews is along the lines of Category:Singaporean Hindus.Pectore^talk 02:04, 12 August 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:Canals of London[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: rename. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:57, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Canals of London to Category:Canals in London

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Consistency with other members of Category:Canals in England. Tim! (talk) 08:58, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. - Darwinek (talk) 13:24, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to match parent cat.--Lenticel ^(talk) 23:34, 10 August 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:Musical groups from Birmingham, England[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: keep. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:35, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Musical groups from Birmingham, England to Category:Birmingham, England musical groups

and Category:Musical groups from Manchester to Category:Manchester musical groups

Nominator's rationale: Rename. The general naming convention appears to be Foo musical groups. As for Manchester, the whole tree for Manchester is not disambiguated please let's not rehash the tired old arguments to include disambiguation. Tim! (talk) 08:47, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What about rehashing the old argument that "Musical groups from foo" makes more sense? I'd support a mass rename in the other direction, but feh... — CharlotteWebb 17:06, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This might be a UK thing. I must say that Category:Birmingham, England musical groups sounds horribly clumsy to my UK ear, whereas Category:Musical groups from Birmingham, England is just fine. I also prefer the present construction for Manchester although the suggestion is not too bad (it's like 'University XXX alumni' vs 'Alumni of University XXX'). Occuli (talk) 17:14, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose – I see that in Category:British musical groups the formulation 'Category:Musical groups from Foo' is used consistently apart from Leicester. Please renominate Leicester (as you did yesterday). I can see that in the US category it is mainly 'Foo musical groups'; I assume 'Birmingham, Alabama musical groups' sounds fine and easy to parse to a US ear, and have no wish to interfere. Occuli (talk) 03:41, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I assume 'Birmingham, Alabama musical groups' sounds fine and easy to parse to a US ear ← actually, it doesn't. But I'm afraid turning the tides the other way, in favor of "Musical groups from Foo", would require nothing less (or more) than a potential genre vs. city naming collision. Please help me find one

. — CharlotteWebb 03:33, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep both per Occuli & consistency. Johnbod (talk) 03:49, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are only two using the form Musical groups from foo, so that is hardly consistent. Look at Category:American musical groups by state, Category:Australian musical groups by state, Category:Canadian musical groups by location. Tim! (talk) 16:53, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nonethless you are not nominating the other British sub-cats, so you are proposing inconsistency. Many categories use different forms between UK & US, per WP:ENGVAR. Personally I would oppose a group rename of the UK ones & support a global rename to "Musicians from Foo", unless Americans etc object on language grounds. "Category:Birmingham, England musical groups" in particular shows the problems caused by putting a disamed name first. Johnbod (talk) 16:59, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To which other British groups are you refering? I cannot find any others.Tim! (talk) 17:06, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also ENGVAR does not mention categories. I feel that the only variation should be spelling eg. organisations/organizations not in form between countries. Tim! (talk) 17:09, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is plenty of precedent here (alumni cats for one) for trans-Atlantic inconsistency in cat names being upheld. ENGVAR does not exclude categories, which in my book means they are covered. The Brighton & Bristol "music from" categories (sub-cats of groups) are the ones you are not nominating - only Leicester follows your desired pattern. Johnbod (talk) 17:17, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bristol and Brighton are actually Category:Music from Bristol, England and Category:Music from Brighton, England, not Category:Musical groups from Bristol, England or Category:Musical groups from Brighton, England and are currently miscategorised. Tim! (talk) 17:22, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is Category:English music by place which uses 'Music from Foo' without exception. There is some variation re subcats but a example of best practice is Category:Music from Manchester which contains the subcats Category:Musicians from Manchester and Category:Musical groups from Manchester. Occuli (talk) 11:58, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. I also note that the global parent Category:Music by city uses variants of "Music from/of/in foo" with a couple of US dissidents. Johnbod (talk) 19:54, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there was ever a consensus that musical-groups-by-city categories had to be named "City musical groups" — a few of them just kind of got started that way and other categories followed the pattern. I'd support a discussion to determine whether there should be a consistent convention one way or the other, but as of right now there's nothing in current policy or practice that compels either format. Keep as is, but refer this question to WP:MUSIC for consideration. Bearcat (talk) 19:27, 13 August 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.