Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 September 29

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Categories for discussion‎ | Log

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Good Olfactory (talk | contribs) at 01:22, 8 October 2008 (→‎Category:Greatest Nationals: link to relist). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

< September 28 September 30 >

September 29

Category:Burials at cemeteries

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Delete. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:14, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Burials at cemeteries - Template:Lc1
Nominator's rationale: Duplication

The hierarchy for "burials at xx cemetery" categories already goes through Category:Cemeteries in England, etc., while the detailed implementation was reviewed at an earlier CfD Ephebi (talk) 23:22, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It all goes through Category:Burials by country, which seems fair enough. Maybe there should be a note to point the way. Category:Burials by type of place would be clearer, & I'm not sure that this new (July 08) parallel global hierarchy is really that useful. Johnbod (talk) 00:26, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
the earlier CfD noted that it could be defining for both the person and the place. However this CfD is only about a single "burials at cemeteries" category. As nominator, I recommend deletion of this one category as it would confusingly run in near parallel with the existing forms, which have worked well for the last year or so. Ephebi (talk) 21:21, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as superfluous, as it duplicates another cat within an existing stucuture.. (The Burials categories are getting out of hand, by the way. There's a growing number of "Burials at.." categories where the location is a building, eg, "Burials at X cathedral", and these really have to be "Burials in.."; and a further and growing number of permanently minute cats for smallish churches, dissolved monasteries, etc, which can only ever have 2-3 burials - all this for later, but the whole lot needs a good clearout). HeartofaDog (talk) 16:21, 1 October 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:Salem metropolitan area

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. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:54, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Salem metropolitan area to Category:Salem, Oregon metropolitan area
Nominator's rationale: Rename. I'm not entirely sure this category is even necessary or helpful, but in any case, there are lots of places called Salem and this needs to be disambiguated. Katr67 (talk) 20:51, 29 September 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:Greatest Nationals

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:  Relisted on 2008 OCT 8. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:21, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Greatest Nationals to Category:Greatest nationals
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Capitalization (It is not a title of something by ityself, and in wikipedia tiltes (articles, sections, etc.) are non-capitalized). Timurite (talk) 17:03, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I checked almost all of the articles and none of them contain sourcing for the assertion that any of these shows bear any relation to 100 Greatest Britons. Absent such sourcing this is overcategorization by shared/similar name that basically amounts to "TV show ideas which were ripped off from other TV shows" which is a road down which I would hope we would not choose to travel. There is a list (also unsourced) and a template, so the articles are more than adequately connected if an actual connection between them is ever established. (oops forgot to sign) Otto4711 (talk) 21:40, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where's that list? I don't think there is one. The category seems valid to me - oddly The Greatest American is only in this category, & generally the article establishes a useful grouping imo. Otto may be right about the category note/description, but that is just an argument for changing that. However the name gave me no idea what to expect from the category (horse-racing maybe?) so Rename to Category:Greatest national persons television series or something more elegant. Johnbod (talk) 23:17, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the link. Having looked at a few (Argentina, Sth Africa, Russia etc) the format would seem to be sufficiently similar to suggest licenses were involved. If one could be bothered to register at [1] it would probable say which markets have had licenses granted. I still think the category worth maintaining. The grouping here is more interesting than in most licensed tv shows. Johnbod (talk) 13:21, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's for articles, Otto. In any case it would be Subject-specific common knowledge. I have pointed to one way it can be checked. Johnbod (talk) 16:50, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:OR certainly applies to categories as well as articles. Regardless, that a particular television program has been licensed from another similar program is hardly common knowledge. Indeed, you've acknowledged that it is an assumption on your part. You're the one arguing in favor of the category. It's up to you to prove that these programs are actually related to one another. Otto4711 (talk) 17:06, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No. It is only the category note that claims that & that does not affect the utility of the category imo. The common knowledge is that very similar formats need to be licenced from the originator. The similarities were very apparent from the articles I saw. I'd point out the nom is to rename - deletion is so far only argued by you. See the para beginning "BBC Worldwide here :"BBC Worldwide has also sealed its first format deal in Malaysia, where the satellite channel Astro is to produce its own version of the Great Britons format to mark the country's 50th year of independence. Work on Great Malaysians will begin in June for broadcast later this year. The format has now been sold into 14 countries including Spain (TVE), Holland (KRO), the US (Discovery), Germany (ZDF) and France (France 2)...." From over a year ago. Johnbod (talk) 19:34, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • So you're suggesting that the dozens of for instance home improvement shows with near-identical formats that have sprung up everywhere all trace back to one common licensed show? You have a cite for that rather extraordinary claim? It may very well be common knowledge that similar shows are sometimes licensed but that is far from the same thing as claiming that these particular shows were licensed from the British as opposed to simply being ripped off from one another. And sorry, but when the first word in your source is "blog" that raises enormous if not insurmountable reliability guidelines.
  • If you're now saying that these shows should be lumped together whether there's any relationship between them or not, then that's clearly overcategorization by shared name. The Greatest American Hero could go in here under this proposed standard. Otto4711 (talk) 22:25, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • And excuse me, but you've been here more than long enough to know that once something is brought to CFD all options are on the table, so spare me this eyelash-batting disingenuous "this was supposed to be about renaming!" nonsense. Otto4711 (talk) 22:25, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Calm down - have you overdone the pills? I gave you exactly what you asked for & you go into hyperdrive. Do you really believe the blog - of a firm with a reputation to uphold in the business - is wrong, or that 10 mins research would fail to confirm it from what WP laughably regards as a more "reliable" source, like a newspaper? Try Googling BBC Worldwide & other relevant terms, or register on their site like I said. Johnbod (talk) 23:30, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't think these lists are sufficiently neutral and reliable. By adding them to our category structure we give them credibility they don't deserve. __meco (talk) 07:34, 6 October 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:Law and statistics

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. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:25, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:Law and statistics to Category:Forensic statistics
Nominator's rationale: Merge, significant overlap here. Category:Law and statistics only has a few members. I don't have a strong opinion on which of these two ought to be the target. Btyner (talk) 21:53, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kbdank71 14:26, 29 September 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:Fictional characters by narrative structure

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. The discussion and the relisting didn't accomplish a whole lot. Overall, it looks like there may be a desire to either find a new name or to otherwise rejigger the category contents within the category tree. Perhaps a subsequent proposal with a more definite proposal would be in order. This close is certainly without prejudice to a future nomination proposing any result whatsoever. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:24, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Fictional characters by narrative structure

I think that this cat makes it more difficult to find the member cats, not easier. If kept, this should be renamed, at the very least. - jc37 04:25, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • UpMerge/Delete as nominator. - jc37 04:25, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kbdank71 13:55, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Minded to say keep. I'm not sure I understand why it is difficult to find the members? How are we imagining people happen upon this category? Hiding T 09:21, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It's an additional sub-level to go through, when the two members could be UpMerged. See also Narrative structure, which would seem to be different than Genre. (Or at least, a different perpective on how to look at a literary text.) - jc37 16:15, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    An additional sub-level to go through where? And narrative structure can encompass genre. I'm not sure what in that article leads you to believe otherwise, but don't rely on Wikipedia for anything. There's a whopping big disclaimer around here somewhere. Our articles on the arts really are the most neglected, possibly because it is all somewhat subjective. I think I nail my flag most to the postmodern mast, which puts me at odds with the many structuralists here. There's a paper on Structuralism and postmodernism as they apply to and influence Wikipedia to be written somewhere. There needs to be a far wider review of the categories in Category:Fictional characters than merely deleting this one, which possibly isn't the problem. I'm still not sure what the problem is. What is a genre if not a part of the structure of a narrative, part of the tool box a writer uses? Of course, narrative structures no doubt have genres too, but that's what makes the use of "Literary characters by genre of work" such a good title. Context. If you want to delete it, delete it. It would save a pointless argument. Hiding T 11:21, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm guessing that I'm not being clear in what I'm attempting to convey. I'm looking at the navigation aspect of the cat primarily. If someone comes to Category:Fictional characters, how clear are the "top-level" subcats in indicating what would be found if the subcat's branch were to be guessed than if it were followed? This cat has 2 members, both of which could easily be upmerged to "fictional characters", making them both "easier" to find. Should this cat be kept for future development? Or should it be deleted as it is currently creating an "extra step" for navigation in order to find specific cats? - jc37 11:30, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I get your points. My point is whether this category is wrong or if everything around it is wrong. I'd rather do an in depth review of the whole chain and make nominations on that basis. How does this category fit in, what is it doing, what else can it do? We can't know that until we know what else we've got. But I already said, if you want to delete it, delete it. It would save a pointless argument. Hiding T 12:27, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think the cartegory might be usefully renamed, but to what? fictional characters by nature of the narrative? I do not think this very lear, but am not sure i can find a clearer. DGG (talk) 02:23, 5 October 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:Literary characters by genre of work

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. (Perhaps a more definite proposal will result in a definite consensus.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:18, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Category:Literary characters by genre of work to something.

For one thing, the convention would seem to be "Fictional characters...". But, I'm not sure if perhaps this should merely be UpMerged/Deleted. (See also Category:Fictional characters by genre.) - jc37 04:28, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kbdank71 13:54, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bad - many characters appear in multiple type of media. And yes Fictional is the best naming. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 14:13, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here's a discussion from Feb 8, 2006 about the use of "fictional characters" vs "characters". Meanwhile, may we please keep this category (as is), as it separates literary characters from, say, film, television, etc.? Her Pegship (tis herself) 00:14, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as is, this is a damn good name which actually demonstrates understanding of how to use the term genre, unlike Category:Fictional characters by genre. Hiding T 09:18, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm starting to wonder if perhaps Category:Fictional characters in literature and subcats is the way to go for the broader grouping. If so, would Category:Fictional characters in literature by genre of work be appropriate? While I can appreciate the usage in "literary works" and "literary circles"; "literary characters" are not RL things, and so, presumably shouldn't have the same antecedent as the other two examples? - jc37 16:15, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    If the whole chain is moved on that basis, that would be a plan. Hiding T 11:23, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep until there is a proposal for how to rework the entire chain. Personally, i don't think its all that bad as it is. DGG (talk) 02:25, 5 October 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.

Kaiserslautern

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. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:53, 4 October 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:Spy webcomics

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. Adjusted categories in the lone article. There were several for webcominics already so I did not add one more. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:00, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Spy webcomics (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

  • Delete and upmerge the lone article to both of the parent cats. Unless there are a bunch of other such webcomics that are just waiting for articles to be written (and that meet WP:NOTE), this is simply a case of excessively narrow categorization. However, this category has been around for nearly three years, so let's just say I'm doubtful. (I must admit, I'm amused by the TOC that's been added, well in advance of the anticipated avalanche of articles! :) Notified creator with {{subst:cfd-notify}} Cgingold (talk) 12:38, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge to Category:Webcomics and Category:Spy comics. (The opportunity to add {{categorytree}} has been missed.) Occuli (talk) 13:34, 29 September 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:Electronica songs

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. I will note that if someone wants to recreate Category:Electronica songs as a subcategory and populate it after the rename then that would be acceptable based on this discussion. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:51, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Electronica songs to Category:Electronic songs
Nominator's rationale: Many of the songs in the category fall under electronic dance music, which is not electronica. The category even states it's for electronic music. PiracyFundsTerrorism (talk) 03:21, 29 September 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:Canadians imprisoned abroad

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. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:22, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Canadians imprisoned abroad to Category:Canadian people imprisoned abroad
Category:Australians imprisoned abroad to Category:Australian people imprisoned abroad
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Although there's nothing inherently wrong with these names, all the other subcategories of Category:People imprisoned abroad by nationality use "Fooian people". And the ultimate parents are Category:Canadian people and Category:Australian people, not Category:Canadians and Category:Australians. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:34, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retain existing name(s) Seems to me to be a change merely for consistency's sake with no actual benefit. The existing names are clear, unambiguous and simpler than the new names proposed. Different names for categories in different place in the category hierarchy are entirely appropriate. -- Mattinbgn\talk 00:42, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "...change merely for consistency's sake with no actual benefit". For those who use categories a lot, consistency is a benefit. "Different names for categories in different place in the category hierarchy are entirely appropriate". In some cases, yes, as when usage differs from place to place. In this instance, there is no good reason to keep the Australian ones and Canadian ones different, especially when they don't conform with their own parents. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:45, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I should have been clearer; my comment should have been "a change merely for consistency's sake with no actual benefit other than consistency itself". Consistency is indeed a benefit, but I am not convinced consistency trumps clarity and simplicity when naming categories. Perhaps there is some guideline or essay on considerations when naming categories that someone could point me to? -- Mattinbgn\talk 05:06, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename I do not concur blindly with the statement that Consistency is a benefit - this project by its diverse nature requires continued diversity rather than consistency in many cases - however for this CfD I do not see problems with moving to a consistent set of naming.--VS talk 03:07, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • You don't have to agree with my statement "blindly". As I also noted immediately afterwards, in some cases consistency is not the best solution, "as when usage differs from place to place". This is simply not the case here; thus, consistency is a benefit. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:33, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom, possibly myopically. Occuli (talk) 08:34, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. Keeping a category like this outside of name consistency just because someone doesn't think consistency is important, when both usages are completely standard and the only meaningful difference between the two is that one isn't consistent with the naming conventions and the other is, isn't really a valid reason to ignore consistency. There generally has to be an actual reason — such as differences in standard English usage from one country to another — for categories to be named inconsistently with their international siblings, and even then we still strive for as much consistency as possible (i.e. word order). Bearcat (talk) 17:14, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Thanks for making things personal ("someone doesn't think consistency is important"). I didn't say consistency wasn't important, quite the opposite in fact, "Consistency is indeed a benefit ...", but hey, thanks for putting words in my mouth. I guess this is another lesson in what is accepted practise here. What I did say is that I did not think consistency is the be and end all of category names especially when the proposed name is more complex and adds no more clarity than the name that currently exists. If we must be consistent I would rename the other categories in this class to bring them into line with the two listed here. I'm under no illusions that this is likely to happen, nevertheless that is my preference. -- Mattinbgn\talk 20:24, 29 September 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:Australian prisoners serving life sentences

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. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:20, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Australian prisoners serving life sentences to Category:Australian prisoners sentenced to life imprisonment
Category:Australian prisoners serving multiple life sentences to Category:Australian prisoners sentenced to multiple life sentences
Nominator's rationale: Rename. The current names needlessly and problematically limit the category to those currently serving life sentences. Thus, it excludes those who were sentenced to life sentences in the past and have died and those who were sentenced to life but released before death for whatever reason. The rename will bring this category into line with all the other subcategories of Category:Prisoners sentenced to life imprisonment by nationality. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:27, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nominator's rationale. I'm not personally convinced that the sub-category for multiple life sentences is useful but have no objections to letting it stand. -- Mattinbgn\talk 00:38, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename Yes I concur with the logic contained in the nominator's rationale, and agree with Matt's view on the sub-cat for multiple life sentences but am happy to let it stand also.--VS talk 03:03, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per above - SatuSuro 03:16, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename -- per nominator's rationale. Totally agree with the reasoning presented. The sub-category is useful in the sense that there are a number of prisoners who have not received one life sentence, but multiple, for various offences. Peter Dupas and Ivan Milat are but two examples. Dupas is currently appealing one life sentence before the courts, but will effectively remain behind bars on his other murder convictions even if recent appeal succeeds. If the courts find it appropriate to hand out multiple life-sentences to offenders, then we should aim to correctly categorise those offenders as such. -- Longhair\talk 08:07, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Isn't "sentenced to multiple life sentences" a little bit redundant? Hopefully we can find some better way to say this. — CharlotteWebb 13:20, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...multiple life terms" perhaps? Otto4711 (talk) 19:20, 29 September 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 from the Blue Mountains, NSW

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 (just in case people don't know what NSW means—"north by southwest" perhaps). As for Vegaswikian's concerns if we want to make a category like this explicitly include people from the surrounding area, we would remove the city name, not the state name. In any case this has nothing to do with whether the abbreviation should be spelled out. This probably would have qualified for speedy renaming—if not, something around here is broken. — CharlotteWebb 22:37, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:People from the Blue Mountains, NSW to Category:People from the Blue Mountains, New South Wales
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Expand abbreviation in name per NCCAT. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:14, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support rename, per nominator's rationale, although I am unconvinced that the category is a necessary or well-delineated category; Blue Mountains being a rather amorphous region rather than a locality per se. No doubt others at WP:AWNB may disagree. -- Mattinbgn\talk 00:24, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support rename, I also agree with what Matt has said and I would rather see the notable people be categorized to a category of their birth place rather then a region. Bidgee (talk) 00:41, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • If there's a consensus to delete based on the comments above, I wouldn't object as nominator. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:54, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support rename The Blue Mountains (Australia) article provides a rather clear delineation of the localities included in the area, which are included in the Category:Blue Mountains, New South Wales. Segregating people who are from this area into a people from category seems perfectly reasonable. Renaming for consistency with the parent category makes complete sense. Alansohn (talk) 02:16, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Disagee about keeping the region. I rather keep it as the birth place or the location that they lived in then having the area/region. Albury has it's own (Category:People from Albury, New South Wales) and isn't in with Category:People from the Riverina, New South Wales (and yes I can see that it's not a created Category. ;) ) so I don't see the need to have the Blue Mountains. Bidgee (talk) 02:24, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The delineation from the article "The Blue Mountains area includes the local government areas of the City of Blue Mountains, the City of Hawkesbury, the City of Lithgow and Oberon." is unsourced and likely OR. Having said that, I am not opposed to retaining cats for people from specific regions of Australian states—Category:Riverina includes several people for example. Its just that the idea of regions in Australia is very messy and complicated as other than WA and QLD, the regions are entirely unofficial and this level just doesn't seem necessary. Stepping down from Category:People from New South Wales to Category:People from Albury, New South Wales seems steps enough without an unofficial middle category clouding things up. -- Mattinbgn\talk 02:56, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support rename Per nom SatuSuro 03:19, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- rename per nominator. - Longhair\talk 08:38, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. The abbreviation looks a bit unprofessional, so I think expanding it is entirely reasonable. I don't think, however, that it should be deleted - the Blue Mountains is collectively a distinct area, although should be limited to the City of Blue Mountains. It's not really a "region" in the same sense some of the other places are, in that it's a collection of about 10 towns, some of them quite large ones, mostly on a single highway/rallway. Orderinchaos 00:16, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Can someone explain the purpose of this part of the category structure? It apparently combines the City of Blue Mountains with the Blue Mountains area. Yet it rolls up into Category:People by city in Australia? So is the city different then the area? If so, then this probably needs to be split along with the rename. Vegaswikian (talk) 04:20, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well the City of Blue Mountains is an local government area (lga) which includes Towns and villages in that area. City of Wagga Wagga is a local government area but unlike City of Blue Mountains, Wagga Wagga itself is a City with the lga covering other towns and villages in the area. I hope I haven't confused you. Bidgee (talk) 09:52, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes you have. Let me try the question this way. Is Category:People from the Blue Mountains, NSW a proper category to roll up into Category:People by city in Australia? In other words, are people from that area generally though of as being from the city even if they are not? This is the case for some of the metropolitan areas for cities in the US. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:43, 1 October 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_September_29&oldid=243791211"