Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 June 9

< June 8	June 10 >

June 9[edit]

Category:Religions in the Netherlands[edit]

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

The result of the debate was merge, as proposed; also redundant to existing Category:Religion in the Netherlands. --cjllw ʘ TALK 08:33, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merge Category:Religions in the Netherlands into Category:Christianity in the Netherlands

Nominator's rationale: Merge, "Religions in" is non-standard and given that every country has a "Religion in" category it is also potentially confusing. All 10 articles here are about Christian denominations in the Netherlands. Haddiscoe 21:37, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - The "religions" category does not make sense. It would be appropriate to merge it into the Christianity category. Dr. Submillimeter 01:47, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. These are denominations or churches not religions. Johnbod 15:17, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Postlebury 19:57, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Opposite Merge to nominor's proposal. Religion is a wider category than Christianity. Where are we going to put an article on Islam in the Netherlands (which appears to exist) or Buddhism in the Netherlands (which does not yet)? But Rename to Category:Religion in the Netherlands. Denominations are not religions, but they are aspects of religion. Peterkingiron 21:46, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Category:Religion in the Netherlands alread exists. Islam in the Netherlands is in Category:Islam in the Netherlands, which is a subcategory of the "religion" category. The discussion here concerns a redundant "religions" category. I would suggest that Peterkingiron reconsider the situation and possibly alter his recommendation if appropriate. Dr. Submillimeter 22:45, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom and per Dr S's reply to Peterkingiron. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:16, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Casperonline 22:19, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Snakes by U.S. state[edit]

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

The result of the debate was rename to Category:Snakes of the United States by state. The other option seems to have support as well, a separate discussion may be necessary. Conscious 15:58, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Snakes of the United States by state, convention of Category:Categories by state of the United States. -- Prove It ^(talk) 20:40, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support renaming. I originally created the category, unaware of the convention. Since the category assignment in each article is done within the SnakesByState template, there would only have to be one change within the template code to effect the change in all articles. Realkyhick 21:02, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I haven't been following the various discussions about other flora and fauna categories extremely closely, but I was under the impression that the trend was moving away from categorizing wildlife by arbitrary political boundaries. Otto4711 02:30, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, including subcategories, as a non-defining characteristic. No opinion on the rename as presented. -- Visviva 04:55, 10 June 2007 (UTC) Obviously I'm not paying close enough attention. Support. -- Visviva 04:24, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Category:Lists of snakes in the United States - This category contains list articles. Categories for list articles usually begin with "list". Dr. Submillimeter 13:55, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Category:Lists of snakes in the United States per Dr S Johnbod 15:17, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: the lists should strictly cover only endemic species in given region. The name may reflect this. Pavel Vozenilek 20:09, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Why should the list articles only cover endemic snakes? In the past, some categories have been restricted to endemic species, but no such restrictions have been placed on list articles, nor is it necessary. Dr. Submillimeter 22:31, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Restriction on categories were implemented because of such examples. Lists may end up similarly, especially if they don't have any context information, as it is now. Pavel Vozenilek 13:08, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment - Categorization of animals by place, except for animals endemic to a specific location, is impractical, as articles for specific animals may be saturated with categories. (See the Zebra Waxbill as a resilient, long-standing example.) However, list articles (such as list of snakes in Georgia) do not cause the same navigation problems for articles on individual animals, so I see no reason why the list articles need to be restricted to endemic animals. Dr. Submillimeter 17:10, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Roman slaves and freedmen[edit]

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

The result of the debate was rename. Conscious 16:01, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose rename Category:Roman slaves and freedmen to Category:Ancient Roman slaves and freemen

Nominator's rationale: Rename. This is the only member of Category:Ancient Romans by occupation that does not use the word ancient apart from Category:Roman era philosophers, which is a different type of category (an era category) as many of its members are Ancient Greeks. Dominictimms 20:30, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. Postlebury 19:57, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: being a Roman era slave was not necessary a lifetime yoke and usually not why we know about them today. Subcategory Roman gladiators is incorrect: not all or vast majority of gladiators were slaves (also depends on period). Pavel Vozenilek 20:18, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Romans in Britain[edit]

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

The result of the debate was rename, as nominated. --cjllw ʘ TALK 14:19, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose rename Category:Romans in Britain to Category:Ancient Romans in Britain

Nominator's rationale: Rename per Category:Ancient Romans. There have been many post classical Roman visitors to and residents of Britain, I've met at least two myself. Dominictimms 20:21, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. Postlebury 19:57, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Records produced by Electrecord[edit]

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

The result of the debate was rename. Conscious 16:03, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Electrecord albums, convention of Category:Albums by record label. -- Prove It ^(talk) 20:18, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support speedy rename as per nom Lugnuts 20:42, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why, it is very nice of you to show interest in my new category, the only I've built from scratch so far. Sorry about misnaming it, but I never guessed there is rule for everything on Wikipedia, even for such an obscure (from a worldwide point of view) label like Electrecord. I surely accept your proposal, so do speedy rename it, while it's closer to the Wiki customs! You know, this was the first time when I had to do directly with a records' label category here. But everything must start somewhere, so it started here. Thanks again! :) Impy4ever 22:36, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. Conscious 08:01, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:ZX Spectrum-only games[edit]

Propose merge Category:ZX Spectrum-only games into Category:ZX Spectrum games

Nominator's rationale: This and the similar ones listed below are all largely extraneous subcats that serve only to weaken their parent categories by depriving them of entries. I believe that the games contained in these subcats would not only fit perfectly into their parent categories, but that the parent categories are where the vast majority of users would look for them anyway. ALSO: in response to the oppose below, I am not proposing that there should be no subcategories at all; but that they really should not be based on something as arbitrary as whether they're system exclusives or not, especially as they're taking lots of entries away from the main listing Miremare 20:10, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment this should be handled as a group nomination with the cats below to avoid inconsistent and confusing results. Xtifr _tälk 22:19, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all per nom. Postlebury 19:58, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The whole purpose of a sub-categeroy is to deprive (a possibly overly large) category with entries. And of course they would fit the parent category. As to browsing, if I don't find something in a given category I try the sub-categories. The rationale is valid for merging any sub-category to any parent category. --Frodet 21:52, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all per nom. System exclusivity is very rarely a defining characteristic. -Sean Curtin 03:09, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Don't merge'. Being exclusive to a system is a notable characteristic, in my opinion. If a game is only for one system: that's something to note, and categorize. RobJ1981 04:45, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all Being exclusively for one system is notable but if it is at the expense of being in the main category for that system then that is a price too high. - X201 08:57, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: There is absolutely nothing stopping anyone from also adding the said games in the parent category. However, as the sub-category is linked from the parent it is implicitly so, just on level deeper. Hence no price is paid, IMHO. --Frodet 10:24, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: I had a dispute here with another user who was determined that games should appear in one category only, which is why I brought up this discussion in the first place. I'm not against games being listed in both categories (in fact that's what I suggested at first) but as there's opposition to that, merging is the second best option. Exclusive titles would be better served with a list. Miremare 19:57, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment: I am not determined that the games should not be listed in both categories; I simply pointed out that you were placing one game in both categories, which was not what was done anywhere else. --Pak21 07:31, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment In that case, listing all games in both categories seems to me to be the best option. Miremare 18:08, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Comment: In that case, this is really a property of the sub-category as several of the other votees have mentioned. --Frodet 19:30, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose.(As someone who thought it was a good idea to create Category:PlayStation 2-only games.) On whether platform exclusivity is a notable characteristic we'll just have to disagree, and as for depriving the parent category of entries... Well, it's true that this is a problem at the moment, but it's basically a limitation of mediawiki software that IMO should be addressed directly, not worked around, especially if the workaround involves removing otherwise useful/notable categories. And anyway, if you want a workaround, why not go with "also add to the parent category"? ---Vladimir V. Korablin (talk) 11:03, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - The rationales being given above to oppose the merger can be equally applied to Category:ZX Spectrum and Wii only games and Category:PS2 and XBox only games. Being released only for two platforms is not different in notability than being released only for one. Additionally, some games released for some platforms in the US for example are not released for the same platforms in Japan or Europe. On a side note, if anyone knows when Madden07 is coming out for the Wii in Japan, let me know. Neier 11:27, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all: although strongly I disagree with the suggestion that these categories shouldn't be subdivided, I don't think this is the proper way to subdivide them. Neier raises exactly the same points I intended to raise: this is a dangerous precedent. And I definitely do not think it's a defining characteristic. In general, there are no guidelines against making categories that are too large (only ones that are too small), However, if there people really feel that these categories are too large, they should be subdivided along more more appropriate and defining lines, such as genre. Xtifr _tälk 20:44, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Listify each, and merge each into its parent. 132.205.93.83 01:00, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nope (for ALL -only categories). Actually, the title being exclusive is pretty important - ever heard of the console wars? :) --HanzoHattori 17:45, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Don't merge I think that single-platformness is notable. Request an enhancement of Wikimedia to specify if a category should be excluding og including in the parent category. 148.2.224.140 16:19, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:DS-only games[edit]

Propose merge Category:DS-only games into Category:Nintendo DS games

Nominator's rationale: see above. Miremare 20:10, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:GameCube-only games[edit]

Propose merge Category:GameCube-only games into Category:GameCube games

Nominator's rationale: see above. Miremare 20:10, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:PlayStation 2-only games[edit]

Propose merge Category:PlayStation 2-only games into Category:PlayStation 2 games

Nominator's rationale: see above. Miremare 20:10, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:PlayStation 3-only games[edit]

Propose merge Category:PlayStation 3-only games into Category:PlayStation 3 games

Nominator's rationale: see above. Miremare 20:10, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wii-only games[edit]

Propose merge Category:Wii-only games into Category:Wii games

Nominator's rationale: see above. Miremare 20:10, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Xbox 360-only games[edit]

Propose merge Category:Xbox 360-only games into Category:Xbox 360 games

Nominator's rationale: see above. Miremare 20:10, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Adaptations of works by Oscar Wilde[edit]

Propose rename Category:Adaptations of works by Oscar Wilde to Category:Films based on Oscar Wilde works

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

The result of the debate was keep. Conscious 07:56, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Rename - to bring in line with the categories in Category:Films based on works by author. We had a CFR a while back expressing a preference for this naming structure but I never got around to nominating the rest of the subcats for renaming. Otto4711 16:30, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and move the films to a sub-cat. I have added the Richard Strauss opera Salome to the category, and there are other adaptations that could be added. Johnbod 15:36, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Adaptations could include operas, stage plays, graphic novels, TV miniseries, single-frame visual art, scuplture, etc. Mdotley 21:02, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Arashi[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Conscious 07:54, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose delete Category:Arashi

Nominator's rationale: Delete - following cleanup to move songs and albums to subcats, the category is not needed for this volume of material. Otto4711 16:18, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Neier 02:07, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Persons accused of filicide[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete. --cjllw ʘ TALK 08:17, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, we don't categorize by accusation. We have a category for Muderers, but not for Accused murderers. -- Prove It ^(talk) 15:01, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; "Accused" categories strike me as a remarkably bad idea. Accusations are simply too easy to make and require no evidence whatsoever. Heck, for all we know, Oedipus might have been framed! :) Xtifr _tälk 21:50, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and many, many precedents. Doczilla 02:45, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and precedent. Carlossuarez46 21:41, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Mowsbury 13:55, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Invites abuse, perpetuates stigma of accusation even on people cleared of the charge. --7Kim 19:55, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:University Athletics Association of the Philippines[edit]

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

The result of the debate was merge. Conscious 07:51, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:University Athletic Association of the Philippines, to match University Athletic Association of the Philippines. -- Prove It ^(talk) 14:43, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Queer writers[edit]

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

The result of the debate was merge to Category:LGBT writers --Kbdank71 20:28, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merge Category:Queer writers into Category:Gay writers

Nominator's rationale: Merge. Duplicate that does not comply with the terminology of the wider category system. Piccadilly 14:33, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Category:LGBT writers. Not all of the people in the queer cat are gay males. Merge to the LGBT category to facilitate recategorization to the appropriate subcat. Otto4711 15:40, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Category:LGBT writers, per Otto4711. -- Jelly Soup 21:20, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Category:LGBT writers, per Otto. Carlossuarez46 21:42, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Otto. -Sean Curtin 03:10, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Queer is not necessarily any more synonymous with LGBT than with gay; some self-identified Queers reject membership in the LGBT political movement or communities and reject the labels entirely. --7Kim 20:06, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I checked roughly a third of the articles in the category, all for people born in the 20th Century and none of the articles have any support for the notion that the subjects embraced the label "queer" or would refuse to self-identify as LGBT. They are all also in at least one of the other categories under Category:LGBT writers. Speaking as a self-identified queer I believe this category is less about how the individuals label themselves and more about pushing a POV about the "queer" label. Otto4711 15:49, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't see ...

(1) the POV that's being pushed by the existence of the category;

(2) any serious evidence that any POV is being pushed by the existence of the category;

(3) what it means to say a category "is about" something when there is no category description, no criteria for inclusion, and no relevant-to-the-question discussion on the Talk page;

(4) why any editor should propose to merge (effectively delete) rather than using er authority as an editor to produce a category description and criteria for inclusion and then categorise appropriate articles and decategorise inappropriate articles;

(5) why the category should suffer for failings of the articles contained within it or the poor categorisation history; or

(6) why we should attribute motivations and intents to a category creator who has remained silent (and has no user page and a Talk page which sheds no light on the matter).

Speaking as someone who meets the criteria for labelling as "queer", and rejects even that label (not that your personal labelling or mine is in the least relevant), but honours the right of others to be identified as they wish, I believe this separate category should exist and should continue to exist. I don't know what it was intended to be about, and I don't know what it is about right now, but I do know what it could be about: writers who self-identify as queer (following the pattern of Category:Gay writers, Category:Lesbian writers, &c.), or -- and I prefer this, though it breaks with convention -- writers whose works address queer topics regardless of their personal identification. And I think that would be useful to Wikipedia. All it would take is some discussion, a consensual vision, some good criteria for inclusion, and a little hack-and-slash recategorisation. A less drastic and more respectful remedy than merging, I should think. --7Kim 17:14, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how it's disrespectful in the slightest, in the absence of reliable sourcing in the articles that confirms the assertion that any of the people in the category reject all of the labels under "LGBT" in favor of "queer," to categorize them as LGBT. If a writer's work addresses queer topics then their work can be categorized under Category:Queer theory and, as a descriptor of them in relation to their work on queer theory, the writers can be categorized under Category:Queer theorists if the community should deem such a category workable. The POV that's being pushed here is that the writers would find it acceptable to be categorized as "queer." I doubt very much that Oscar Wilde for example would find it anything but anathema to be referred to as "queer," seeing as how he sued for criminal libel over being called a sodomite. It is not incumbent upon any editor to try to fix a category that s/he believes is broken by manufacturing a category description, and it seems contradictory for you to decry people for supposedly assigning motivations and intents to the category creator while at the same time suggesting that editors possibly subvert his intent by imposing a description and inclusion criteria on his work. As for the category "suffering," I think that the electrons that compose the category will, if the category is deleted, get over it. Otto4711 04:11, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Political artists[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 20:29, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose delete Category:Political artists

Nominator's rationale: Delete A vague intersection that is not being used with good judgment, eg. this is useless category clutter on Oscar Wilde. Piccadilly 14:32, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning toward keep in the absence of a compelling deletion argument. If the articles don't support inclusion in the category then they can be removed from the category without deleting the category itself. Although I'm not clear why it's bad judgment to include the author of The Soul of Man under Socialism in a political artists category, if "artists" is taken to include purveyors of the literary arts. Otto4711 16:38, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Over broad, vague, POV, largely useless. Perebourne 17:18, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This category is not being used properly. Outside of Wikipedia, "political art" is used to refer to government propaganda. This category seems to be used for "artists" (including musicians and writers) who include a political theme in their works. Since the category has an overly broad interpretation and since the term "political art" is not being interpreted correctly, it should be deleted. Dr. Submillimeter 19:36, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Dr. Submillimeter. Dominictimms 20:21, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Doczilla 05:10, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hopeless - two of the parent cats are for visual artists only, but most articles are about writers or musicians. I don't agree with the Dr's comment above, but this random bunch of modern English-speakers is useless. DeleteJohnbod 15:29, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above. Postlebury 19:58, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:HKUST chemistry faculty[edit]

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

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 20:34, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Hong Kong University of Science and Technology faculty, to match Hong Kong University of Science and Technology. -- Prove It ^(talk) 14:17, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom and per usual conventions e.g. avoiding abbreviations. Bencherlite 07:51, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Casperonline 22:19, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Dalton School alumni who are in entertainment[edit]

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

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 20:32, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Dalton School alumni, or simply Delete. -- Prove It ^(talk) 13:35, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Dalton School alumni with a capital S. People-by-school categories are standard, but one overall category per schools is quite sufficient. Piccadilly 14:35, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I've revised my nomination ... -- Prove It ^(talk) 14:45, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete vaguely named trivial intersection. Doczilla 05:11, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Postlebury 19:59, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom and populate it - there are plenty of alumni at Dalton School (Chevy Chase being one). -- roundhouse0 16:38, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Soviet external politics[edit]

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

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 20:24, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose rename Category:Soviet external politics to Category:Foreign relations of the Soviet Union

Nominator's rationale: Rename, as for other countries. Cmapm 12:09, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. Johnbod 15:24, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Postlebury 19:59, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Pavel Vozenilek 20:20, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Oldham[edit]

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

The result of the debate was no consensus --Kbdank71 20:15, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose rename Category:Oldham to Category:Metropolitan Borough of Oldham

Propose rename Category:Buildings and structures in Oldham to Category:Buildings and structures in Metropolitan Borough of Oldham

Propose rename Category:Education in Oldham to Category:Education in Metropolitan Borough of Oldham

Propose rename Category:Government in Oldham to Category:Government in Metropolitan Borough of Oldham

Propose rename Category:People from Oldham by settlement to Category:People from Metropolitan Borough of Oldham by settlement

Propose rename Category:Railway stations in Oldham to Category:Railway stations in Metropolitan Borough of Oldham

Propose rename Category:Sport in Oldham to Category:Sport in Metropolitan Borough of Oldham

These categories refer to the Metropolitan Borough of Oldham as opposed to the town of Oldham. There is an article about the borough called Metropolitan Borough of Oldham and an article about the town called Oldham. I think it is confusing that the name 'Oldham' is being used to identify two different areas. Since there is an article called the 'Metropolitan Borough of Oldham' which applies to the same area as the category name 'Oldham', I think the category name should be changed from 'Oldham' to 'Metropolitan Borough of Oldham' - this way the article that covers the area and the category that covers the area carry the same name.

The argument against changing the name is that the Manchester borough category is called [[Manchester], but the difference here is that the Borough of Manchester was given city status and called 'Manchester' so technically the Manchester article applies to the whole of the borough, since the borough towns are suburbs of Manchester the city - in this example the article name and the category match up to identify the same area. However, 'Oldham' is not a city so the 'Oldham' article does not apply to the borough, just a town in the borough. The fundamental point I am making here is that if you have article names that apply to specific geographic areas, then I think these should match up to categories that cover the same geographic areas. I think it is sloppy for a category to carry the same name as another wiki article when they both cover different locations. 88.104.38.124 09:23, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It is not uncommon to use the city or other name in categories to cover the primary location and the surrounding area and communities. Is this not the case here? Vegaswikian 20:09, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Direct response to above comment You would need another concensus or verifiable source that dictates a certain location as a primary location in a borough. ~~ Peteb16 18:20, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply/Introduction:This is a dispute that has been rumbling on for some time at WikiProject Greater Manchester, it has been suggested that it was brought here so that, if there is a change, a consistent approach is adopted across the UK. Currently, the most widely adopted approach for categorisation is that local authorities adopt a short form i.e. "Metropolitan Borough of Tameside" becames "Tameside". The editor bringing this complaint contends that this is inaccurate in the case of "Metropolitan Borough of Oldham" because there are towns other than "Oldham" in the borough but the Categories are currently named "Oldham". The situation across Wikipedia is currently much less precise for other boroughs with towns and boroughs of the same name often sharing the same article never mind categories.

For my part, I think this dispute is possibly verges on a case of "much ado about nothing" and dont really have any substantial objection either way. However, I currently lean slightly towards the status quo on the basis that:

Most articles are quite clear about the area that they refer to in the first paragraph. Therefore the reader will be able to deduce that an article refers to something in the Borough or Town quite quickly.
The categories are quite clear in their what they refer to.
At the WikiProject, I have contended that Categories are meta-data and not really meant for "reader" consumption (other than searching - where the context is in the category header). At that point the dispute it doesnt really matter what they are called. Use of "Oldham" has the advantage of being short and easier to type when searching for articles, it also avoids confusion of odd cases of capitalisation, etc, etc.

The problem is that the abbreviation matches the name of a town in the borough. If they are not meant for user consumption you could call the category something meaningless like B4-5789, but by abbreviating to a form that is incidentally already the name of a town, you make it look like a city/district relationship. The official abbreviation that the borough uses is OMB which is the most logical abbreviation if you go down that route, but currently you are tagging towns in a borough with another town name and it's just misleading. 88.104.55.249 22:44, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On the basis that "Categories are Meta-data", I also find the complainant's other complaint that articles refering to before 1974 (when Oldham MBC was created) should be categorised as Lancashire to be flawed as well. On a meta-data basis I consider Metropolitan Borough of Oldham to be "time invariant" i.e. It has always existed and is merely an arbitrary area of the Earth's surface to categorise articles that are related in terms of geographical proximity. Any time meta-data is given by categories such as <year> births, <year> deaths. Another area could have been chosen but the modern boundaries where chosen for (IMHO) a variety of reasons such as being current and relatively constant and unambiguous. Certainly if Categories are meta-data, splitting geographical categorisation over time would lead to some pretty wierd effects. For example, a person who died the day before the local government re-organisation would be classified as a "Person from Lancashire", where as his grandson, living in the same house, but born the following day would be classified as a "Person from Met Borough of Oldham".

Pit-yacker 16:08, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is just a general wiki convention though: historical geography is used in biographies. Someone who is born in Manchester before 1974 is recorded as being born in 'Manchester, Lancashire', and from 1974 'Manchester, Greater Manchester'. Whether it is the same area is irrelevant. This was decided upon because even though physical geography has hardly changed, beaurocratic geography is always changing which would mean that biographies would be subject to constant change, and in historical contexts it might not be apparent how current geography relates to historic geography. For instance, if all we know about someone is that they were born in Lancashire in the 16th century, then that might not hold true according to modern boundaries, so the only sure way consistency can be attained in recording geography in biographies is to use the geography of the time. WalterMitty 21:39, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename all per nom. Borough boundaries often do not reflect the main everyday usage of place names in the UK. Dominictimms 20:23, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Rename all, provisionally Rename them so long as all the other relevant boroughs (e.g. Stockport, Wigan etc.) are renamed too, otherwise leave it alone and make sure it is stressed that the categories are talking about OMBC in each respective lead paragraph. ~~ Peteb16 18:20, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question Should this proposal go through, what will happen to categories where the Metropolitan Borough and largest settlement within have only one article? In Greater Manchester, I'm thinking of Manchester, where "Metropolitan Borough of Manchester" is the only logical possibility should the rename go ahead. It's not unique to Manchester either - I can think of Wolverhampton and Coventry instantly where the same applies. Does it mean that any Metropolitan Borough with City Status stays with its current name? Certainly for Leeds/City of Leeds you could make an identical argument to that made regarding Oldham. It's also fairly pointless renaming Sandwell, Kirklees or Tameside as there are no towns within those Metropolitan Boroughs with the same name. At the moment I can foresee this rename causing more problems than it solves, even if I broadly support the idea that Met Boroughs ahould where appropriate be differentiated clearly from the same-named town within. Fingerpuppet 18:48, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If this rename happens, does that mean we need to rename a large number of related categories? We generally try to be consistent in how we name categories. If so, we really need input from the editors involved in those other areas to develop a consensus here. Vegaswikian 19:12, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I have left a notice at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography and User:Mr Stephen has notified a number of users who were involved in the initial dispute at WP:GM. Pit-yacker 19:19, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I have notified Wikipedia:WikiProject West Midlands. Are there other projects that should be notified specifically? Fingerpuppet 10:03, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- One of the arguments here is that the current categorisation applies to Manchester but not really to Oldham. Manchester is a city with districts (as well as being a borough), so places can be tagged with 'Manchester' because the towns in the borough of Manchester are districts of the city of Manchester so are 'in' the city. The towns in the borough of Oldham are not districts of Oldham the town, so the argument is that they should not be tagged in the same way. WalterMitty 21:02, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as is In the widest context these districts are also known as Oldham, Manchester etc so the naming reflects actual (and simplest) usage. The category scheme is hierarchical and there are no categories for the lower level settlements (and no will to create such categories either from what I've seen). There is therefore no contradiction or confusion. I certainly do not want this to set a precedent for any other such use of protracted place names. MRSC • Talk 19:51, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all MRSC's argument is entirely incorrect. In everyday use the town is Oldham. The borough, which has more than double the population of the town, is a bureaucratic hodge podge that contains places that are not part of Oldham in the normal sense. Postlebury 20:02, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Pedantry on naming:Assuming the change is made, if we are going to have full form shouldn't the sub-cats be "X in the Metropolitan Borough of Oldham"? Pit-yacker 20:10, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The name of the borough as I understand is "Metropolitan Borough of Oldham" so 'the' technically shouldn't be in there. WalterMitty 21:20, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I cant say for sure what the legal name of the borough is and that would be relevant to the top level category, that's why I didnt mention the top level category. However, I dont see that the official name is relevant to the sub-cats. "Buildings and structures in Metropolitan Borough of Oldham" just doesnt make sense. Pit-yacker 22:35, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename: The categorisation system currently really only suits city districts (by creating a city category) since the districts make up part of the city. This categorisation has been carried through to boroughs, but here lies the problem: the towns that make up the Metropolitan Borough of Oldham are not districts of Oldham since the borough doesn't carry city status, so the borough articles shouldn't really be be tagged with 'Oldham' like the 'Manchester' ones. I'm slightly in favour of not having categories for boroughs that do not carry city status, but if we are then I agree that a separate 'borough' category should be created rather than using the city/district format. WalterMitty 21:20, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bear in mind that City Status makes no difference to this situation. Good examples of this problem are Salford/City of Salford and Leeds/City of Leeds, both of which contain significant towns other than the seat of government. You can even make the argument for Birmingham which only has one article, due to the presence of Sutton Coldfield, a large town in its own right administered by Birmingham City Council. Fingerpuppet 08:29, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Overlong category names are to be deplored. Local sensitivities over the distinction between the town of Oldham and the district of which it is part can be dealt with by placing text at the head of each category, such as "This category realtes to the whole metropolitan District of Oldham, not merely to the town of Oldham". This should be sufficient to deal with pedants. The problem will arise wherever a town whose name a district bears is only one element of the district. This is by no means unique. We have a similar problem between the town of Stourbridge and metropolitan borough of Dudley, as many people in Stourbridge resent the loss of local autonomy involved the the loss of borough status in 1974. I suspect that this issue needs to be discussed in a rather wider context than that of Oldham categories. Peterkingiron 21:40, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as is. I pretty much completely agree with the comments made by users MRSC and Peterkingiron. Categories like Oldham (and Stockport, Wigan et al) exist in the context that they can only be metrolopitan bouroughs, not towns. The only possible change I can any rationale for is to make that more explicit in the category header, if that's considered necessary. Which frankly I don't. ---- Eric 22:31, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Overly long category names are messy and not required. The context of the category is correctly displayed on the category page. Regan123 22:40, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Which is totally invisible on the articles which are allocated to the category. Mowsbury 13:57, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Which is irrelevant. Many categories require further explanation to avoid massive category names cluttering up the bottom of articles. Absolute precision is not a prerequisite. --Regan123 09:40, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as is. It worked absolutely fine as it was, and I see no need to change it really other than to please one person in particular.

It quite clearly stated at the top of each page that it included articles not just in Oldham town proper but in the entire borough. DShamen 9:56, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Keep. I can see the argument for renaming, but I don't think it's necessary. The same could be said of pretty much every metropolitan borough. Personally I'd ignore them all and categorise as Lancashire (or whichever other county they're traditionally in), but I'd be shouted down by the people who like to think that the creation of a new system thirty years ago makes the rest of history irrelevant. -- Necrothesp 09:46, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have selected an arbitrary start point for your history. Why not use the Anglo-Saxon names instead of these new fangled county names like Lancashire? ---- Eric 18:23, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because it was Lancashire for longer and Lancashire is the best-known name. Hardly arbitrary! -- Necrothesp 09:35, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The historic county of Lancashire probably existed for about as long as the Kingdom of Mercia. As I said, your historical starting point is arbitrary. ---- Eric 12:48, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong rename It does not work fine at it is, it is confusing and inaccurate for no gain whatsoever. Mowsbury 13:56, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see that it's "confusing" anybody, maybe upsetting a few, but not confusing anyone. The context for the category "Oldham" is metropolitan boroughs. No confusion there. Categories exist in a context. If I was to introduce a category called "Space", how would you interpret that? The answer is that it would depend on the context in which it appeared, what its super and sub categories were. And you are incorrect in claiming that there is no "gain" in the present system; the gain is in keeping the category names manageable and short. ---- Eric 18:41, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If I were to introduce a category called 'Earth' how would you interpret that? The intuitive assumption would be that it applies to the planet, so how appropriate would it be if it applied to the whole of the solar system. 88.104.35.137 21:15, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that is a poor choice of an example. The counter example is that Category:Earth could refer to, (amongst many others - see Earth (disambiguation)) any of the following:

The planet
Soil
An electrical term
A Chemistry term
A classical element

You wouldnt know for sure exactly what the category refered to until you looked at the category header, however, you could probably guess from the context of the article. A similar thing could be said about Category:Manchester. How do we know that something categorised under a Manchester category refers to Manchester in England and not one of the other 20 - 30 Manchesters around the world? The answer is in the context given in the category header. Whilst we could change all the categories to Category:City of Manchester, England, category names would then start to verge on the absurd. Pit-yacker 22:39, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as is for two main reasons. Firstly, usage in the real world. The convention is that the common name is used. On checking entries in the news archive at Factiva, we find 8 entries for Metropolitan Borough of Oldham, mostly invites for tender. Oldham Metropolitan Borough does better, 252 entries, but strip out Oldham Metropolitan Borough Council and we're back to 9 entries. Oldham gets a lot of entries, but that doesn't take us far. Oldham AND Royton NOT West (the NOT strips out Oldham West and Royton (UK Parliament constituency)) gets over 350 hits. The first hundred, all post 2003, yield "a black Volkswagen Golf crashed on Broadway in Royton, Oldham" (MEN) (many other examples in the MEN), "WHAT kind of teacher is the head of Royton and Crompton High in Oldham to say that PE mistress Louise Crolla's job is safe despite her stripping off on the internet? (News of the World, last week)", "WALSH - Paul S ... Education: Royton & Compton Sch Oldham" (Debrett's People Of Today), "three-year-old cancer sufferer, Abigail Dodd, of Royton, Oldham" (Daily Telegraph), "Casey Mayberry (25), of Harewood Drive, Royton, Oldham" (Halifax Evening Courier), "A burglar making his getaway from a house in Royton, Oldham" (The Times), "off 245 Higginshaw Lane, Royton, Oldham" (Daily Mirror), "Bleasdale Street, Royton, Oldham" (AFX & also Dow Jones International News), but contrarywise we get "Royton, near Oldham" (The Dewsbury Reporter). It seems to me that common usage, whatever we here at Wikipedia might think, is to drop the prefix. Factor into that the fact that we are only talking about a category, which can have an explanation at its head, and the argument for the Metropolitan Borough part seems very weak. (The second reason is on-wiki usage, to which I will return). Mr Stephen 18:00, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS Rationale for using Royton: it is in the Metropolitan Borough of Oldham, but not the town of Oldham, and is a example frequently used by the proposer. Mr Stephen 18:06, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The examples you give are merely addresses, and the Royal Mail appends the postal town which is Oldham in this case. Hoever the Royal Mail never adopted Greater Manchester as part of the postal address, so does that mean we should completely scrap Greater Manchester from wiki geography because Royal Mail doesn acknowledge its existence as a location, instead opting for Lancashire? An address is a locater used by Royal Mail, and doesn't designate the legal location of a place. 88.104.86.73 18:53, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, in a lot of these cases the borough and the post town do have the same name. An example where this is not the case is Cheadle, a post town in the Metropolitan Borough of Stockport, and Gatley, an area in Cheadle; references to Gatley (or Cheadle) in Stockport must refer to the borough, not the post town. So, back to Factiva. Gatley in Cheadle gets no hits, Gatley, Cheadle gets 2 relevant hits. Gatley, Stockport gets 19, Cheadle, Stockport 46 hits. We have "Penny Lawson, from Gatley, Stockport" (MEN), "Jack Edge, from Cheadle, Stockport" (MEN), "his train failed to stop at Gatley, in Stockport" (Sunday Telegraph), "his home in Gatley, Stockport" (Daily Mail), "He killed his wife in the bedroom of their suburban home in Cheadle Hulme, Stockport" (Times), "the Prince of Wales pub in Gatley, Stockport, Greater Manchester" (Daily Star), "live in Gatley, near Stockport" (Mirror), "Gatley, near Stockport" (Times). Metropolitan Borough of Stockport gets about 40 hits, mostly tender requests from the council, and Stockport Metropolitan Borough has 1 hit that is not directly related to the council. Again, it looks like the full name isn't used much, and general usage it to shorten it. Mr Stephen 09:29, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Still at it are we? As I've said, I've lived in Royton and my father was born there... we both consider ourselves as Oldhamers. So what is it... one person's word against another? You seem to deny that it is anything to do with Oldham whatsoever, which is totally silly. The fact that it is officially a town of it's own right is irrelevant, at best it's a smaller town that is part of the Oldham area, in the same way that Poulton-le-Fylde is to Blackpool. For you to deny that it has any connections with Oldham is ridiculous... (as in your persistent edits of the Les Chapman page from Royton, near Oldham, to Royton, near Manchester). DShamen 02:10, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Manchester is a better locater than Oldham - people all over the world have heard of Manchester whereas many of them won't have heard of Oldham, therefore it makes more sense to use Manchester as a locator. Royton didn't even share a council with Oldham when Les Chapman was born so is irrelevant to the article. If you are born in Royton you are a Roytonion, if you are born in Oldham you are an Oldhamer. If it was just one word against the other then Royton simply wouldn't exist.88.104.64.157 12:08, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment: Erm... Royton formed part of the thanege estate of Kaskenmoor along with Oldham, then Prestwich-cum-Oldham, then the parish of Oldham, the Oldham Poor Law Union, the Oldham civil registration district, the Oldham Parliamentary Borough, Oldham West (UK Parliament constituency), Oldham West and Royton (UK Parliament constituency), its postoffice was and remains under "Oldham". To say that it is wholly unconnected to Oldham other than the modern local authority, you are clearly mistaken, as is the move to categorise just off borough boundaries. And you say that people across the world haven't heard of Oldham but have Manchester?... do you think they've heard of the Metropolitan Borough of Oldham? I can't believe this is a debate. Jhamez84 00:33, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RENAME 88.104.64.157 12:10, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin: The original nominator has been operating from a number (around 16 at last count) of 88.104 (Tiscali, Liverpool) addresses. IMHO, it is highly likely that this is a second vote on the part of the nominator Pit-yacker 13:18, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I freely admit I am the nominator - am I not entitled to a vote as the nominator? I notice my original vote for a 'rename' as has been deleted so I have put it back it in. I will be keeping a careful eye on future edits - especially edits that are removing text! 88.104.64.157 13:49, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I always understood that the nominator voted implicitly though their nomination (which is still there).Pit-yacker 13:54, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename for absolute clarity, the town and local government area are not the same thing. c.f, Category:Caerphilly and Category:Caerphilly county borough Owain (talk) 15:21, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

True, but this will set a precident for all Metropolitan Boroughs, including those where the town is at least the same size as the like-named borough, such as Manchester, Liverpool, Coventry and Wolverhampton. What is your recommendation in those examples? Fingerpuppet 15:47, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The onus is on the categoriser not to incorrectly categorise (not on us to come up with new recommendations), and bad categorisation isn't justified by how widespread it is. 88.104.64.157 16:02, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest that the onus is on whoever thinks that the current categorisation is "bad" to make their case. I'm still waiting. ---- Eric 01:41, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps so, but Oldham is not a unique case (despite what people appear to believe), and consistency is required across Wikipedia - which is what we have at present. This will have an effect on all Metropolitan Borough categorisation, as the vast majority of Metropolitan Boroughs suffer from the same issue - in GMC the Metropolitan Boroughs of Salford (despite its city status), Stockport, Wigan, Bolton, Rochdale and Bury all have different articles for the borough and for the like-named town (as they are clearly different things), and they would need renaming. Tameside and Trafford do not have like-named towns within, but if "Metropolitan Borough of Oldham" is required as a title, then the only logical conclusion is to have "Metropolitan Borough of Tameside" categories as well. And then there's Manchester, where the city and the Metropolitan Borough are at the very least co-terminus, so what then? Leave it as "Manchester"? Change it to "City of Manchester" for no gain whatsoever? Any decision based on city status or otherwise is rubbish, as for every Manchester, there is a Salford/City of Salford, a Leeds/City of Leeds, or a Bradford/City of Bradford.

But then you have the US that uses the full county and borough names for their categories which were established BEFORE the UK categorisation system, so you won't have consistency across wikipedia. 88.104.86.191 08:48, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oldham and the Metropolitan Borough of Oldham are different beasts, and require differentiation, but this is not the way to do it. The descriptive text within the categories themselves should be made plain and obvious.

If this rename is accepted, then all other Met Borough categories will require changing to whatever consensus is reached. Fingerpuppet 06:21, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

STRONGEST POSSIBLE keep: The post 74 borough, or contemporary geography is the legal and official system of geography in place in England. These are supported by the Boundary commission for England, in local government, in warding, policing, fire service provision. Some points:

Do we have cateories such as "Schools in Saddleworth", and "Schools in Failsworth" with just one article as an alternative?
Articles and categories should be titled using the shortest frame of reference possible.
Will this system be rolled out across England, or the UK, or even the world?

(It's already used on American articles)

When does Oldham end, and become the Metropolitan Borough of Oldham... legally, officially and verifiably?
- - There's the Oldham Urban Sub-Area, which is about as close a definition as you can get, though I doubt if most people know where those boundaries lie, which leaves the potential for nasty edit wars. Fingerpuppet 06:21, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why categorise according to borough? Why can't we use post-towns or constituencies? Perhaps "Category:Towns within the post town of Oldham" or "Cateogory:Schools within Oldham East and Saddleworth (UK Parliament constituency)" (I jest of course!)
Post 74 geography is (often) based upon historic and conveinient contexts - Shaw and Crompton isn't just in the Metropolitan Borough of Oldham but not Oldham - it formed part of the Oldham (UK Parliament constituency), Prestwich-cum-Oldham, Oldham East and Saddleworth (UK Parliament constituency), OL postcode area etc etc - The Oldham category is a quite sufficient categorisation in this instance.

Finally, Oldham (....borough) articles have long had attacks from anons as to the modern geog-system. Frankly it stems from the same one, if not two individuals - movtivated to distance their settlements from the highly South Asian populated Oldham, and the currently poor performing local council authority. Snobbery and racism over good encyclopedia writing, and I'll take a slap on the wrist for assuming bad faith for that any day! For the record, I'm an Oldhamer (borough) Jhamez84 00:21, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're a BNP supporter - you and another editor have added a section to the Royton article promoting the BNP. And don't try denying it because everyone can check your edits. 88.104.76.9 22:08, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is a frankly farcical and disgraceful statement. As it so happens that Jhamez84 is actually of Bangladeshi origin, I also find that highly unlikely... To be honest, I have no idea why you're still actually on here, as you've contributed nothing but edit warring, and a fuss over nothing since you arrived on the scene. And also, yes, it's your word against mine, I consider myself an 'Oldhamer', whether you like it or not... never called myself 'Roytonian' and never will do. DShamen 10:10, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well he shouldn't go around implying other editors are racist then unless he can produce categorically racist edits as evidence. You shouldn't dish it out if you can't take it. The fact that you are willing to condone such comments from him bars you from taking the moral high ground here. 88.104.123.88 16:45, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is a deeply upsetting, incorrect and uncalled for remark from the anon - I'm of dual English-Bangladeshi heritage and have worked incredibly hard to keep racism off Oldham related articles. I've written the Oldham Riots article, rewrote the Oldham, and Metropolitan Borough of Oldham, as well as written for the most part the articles on England, Greater Manchester, Shaw and Crompton (a GA article), Saddleworth, Chadderton, County Borough of Oldham and thousands of Oldham and geography based articles across the United Kingdom, as well as drawn up most infobox maps used in the UK infoboxes, and helped forumlate the UK place infobox and Historic counties of England articles... I've worked incredibly hard for years to provide the world with good articles about Oldham - and what do we have here as a thanks?... an anon who doesn't like Oldham for personal, political and selfish reasons and who's contributed nothing of any academic worth to Wikipedia, just silly debates and silly remarks. And for the record, I wanted the BNP statements removed from Royton, just look at the talk page... it's not very easy to assume good faith from this kind of contributor. Jhamez84 12:45, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed totally, people may disagree with some of the edits / adjustments that both of us have made in our time here, but I'd say that we've both generally made excellent contributions to the site, particularly yourself... I think that you probably understand why I reacted as badly as I did a few days back now.DShamen 14:19, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's an absolute disgrace that this discussion has descended to the level of accusing Jhamez84 of being a BNP supporter. And that he's therefore forced to draw attention to his own racial or cultural origins in his defence. This is supposed to be a discussion about categories, not some kind of witch hunt. Added to which the quality of Jhamez84's contributions is plain for anyone to see. ---- Eric 17:51, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I fully agree with the above comment by -- Eric. Jhamez84 has made many excellent contributions. There is never any need to bring anyone's racial or cultural origins into this. Fingerpuppet 17:57, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin: May I direct you to my evidence page, of which I believe (based upon the 88.140 ip range) that this anon may (stressed) be a longstanding chronic troll and sockpuppeteer (blocked several times) who operates on artices about Royton and Oldham, and the Metropolitan Borough of Oldham. Jhamez84 14:33, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename - like the dude says, the american system uses the proper names and it should be the same 217.73.71.15 21:49, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: the above is the IPs first ever contribution to Wikipedia. Jhamez84 23:37, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What it should be is consistent. Which is what it is now. ---- Eric 21:55, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as is. I've changed my mind and struck through my original vote. I want this to end as soon as possible, I'd like a concensus and I'd like it to be decided upon by sensible well thought out discussion, not by the uncivil comments witnessed above in retaliation to anyone who dares to disagree with the proposer. ~~ Peteb16 23:52, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Just in case I haven't made myself clear above! This change will cause many, many other categories to be renamed, and there has been no positive ideas to deal with the problems that those renames would cause. Fingerpuppet 08:51, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If we allow this current naming strategy to go through the US one will have to be changed to be consistent and that will be a huge job. Currently we only have a few northern boroughs to deal with on the UK one. Since we are decidedly split and this doesn't just affect Oldham we should open up the debate and ask the American categorisers what they think so we can have a wikipedia-wide naming convention. 88.104.78.68 09:28, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let's face the facts here... you're making up new excuses as basically the only reason you want any of this changing is because YOU don't Royton to have any association with Oldham. You couldn't really care less if other boroughs remain the same or not. Besides, what has the US system got to do with the UK one anyway?

DShamen 15:58, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, this affects every borough in England at the least. cf. Category:Stafford for one. Regan123 10:19, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While I'm unfamiliar with US geography naming conventions, I don't think that follows. We vary usage of American English / British English depending on the subject matter for example. In any case, that is well outside the scope of this CfD. Oldelpaso 09:46, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here is an example of an Alaskan borough: Category:Fairbanks North Star Borough, Alaska. They all follow this format. The UK system would easily fit this format so why not use an existing wiki format that could define a worldwide standard? Why are you insisting on rolling out a system that is different and confusing just for the sake of it? 88.104.78.68 16:35, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't confusing at all as it clearly states in each article whether it is in the town or not. If someone is interested enough to look at an article, then they'll be interested enough to read it properly and be able to differenciate between one or the other. I'll say it again, it's only because you want no links to Oldham, and that Royton is basically a satellite town to another much larger town offends you deeply. DShamen 19:07, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you take the view that a small town is only a 'satellite town' then that makes Royton just as much a satellite town to Rochdale as it is to Oldham, and all three towns satellite towns to Manchester. Maybe we should go the whole hog and scrap the Oldham/Rochdale/Wigan categories etc organize them according to Manchester. In fact, after this issue is resolved I'll put that idea to the vote on cfd. 88.104.20.188 18:54, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here is an interesting excerpt taken from Dshamen's usertalk page made by User:Jhamez84:

--->

Hi, can you please note that neither Shaw and Crompton or Failsworth are in Oldham.

Take a look at the Geography and administration section of the Oldham article. You will see a map showing Oldham (the town - highlighted in red) within the Metropolitan Borough of Oldham, thus highlighting the difference. The same can be seen on the Shaw and Crompton article, in the section of the same name. If you want other examples visit the Metropolitan Borough of Oldham article and the map is even numbered and labelled to help avoid confusion.

The fact that the postal town for (parts of) these areas is OLDHAM does not mean they themselves are in Oldham - this is the place of the Royal Mail postal sort centre - which as you are no doubt aware, is in Glodwick, Oldham (though most of Failsworth forms part of the MANCHESTER postal area - because it recieves its mail from Newton Heath, Manchester).

Yes we all say casually that these areas are in Oldham, but, this is an encyclopedia where we are required to write to the highest of academic standards. Geography is a contentious issue on Wikipedia, and sticking by these guidelines will see the smallest amount of angst from other users! Jhamez84 02:04, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

<---

Highest of academic standards indeed.88.104.20.188 19:14, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the relevance of your quote. All existing articles make it plain whether they're about the borough or the town. We're talking about the category, not the content of any articles. Your point would be valid if the Royton article claimed that Royton was in Oldham, for instance. But it does not. ---- Eric 19:43, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from reposting other peoples talk page discussions, which have nothing to do with this discussion about categories, and then making uncivil comments about them. Once again the tone of this discussion has hit a new low and once again we've strayed off the topic of discussion. Haven't we all had enough of this yet? ~~ Peteb16 19:34, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure that most have. This protracted discussion about nothing is going nowhere. Worse, it's diverting attention away from more important issues, like improving the quality of all Greater Manchester articles. Time it was knocked on the head, one way or the other. ---- Eric 19:48, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Cities built in the Soviet Union[edit]

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

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 20:20, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose rename Category:Cities built in the Soviet Union to Category:Cities and towns built in the Soviet Union

Nominator's rationale: Rename, per talk - it is believed to be more common. Cmapm 00:28, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename, more sensible that way unless we were to have two different categories. -Ĭ₠ŴΣĐĝё 04:15, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename More logical to rename this.--James, La gloria è a dio 06:20, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Both old & new per nom are hopelessly unclear. These are part of Category:Socialist planned cities and should be renamed to Category:Socialist planned cities and towns in the Soviet Union. Johnbod 15:22, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Cities have nothing with socialism and city planning has been used since ancient times. The categorisation tied to the USSR is not ideal (someone will feel the need to create Category:Cities built in Imperial Russia for Murmansk) but acceptable. Pavel Vozenilek 20:37, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, yes, yes. Please bother to look at the category scheme above this one! Johnbod 00:14, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Planned cities are nothing new nor unique to the USSR. A slew of cities all over the world were planned/dicated by the powers that be: capital cities such as Brasilia, Canberra, and Washington DC are examples, nearly every city named Alexandria, Antiochia, Seleucia, Laodicea, etc. in the Near East, Middle East, and Central Asia are further examples; and with the laying out of townships in the US Northwest Territories and elsewhere, many if not most cities and towns in Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin, Illinois, and Indiana would likely qualify. Is this a sufficiently distinguishing characteristic of a city? If so, then let's keep it but understand that its not a unique phenomenon. Carlossuarez46 21:54, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it is not unique to the SU. This is part of a whole raft of Category:Planned cities, with an intermediate sub-cat of socialist planned cities. Johnbod 22:05, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This Category:Socialist planned cities should be deleted/renamed. The term mixes political system with urban planning and with circumstances that led to the establishment to these settlements (3 different things). During the Eastern Bloc era everything had the label "socialist" attached turning the term into an emptied mantra. There was socialist art, socialist work, socialist wholesale business, whatever. I am not aware about an overview article on role of architecture and urban planning in these countries - there are only individual articles like panelák. Pavel Vozenilek 13:23, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - How about "Planned cities of the Soviet era". I had written something rather longer but have twice lost what I had written due to edit conflicts. Nevertheless, this is a muddled category, whose titel does not make its objective clear. REname. Peterkingiron 22:11, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shorter than my suggestion above, but that one covers place as well as time. I'm open to suggestios, of course. Johnbod 00:15, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to something like Category:Cities founded by the Soviet government, which clearly expresses location and era of founding. The title as is is more than a little ambiguous.

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

Category:Fictional ninjas[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: closed per previous discussion. Suggest bringing it up on deletion review.--Mike Selinker 21:51, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Fictional ninjas to Category:Fictional ninja

The correct form is "ninja", as you can see in practically any documentary or a serious book or even article on the subject. The "ninjas" is just a common English-language popculture word. No serious practicioner or researcher of ninjutsu would ever say "ninjas" - the guy of Bad Dudes would.

It's like we have, for the best example, Category:Fictional samurai instead of Category:Fictional samurais. Not to even mention, Category:Historical ninja (instead of non-existing Category:Historical ninjas, mostly becuase there were no "historical ninjas").

And make it stay there. --HanzoHattori 19:15, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, Category:Lists of Samurai should be rather Category:Lists of samurai. --HanzoHattori

Rename using "ninja" - Masaaki Hatsumi uses "ninja" for the plural form in his books. Dr. Submillimeter 19:39, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We just had this discussion a few days ago: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_May_28#Category:Fictional ninja. The decision was to make the change to ninjas.--Mike Selinker 19:43, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, it was a discussion without me, and we are having a discussion again. Because? I believe you were wrong to use the kitsch American or badly-translated old Chinese kung-fu movies ("The movies I watched used plural of ninjas as ninjas, not ninja.") as a main reference for what you believe is a real encyclopedia (it's like renaming National Front for the Liberation of South Vietnam for "Charlie", because of the American war movies). One person, for example, wrote "Rename per nom." - the "norm" is ninja, as seen in already mentioned here Category:Historical ninja (or Category:Fictional samurai). Also, the main article title is Ninja in fiction. --HanzoHattori 19:46, 9 June 2007 (UTC)20:20, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - He said "Rename per nom," which means "nomination," not "norm." Merriam Webster has both "ninja" and "ninjas" as acceptable plural. I call that a real dictionary. Regardless, this seems more of a deletion review question, so I encourage you to bring it up there. I'll close this for now.--Mike Selinker 21:41, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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