Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 February 26

< February 25	February 27 >

February 26[edit]

Category:People with surname Kolarov[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: articlify and delete. Kbdank71 15:57, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Found doing clean-up. Was manually emptied and tagged for speedy deletion with the reason being it is a "ridiculous" category. I agree that it's an inappropriate categorization by shared name and should be deleted. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:21, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It should have been listified as a disambiguation page, but too late now. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:02, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good point - it could be articleized, i.e. listified as a human name dab page (of which we have a very considerable number). Notified creator with {{subst:cfd-notify}} Cgingold (talk) 19:12, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that it's too late. I think I managed to restore all of the contents, so it could still be used to create such a page. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:14, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Seating Plans[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. Kbdank71 15:57, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Seating Plans to Category:Parliamentary seating plans

Nominator's rationale: Rename (or delete). This is quite a curious category that contains articles that contain a diagrammatic "seating plan" for members of a legislative body. I'm not sure if we want to keep the category, but if we do, the name needs to be clarified to this proposal or something similar. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:54, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete , or rename to Category:Seating plans of Canadian legislatures - only one of which is a "Parliament" I think. Johnbod (talk) 17:58, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- They are all "parliamentary" bodies in the generic sense. Or just "legislatures," as you suggest. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:15, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete , or rename to Category:Seating plans of Canadian legislatures. In fact only 3 (the ones including the word 'Canadian') are seating plans. The others include a seating plan. Occuli (talk) 00:10, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above discussion. Otherwise upmerge to some category that shows membership by legislature. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:24, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:People from West Province[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:People from West Province, Rwanda. Kbdank71 15:58, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:People from West Province to Category:People from West Province (Rwanda)

Nominator's rationale: Rename. As you might expect, West Province is ambiguous, with a number of possible meanings. Proposing a disambiguation. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:35, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename but the article is at West Province, Rwanda. Occuli (talk) 21:51, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure, or that. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 10:28, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:People from West Province, Rwanda per the hint from Occuli. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:53, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:South African doctors[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: rename. Kbdank71 15:59, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:South African doctors to Category:South African medical doctors

Nominator's rationale: Rename. In the recent renaming of these non-disambiguated "doctors" categories to "medical doctors", this one seems to have been overlooked. Propose renaming on the basis of the previous CfD for consistency' sake. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:14, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename – per nom. Occuli (talk) 10:36, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Reformed Christian Americans[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:American members of Reformed Christian churches. Kbdank71 16:01, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Reformed Christian Americans to Category:Reformed Christians from the United States

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Right now this is an ambiguous category name. Is it for Christian Americans who have somehow reformed or for Reformed Christians who are American? It is the latter. I suggest rephrasing this to lessen the ambiguity. This would be similar to one of its subcategories, Category:Dutch Reformed Christians from the United States. If it's thought that this is still too ambiguous we could go with Category:American members of Reformed Christian churches or something else. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:06, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am delighted to find that this ill-named category was created by a Pastor Wayne sock, as were Category:Reformed Church in America Christians and Category:Evangelical and Reformed Americans - PW on a roll. I prefer the formulation Category:American members of the Christian Reformed Church in North America (courtesy of the wub), that is Category:American members of Reformed Christian churches in this case. ('Dutch Reformed Christians from the United States' is also ambiguous.) Occuli (talk) 01:12, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Re: identity of creator: I should have known. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:14, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Primates of the Patriarchial Catholicosate of the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church and All Ethiopia was one of his better ones; or this one. Occuli (talk) 09:58, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good land! Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:17, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:White hip hop artists[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. Kbdank71 15:56, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete We don't have other "white" categories nor should we - even if you buy into the value of race/ethnic categories at WP. The purported rationale is that whites are a minority of hip hop artists. Well, whites are the minority of the population of this planet and presumably are a minority of painters, singers, footballers, murderers, politicians, actors, and every other conceivable category here. Are we ready for Category:White singers. I also note that WP has not article White hip-hop music or anything akin to it. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:50, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The association between African-Americans and hip-hop is strong enough to make successful white hip-hop artists notable among musicians, just as the association between white Americans and the Presidency is strong enough to make Barack Obama notable among US Presidents. Neon Merlin 07:51, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This category, like almost every other category at CFD that was based on a black/white distinction (all of them were deleted) is highly US-centric, as even the comment above demonstrates (the terms "black" and "African American" are simply not synonymous in an international context). –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 09:11, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- And just what makes you think you would you know about that issue, Black Falcon? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 10:25, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Now that's an interesting story involving wet paint, a nest box, a boomerang, a group of people with no knowledge of how to properly use a boomerang, and quite a bit of alcohol. Or something like that... I don't really remember. It was a lot of alcohol. ;D –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 08:12, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Black Falcon. We moved beyond categorizing by skin color quite some time ago. And yes, even if the concept was wanted in categories, the way this is set out/phrased is pretty U.S.-centric. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 10:25, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Beauty pageant contestants[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete. Consensus is clear that this category structure is a mess. If you read the discussion and include the sympathy position, there is a consensus to delete. I'll hold the deletion for 24 hours or so to allow Otto4711 to do some of the needed cleanup before these categories are deleted. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:43, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete all - per consensus and precedent at the discussion of the American contestants CFD. Each of these is for contestants rather than winners and there is no indication that the contestant sub-cats are capturing the winners of "feeder" pageants the way that the American "delegates" categories are. A few are also small categories with little or no growth potential. There are some members of Category:Beauty pageant contestants that are not included in any of the nominations on this page. That's because I'm unsure if they are capturing "feeder" pageant winners or are standalones. I'll do a little research and if they are standalones I'll nominate them later. Otto4711 (talk) 16:40, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I am in sympathy with the nom. However these are rather randomly organised and so deletion might cause unexpected problems - eg Category:XXX Contestants usually includes Category:XXX winners, as one might expect, but the UK ones are otherwise, and the Miss Sweden one has winners at the top level and mere contestants are a subcat. Sigh. Occuli (talk) 17:19, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I realize that the organization of this category structure is a mess. If these all get deleted then it's going to be a question of sorting through the debris. Otto4711 (talk) 17:34, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I just checked through the nominated categories and any sub-cat for winners is also parented in Category:Beauty pageant winners so none of the subcats will be lost. Otto4711 (talk) 18:33, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some of these just need renaming, eg the 3 in the Scotland one are all Ms S winners. Ditto Ireland. Occuli (talk) 01:15, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This nom will not help sort out the mess. "there is no indication that the contestant sub-cats are capturing the winners of "feeder" pageants the way that the American "delegates" categories are." - well they are, because the whole system works this way, as in the US - this is probably explained in the articles on the contests & is often mentioned in the biographies. For example, all 3 in Category:Miss Scotland are clearly said to have won that national title, and a good number of the Sedish "contestants" were actually winners, which seems to be generally the case. All of the Pakistani women have won a title, mostly Miss Pakistan World - an international ethnic pageant held in Canada. "A few are also small categories with little or no growth potential." - which ones? If winning the contest is notable, & it is not new, and there is no separate winners cat, how can this be? Most of these can & should be converted into "winners" cats, either at the national or sub-national level. A further problem is the confusion between the Miss World and Miss Universe contests - many had the national title in one but not the other. As in the next nomination, more understanding of the international "ethnic" contest circuits is needed. Just because these don't follow the American model is no reason for them to be deleted out of hand. Johnbod (talk) 19:49, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objection to renaming any category that is for winners only to "Miss Foo winners". While I did not check every single article in every single category, those I did check did not indicate that they were winners of a particular pageant. The larger issue here is whether simply being a contestant in a beauty pageant is a defining characteristic. Previous discussion has indicated no, so these categories should be deleted if they are not capturing winners only or, if they are, renamed and repurposed to that effect. Otto4711 (talk) 19:02, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But, except for the likes of Nepal, nearly all these are the equivalents of Category:Miss USA delegates, but not so neurotically well categorized or described in the articles, although you clearly haven't looked at a large proportion - eg any of the Scottish ones etc. Again, this a, or the major category for most of these articles, and onbce trhe category is lost it will be much harder to create better ones. Still Keep. Johnbod (talk) 01:53, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, and you know what percentage of articles I've looked at...how exactly? And should someone wish to populate a winners category following the deletion of these the contents are available by asking any passing admin. Whining "Keep these 'cause not keeping them would make things hard" is not a valid reason for keeping. Otto4711 (talk) 05:49, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The usual reason - ie the gross disparity between your statements & the results of actually looking at them. Few people in fact know that deleted categories can be recreated, nor has a convincing case been made that these categories differ significantly in actual contents from the US delegates ones. Johnbod (talk) 02:40, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Gross disparity"? Pretty rich from the guy making sweeping statements about what "nearly all" of these categories are and are not. You've conceded Nepal, there are already winners categories for Nuestra Belleza Mexico, Miss United Kingdom, Miss International and Miss Turkey, and I hope that not even you would seriously argue that either the Pakistani or Mexican contestant categories are for the winners of a particular named pageant. So over half of the categories don't fit your claimed pattern, and that's "nearly all" of them? You clearly haven't looked at a large population of the nominated categories. As I've said, if any of the existing categories are capturing winners only, then rename them to "Miss Foo winners". Why don't you spend your time checking that out instead of making unsupportable claims? Otto4711 (talk) 18:03, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not only do you not look at the categories, you don't bother reading other people's comments. See above for Pakistan - all have won "a particular named pageant"! Johnbod (talk) 20:42, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They may have all won a particular named pageant, but they didn't win a pageant called "Pakistani", which was the point. You're claiming here that these categories are the equivalent to a delegates category and that's simply and demonstrably not true. Otto4711 (talk) 13:04, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So you still haven't looked at the articles! In fact all but one (who was a promoted substitute it seems) won Mrs or Miss Pakistan World, which as an international contest is more significant than Miss Arkansas. Further all (arguably except that same one) are Pakistani; the question does not usually arise, but the categories are not that clear whether Fooian is actually the nationality of the girl or the contest. I would also point out that because of the very special nature of pageants in/of or from Pakistan (death threats, riots, worldwide interest among the community, having to be held offshore) any Pakistani category here is bound to be about 100 times more noteworthy and encyclopedic than an American delegates category. Johnbod (talk) 14:34, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you deliberately being dense? The name of the category is "Pakistani beauty pageant contestants". You are arguing to keep the category on the basis of it being a category for winners of a named pageant. There is no pageant named "Pakistani" so a category called "Pakistani beauty pageant contestants" cannot by definition be for the winners of a named pageant. "Pakistani" is not the same as "Miss Pakistan World". Do you get it now? Do you finally understand? If all of the contestants are winners of the Miss Pakistan World contest, then either suggest that the category be renamed to "Miss Pakistan World winners" or go make a damn Miss Pakistan World winners category yourself and populate it. But arguing to keep a contestants category because it has winners in it is just stupid. Otto4711 (talk) 18:48, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Very, very clearly, I am not arguing "to keep the category on the basis of it being a category for winners of a named pageant" :"the question does not usually arise, but the categories are not that clear whether Fooian is actually the nationality of the girl or the contest". No arguments have been presented why a nationally based winners category should not exist, nor why it cannot be renamed, with at most 2 removals. Nor does setting up a winners category & adding one article, as you have done for some of these cats, resolve those matters at all. Johnbod (talk) 19:03, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. At the risk of breaking up this party, I support deletion and a good reworking of this scheme. There's obviously some sort of desire to have categories for winners, and I think that's reasonable, but I think that that goal can easily be met by some post-CfD clean-up work, which Otto has already suggested he will perform. This scheme is really a mess, and I think deletion of these is a good first step to sorting things out. Sometimes everything can't be solved with one simple CfD action, but when a user commits to do more work to resolve the issues, I see no problem with endorsing at CfD a tentative first step that will help the process progress. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:01, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments: The best use to which these categories might be put is to locate articles about non-notable people for deletion. This CFD indicates a muddle; perhaps the best approach would be to renominate some for renaming as winners, and others for deletion. Sorry, I'm not volunteering for this one. - Fayenatic (talk) 14:14, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Miss Vietnam[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: rename. Kbdank71 16:02, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Miss Vietnam to Category:Miss Vietnam winners

Nominator's rationale: Rename- to clarify that this is for winners of the pageant. Otto4711 (talk) 16:36, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. Johnbod (talk) 19:50, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom and other similar discussions above and below. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:06, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Chinese pageant contestants[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: rename to "winners" and weed out the non-winners. Kbdank71 14:21, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - per consensus and precedent established by discussing the similar American contestant category, merely being a contestant is not a defining characteristic. These categories do not appear to be capturing the winners of "feeder" pageants, unlike the subcats of the American category. Otto4711 (talk) 16:24, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep until winners categories set up. The nom is correct, but most of these women have won a title & there are no winners categories for these contests. I would suggest that the edfitors in this field, some of whom are clearly very dedicated, are contacted & asked to set up winners categories, after which the rest can be deleted. For many of these it is not just a defining category, but the defining category, and I for one am becoming increasingly cautious about deleting such. Johnbod (talk) 19:32, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So you're suggesting keeping categories for which there is consensus to delete because no one's bothered to create categories for which there is consensus? That makes absolutely no sense. Otto4711 (talk) 18:13, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I thought the purpose of this debate was to establish if there was consensus to delete these, and so far it seems there is not. Johnbod (talk) 20:40, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So far it seems that the objections to deletion are centered on supposedly missing categories, which now exist. Otto4711 (talk) 13:06, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per Johnbod's comments. I was the person who started Category:Miss Chinese International contestants. I will work on re-defining and setting up winners categories soon, but it will take me some time to research. smileydude66 (talk) 22:58, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. And I would like to remind you that consensus can change. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 07:03, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus rarley changes in the amount of time between the American contestants CFD and this one, and it does not appear that consensus has changed here. No one is arguing in favor of a contestants category on the basis of its being a defining characteristic (Johnbod is saying if I am reading him correctly that being a winner is defining). What is being argued here is that categories which, if other categories existed would be deleted, be kept. That is a horrible reason for keeping a category. I have created Category:Miss Hong Kong winners and Category:Miss Chinese International winners, which took all of 45 seconds, and any interested editor may request any admin to listify the contents of the contestants categories to be placed appropriately at his or her leisure. The objection to deleting the categories has now been addressed. Otto4711 (talk) 18:13, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Foo winners and cleanup. The logic for the keeps seems to be based on a missing category. So, rename and then cleanup the contents. That seems better to me then leaving the category that will be deleted simply because the category that we need does not yet exist. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:40, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per Vegaswikian or just delete per nom and create winners categories. Arguing to keep the categories until winner categories are established is an argument for a rename, not for a keep. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:02, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Canadian beauty pageant contestants[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: rename to "winners" and weed out the non-winners. (of course, this doesn't answer the question if these are winners of a Canadian beauty pageant or Canadians who have won a beauty pageant regardless of where the pageant was. I'm going to take it as either, so if someone wants to be bold and swing it one way or the other, feel free) Kbdank71 14:04, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - following up on the previous CFD for American pageant winners, consensus is that simply being a contestant in a pageant is not a defining characteristic. The subcats are for people who have won a major pageant and so are correctly categorized as pageant winners, not requiring a contestant container category. Otto4711 (talk) 16:20, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Canadian beauty pageant winners weeding out the very few in the head cat to whom this does not apply. Johnbod (talk) 19:35, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Or I suppose we could rename the category to group these together per Johnbod; I'm unsure how useful that would be. Either is fine with me. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:04, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Miss Universe Canada[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: rename (you people make me laugh). Kbdank71 16:04, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Miss Universe Canada to Category:Miss Universe Canada winners

Nominator's rationale: Rename- reflects the stated purpose of the category, to capture winners of the Miss Universe Canada title. Otto4711 (talk) 16:18, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. Johnbod (talk) 19:36, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Alternate suggestion call it titleholders to capture females who were Miss Universe Canada, since IIRC two were dethroned during their tenures. 76.66.193.90 (talk) 06:14, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A good point, but I think the LBJs & Gerald Fords of the beauty world should count as winners, or all the categories need changing I think. If there is such a convention, then fine. Johnbod (talk) 18:02, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LBJ was elected president in 1964. Otto4711 (talk) 13:52, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. I think we need more discussions about beauty pageants where Gerald Ford and LBJ are discussed. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:05, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What, you haven't seen the footage of Gerald Ford competing at the Miss Michigan 1937 pageant? Man, that dude rocked "Lady of Spain" on the accordion! Otto4711 (talk) 14:47, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Controversial Film[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: speedy deleted by User:Bearcat. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:51, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete Category is, well "controversial", and it would be difficult to provide unbiased characterization for membership in the category. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:55, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SPEEDY DELETE as re-creation of previously deleted categories (with slight variations in spelling). Many other categories using the word "controversial" have also been deleted -- because they are intrinsically highly subjective. Notified creator with {{subst:cfd-notify}} Cgingold (talk) 16:00, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tagging for speedy deletion and salting as re-created content. Otherwise delete per extensive precedent against the POV categorization standard "controversial". Otto4711 (talk) 16:09, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Previous CfDs at
- among others... my apologies for not noticing it before, but I'll leave it to someone else to delete. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:11, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Per above. Lugnuts (talk) 17:17, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:List of Sustainable buildings by country[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:Sustainable buildings and structures by country. Kbdank71 14:02, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: This case is a bit complicated. Do we want to categorize actual buildings and structures by whether they are considered sustainable?

If "no", then delete this category and its subcategories.
If "yes", then do we want to place articles about said buildings and structures into categories specifically for buildings and structures or more general categories about sustainable building in a country

If we want the former, then rename to Category:Sustainable buildings and structures by country and make a subcategory of Category:Buildings and structures by country.
If we want the latter, then rename to Category:Sustainable building by country (singular "building") and make a subcategory of Category:Sustainable building.

My current preference ordering is: delete, rename option #2, rename option #1. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:33, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Notified creator using {{cfd-notify}}. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:35, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments – the article is actually at Green building to which Sustainable building redirects; this suggests either the articles or the categories should be renamed (I prefer sustainable, lest bright green edifices be added). At present there is Category:Sustainable building and Category:Sustainable buildings and structures should be a subcat; this seems OK. Looking at the Australia and Bahrain subcats it seems that sustainability is a defining feature of the buidings concerned, eg Bahrain World Trade Center has won awards for sustainability. So I think keep, and option 1.5, somewhere between 1 and 2. (Create Category:Sustainable buildings and structures, subcat of Category:Sustainable building and Category:Buildings and structures, with subcat scheme Category:Sustainable buildings and structures by country if needed (which it isn't yet unless there are articles not yet gathered).) Occuli (talk) 22:02, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kbdank71 14:33, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete for now. Does being green or sustainable really matter for these buildings? Is it why they are notable? If so, then it is likely every building with a rating should be listed. Do we categorize restaurants by the number of stars that get rated? Will it be a requirement for a building to be officially rated to be included? After all not everyone will be getting certified. In the future this will become mainly the norm, so are we creating a category that will eventually include all new buildings and newly reconstructed buildings? If a county has multiple levels, do we need to classify by each level? Are all levels defining? Vegaswikian (talk) 22:51, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Green buildings are (presently, at least) uncommon enough that they can be considered notable for their sustainable designs. If we're creating articles for the buildings, then perhaps they should be grouped together. In the future, I hope that green buildings become ubiquitous enough that the category could be deleted as an afterthought. However, at the moment, we are tracking LEED-certified buildings. See Category:LEED certified buildings. - Eureka Lott 17:38, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Still this will be nightmare since not every country has a rating system. Also, you can build one of these and not have it evaluated. I think keeping will result in a nightmare. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:33, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe a compromise is Category:Certified sustainable buildings and structures by country? Not my first solution, but... Vegaswikian (talk) 23:11, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, LEED is an international standard, so there shouldn't be a profusion of different national standards, although there could easily be some of which I'm unaware. I think that Occuli was headed in the right direction: create Category:Sustainable buildings and structures, with subcategories Category:Sustainable buildings and structures by country (the nominated category) and Category:LEED certified buildings. Would that work? - Eureka Lott 03:39, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Napier University[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: rename. Kbdank71 15:54, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Napier University to Category:Edinburgh Napier University

Propose renaming Category:People associated with Napier University to Category:People associated with Edinburgh Napier University

Propose renaming Category:Academics of Napier University to Category:Academics of Edinburgh Napier University

Propose renaming Category:Alumni of Napier University to Category:Alumni of Edinburgh Napier University

Nominator's rationale: Rename all as the university has changed its name to Edinburgh Napier University Timrollpickering (talk) 13:19, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename all per nom. Occuli (talk) 13:52, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all, per nom. — mholland (talk) 11:03, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Western Australian geographic navbox cats[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: rename. Kbdank71 15:54, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Western Australian suburbs navigational boxes to Category:Western Australia suburb templates

and Category:Western Australian Local Government Areas navigational boxes to Category:Western Australia Local Government Area templates

Nominator's rationale: This and the one above it improve consistency within the Australian project - three other states plus the parent category already use the target format. Orderinchaos 13:08, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Band templates[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: rename. Kbdank71 15:53, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Band templates to Category:Musical groups templates

Nominator's rationale: Musical groups would match the main category for the article namespace corresponding category. Also, almost all of the subcats of Band templates use either "music groups" or "musical groups". About the only use of band is the Band (music) article. Every other use on the site seems to use music groups or musical groups instead. User:Woohookitty ^{Diamming fool!} 08:03, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Songs that sample 1980s hit singles[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. Kbdank71 15:52, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete Too narrow of a category. Already adequately covered in Category:Songs that sample previously recorded songs Wolfer68 (talk) 07:33, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Category:Songs that sample previously recorded songs is quite large and a subcat scheme might be feasible, but 'sample 1980s hit singles' is much too specific. Occuli (talk) 10:20, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both per below. Listify doesn't seem likely to succeed - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of sampled songs. Occuli (talk) 01:25, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to the parent in case any are missing, although in all likelihood sampling another song is not a defining characteristic and the parent should probably be listified and deleted. Otto4711 (talk) 15:44, 26 February 2009 (UTC) Changing to delete as the parent category is a recreation of a category deleted here under a different name. Otto4711 (talk) 16:13, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unnecessary, overly narrow and WP:OCAT as trivia. As for Category:Songs that sample previously recorded songs, while I agree that one should get deleted as well, it isn't a candidate for speedy: because it contains 476 articles as currently constituted, somebody has to remove the category from the articles, either manually or via an AWB run, before the category can actually be deleted. Speedy doesn't really have a provision for listing deleted categories for that kind of pre-deletion cleanup, while the CFD process does. So while it's clearly a no-brainer delete, it needs to go through this process so that it can get dealt with properly. Bearcat (talk) 17:28, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Attractions[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: rename (again, except for las vegas). For the Orlando vs Orlando, FL issue: "Orlando" does not mean "Orlando, FL and the area surrounding it". It means "Could be Orlando, FL, but it might be an Orlando somewhere else". There is nothing in either category name that is taken to mean city or more-than-city. If you want either one to mean "and surrounding area", the category should be named "Category:Orlando(,FL) and surrounding area". Clear. Concise. No guessing. Kbdank71 15:52, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Visitor attractions in Cincinnati to Category:Visitor attractions in Cincinnati, Ohio

Propose renaming Category:Visitor attractions in Las Vegas to Category:Visitor attractions in Las Vegas, Nevada

Propose renaming Category:Visitor attractions in Louisville to Category:Visitor attractions in Louisville, Kentucky

Propose renaming Category:Visitor attractions in Greater Miami to Category:Visitor attractions in Greater Miami, Florida

Propose renaming Category:Visitor attractions in Omaha to Category:Visitor attractions in Omaha, Nebraska

Propose renaming Category:Visitor attractions in San Diego to Category:Visitor attractions in San Diego, California

Propose renaming Category:Landmarks in Atlanta to Category:Landmarks in Atlanta, Georgia

Propose renaming Category:Landmarks in Baltimore to Category:Landmarks in Baltimore, Maryland

Propose renaming Category:Landmarks in Chicago to Category:Landmarks in Chicago, Illinois

Propose renaming Category:Landmarks in Cincinnati to Category:Landmarks in Cincinnati, Ohio

Propose renaming Category:Landmarks in Macon to Category:Landmarks in Macon, Georgia

Propose renaming Category:Landmarks in Philadelphia to Category:Landmarks in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

Propose renaming Category:Landmarks in Seattle to Category:Landmarks in Seattle, Washington

Propose renaming Category:Landmarks in South Omaha to Category:Landmarks in South Omaha, Nebraska

Propose renaming Category:Landmarks in Tampa to Category:Landmarks in Tampa, Florida

Propose renaming Category:Houses in Chicago to Category:Houses in Chicago, Illinois

Propose renaming Category:Houses in Louisville to Category:Houses in Louisville, Kentucky

Propose renaming Category:Houses in Omaha to Category:Houses in Omaha, Nebraska

Propose renaming Category:Houses in Philadelphia to Category:Houses in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

Propose renaming Category:Performing arts in Cincinnati to Category:Performing arts in Cincinnati, Ohio

Propose renaming Category:Arts venues in Louisville to Category:Arts venues in Louisville, Kentucky

Propose renaming Category:Casinos in Laughlin to Category:Casinos in Laughlin, Nevada

Propose renaming Category:Casinos in Las Vegas to Category:Casinos in Las Vegas, Nevada

Propose renaming Category:Production shows in Las Vegas to Category:Production shows in Las Vegas, Nevada

Propose renaming Category:Roller coasters in Las Vegas to Category:Roller coasters in Las Vegas, Nevada

Nominator's rationale: Appending state as per many nominations of this type, and in conformity with other members of their categories. These are roughly similar concepts, so I felt they could all be treated together. The Vegas issue mentioned in previous nominations applies here, as some of the casinos et al. are in the Strip areas just outside of the Vegas limits.--Mike Selinker (talk) 05:37, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hence my same comments. Would it be better to hold off on these until the questions raised have answers? Also note that Louisville has also been identified as having a similar concern and that in this nomination Greater Miami, Florida is retained and that is like a metropolitan area. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:05, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would have to dig through some archives, but there was some discussion over the Orlando vs Orlando Area category as well as it pertains to the theme parks (majority of which are outside Orlando city limits). SpikeJones (talk) 13:02, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that most of that wound up at the county level, see Category:Visitor attractions in Orlando, Florida. However I suspect that there will be various exceptions. I think that the history there may support using a name like Orlando without the Florida qualifier for area categories. It really matches the usage in the real world. Using Orland, Floria should be reserved for a subcategory that only includes items in the city itself. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:52, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We've had this debate before. There's absolutely no substantive difference between "Orlando" and "Orlando, Florida." Both define exactly the same thing. The only difference is stylistic. Thus, if "Orlando, Florida" is wrong, then "Orlando" is wrong too.--Mike Selinker (talk) 03:50, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is that Orlando, Florida implies the city and that Orlando, while ambiguous, also is the common name for the area surrounding the city. So the question is what does Orlando, Florida mean? Clearly it is the city. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:29, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree completely with that, but I'm just repeating myself now.--Mike Selinker (talk) 14:46, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

rename per nom. This provides information for the reader that they should not have to guess at--namely, the U.S. state in which the city is located. Hmains (talk) 04:13, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:US City Montages[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: rename. Kbdank71 15:44, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:US City Montages to Category:United States city montages

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Expand abbreviations and capitalization. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:51, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:US Flower class corvettes[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: rename to match sibling categories in Category:Flower class corvettes. If a mass rename is desired to change form to "Flower class corvettes of FOO", please make a nomination to do so. Kbdank71 15:43, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:US Flower class corvettes to Category:American Flower class corvettes

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Follow the normal naming convention for the parent category. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:20, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose the class is "Flower" not "US Flower" or "American Flower", so this should be Catgory:Flower class corvettes of the United States 76.66.193.90 (talk) 06:16, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, so propose a rename of all of the subcategories. Failing that this one is incorrectly named for either form and should be renamed to match the others. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:32, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:US-headquartered, non-AMA-affiliated motorcycle clubs[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: rename to expand "AMA", no consensus on delete. Kbdank71 15:41, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:US-headquartered, non-AMA-affiliated motorcycle clubs to Category:United States based motorcycle clubs not affiliated with the American Motorcyclist Association

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Expand the abbreviation and reword to maybe make name a bit shorter. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:08, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - categorizing on a negative is usually not done, is it? Otto4711 (talk) 17:38, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Correct. I recall this being discussed at one point and there are issues with a better name. If anyone has a suggestion for a name that is not a negative and does not add NPOV concerns, jump in. I think this is one of the exceptions to the rule. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:19, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:US GAAP[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: rename. Kbdank71 15:39, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:US GAAP to Category:United States Generally Accepted Accounting Principles

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Expand abbreviations. I think the capitalization is correct. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:03, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (United States) per main article.-choster (talk) 05:46, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename as nom. US GAAP is a common abreviation for this, and so ideally should be expanded in that order. There are other national (and international) accounting standards some of whaich are also GAAP. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:09, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've only taken one accounting class. I'm pretty sure, however, the "US" is an adjective used to specify which GAAP— i.e. generally accepted accounting principles in the United States— and is not considered part of the name, unlike US EPA or US Airways. This is evident as the abbreviation is "U.S. GAAP" in more formal publications.-choster (talk) 05:39, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose In my experience (UK-based), "US GAAP" is a common piece of terminology, used as such in conversation. (I'm mixing with the wrong people, I know.) AllyD (talk) 21:15, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename as nom, per PK. This is indeed a common term in the "wrong circles", but not I think sufficiently well known to the general public to keep unexpanded in a category name. The main article should be renamed too - see the 2 man exchange on talk in 2006 before it was moved to the current name. Johnbod (talk) 21:31, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:U.S. State Population Maps[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: rename, to be deleted if/when the images are copied to commons. Kbdank71 15:38, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:U.S. State Population Maps to Category:United States state population maps

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Expand abbreviation and capitalization. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:59, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: it looks like many of these maps were copied to commons, but the process was never completed. If the rest of the maps are copied, we should be able to delete this category. - Eureka Lott 21:04, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Newspapers[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: rename, no consensus to change the defunct ones (aside from adding a state where applicable) . Kbdank71 15:36, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Newspapers published in Baltimore to Category:Newspapers published in Baltimore, Maryland

Propose renaming Category:Newspapers of Bangalore to Category:Newspapers published in Bangalore

Propose renaming Category:Newspapers of Chennai to Category:Newspapers published in Chennai

Propose renaming Category:Newspapers published in Chicago to Category:Newspapers published in Chicago, Illinois

Propose renaming Category:Newspapers of Cincinnati, Ohio to Category:Newspapers published in Cincinnati, Ohio

Propose renaming Category:Newspapers of Cleveland to Category:Newspapers published in Cleveland, Ohio

Propose renaming Category:Newspapers of Columbus, Ohio to Category:Newspapers published in Columbus, Ohio

Propose renaming Category:Newspapers in Dallas-Fort Worth to Category:Newspapers published in Dallas-Fort Worth, Texas

Propose renaming Category:Newspapers of Davao City to Category:Newspapers published in Davao City

Propose renaming Category:Newspapers of Delhi to Category:Newspapers published in Delhi

Propose renaming Category:Newspapers of Detroit to Category:Newspapers published in Detroit, Michigan

Propose renaming Category:Newspapers of Guayaquil to Category:Newspapers published in Guayaquil

Propose renaming Category:Newspapers in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania to Category:Newspapers published in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania

Propose renaming Category:Newspapers of Kolkata to Category:Newspapers published in Kolkata

Propose renaming Category:Newspapers in Las Vegas to Category:Newspapers published in Las Vegas, Nevada

Propose renaming Category:Newspapers of Metro Manila to Category:Newspapers published in Metro Manila

Propose renaming Category:Newspapers of Mumbai to Category:Newspapers published in Mumbai

Propose renaming Category:New York City newspapers to Category:Newspapers published in New York City

Propose renaming Category:Oklahoma City newspapers to Category:Newspapers published in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma

Propose renaming Category:Newspapers published in Omaha to Category:Newspapers published in Omaha, Nebraska

Propose renaming Category:Newspapers in Philadelphia to Category:Newspapers published in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

Propose renaming Category:Newspapers published in Pittsburgh to Category:Newspapers published in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Propose renaming Category:Seattle newspapers to Category:Newspapers published in Seattle, Washington

Propose renaming Category:Newspapers of Shanghai to Category:Newspapers published in Shanghai

Propose renaming Category:Los Angeles area newspapers to Category:Newspapers published in the Greater Los Angeles Area

Propose renaming Category:San Francisco Bay Area newspapers to Category:Newspapers published in the San Francisco Bay Area

Propose renaming Category:Newspapers in Mali to Category:Newspapers published in Mali

Propose renaming Category:Defunct newspapers of Chicago to Category:Newspapers formerly published in Chicago, Illinois

Propose renaming Category:Defunct newspapers of Dallas-Fort Worth to Category:Newspapers formerly published in Dallas-Fort Worth, Texas

Propose renaming Category:Defunct newspapers in Missouri to Category:Newspapers formerly published in Missouri

Propose renaming Category:Defunct New York City newspapers to Category:Newspapers formerly published in New York City

Propose renaming Category:Defunct newspapers of Kentucky to Category:Newspapers formerly published in Kentucky

Propose renaming Category:Defunct newspapers of Oregon to Category:Newspapers formerly published in Oregon

Propose renaming Category:Defunct newspapers of North Carolina to Category:Newspapers formerly published in North Carolina

Nominator's rationale: There’s no clear convention for newspaper categories by city, so I’ll suggest they follow the “Newspapers published in X” pattern like the by-state categories. I also picked a way to handle the defunct ones similar to Category:Defunct newspapers of Kentucky. Other suggestions welcome.--Mike Selinker (talk) 00:56, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Not sure of the defunct ones. Maybe something along the lines of Category:Newspapers formerly published in Chicago, Illinois? Vegaswikian (talk) 03:15, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, hey! I had the exact same thought when I was looking at this a couple of hours ago. It hits the nail squarely on the head. As for the rest of these categories... We could just sit back and wait a couple of months rather than bother with renaming them now. By then, at the rate things are going, there won't even be any daily newspapers still publishing in the United States. They're dropping like flies... Cgingold (talk) 04:37, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

True that. Anyway, I'm fine with "Newspapers formerly published in X" if people like that better. There are others in the category that would change under that scheme.--Mike Selinker (talk) 04:58, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm aware of that. If this small subset gets renamed in this way, then the others will need to be nominated. Do you want to modify the nomination to reflect this form? Vegaswikian (talk) 07:08, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. I added the rest in the US, but I was not ready to add the parent category and all the others like it. These could also be "Defunct newspapers published in X," as published is also past tense.--Mike Selinker (talk) 03:53, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the immortal word of Charlie Brown: Rats! I was so dazzled by our own (VW's & mine) brilliance that I didn't spot the fly in the ointment: "formerly published in" could easily be construed to mean "now published somewhere else". LOL. Back to the drawing board... I'm afraid we may need to tack the word "Defunct" to the beginning of each cat name, to wit: Category:Defunct newspapers formerly published in Denver, Colorado (in honor of yesterday's announcement of the tragic demise of the 150-year old Rocky Mountain News). Cgingold (talk) 19:06, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's probably better. Of course if somone buys the rights to the Rocky Mountain News name... Vegaswikian (talk) 20:56, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

rename per nom. This provides information for the reader that they should not have to guess at. Hmains (talk) 04:46, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This nomination has been confusingly bundled and the nomination on pages do not point to this discussion. Please edit the nominations so they point to the right place (I think it's just an issue of date). I had to look at the nominators history to find this. I am o.k. with a minor change to the name as long as DEFUNCT remains in the name. We have defunct businesses, defunct airport, etc. Further there is a lit of defunct newspapers article. The name FOMRERLY is inconsistent.Americasroof (talk) 13:56, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Whoops. When I added the last three at VegasWikian's suggestion, I botched the dates of those three. Sorry about that. I don't have a strong opinion about the right way to do the defunct ones; maybe just going with "Defunct newspapers of X" (making sure the state is included) is the right thing for this nomination.--Mike Selinker (talk) 01:03, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I was traveling and wanted to put a comment before this became a done deal so apologies if I was too curt. It doesn't seem like there is any consensus. I am all in favor of making the names consistent but as mentioned before defunct should be in the name. Americasroof (talk) 21:12, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem.--Mike Selinker (talk) 15:33, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So after all this, as the nominator, I'm going to head back to my original position and go with "Defunct newspapers of X". Those are these changes:

Propose renaming Category:Defunct newspapers of Chicago to Category:Defunct newspapers of Chicago, Illinois

Propose renaming Category:Defunct newspapers of Dallas-Fort Worth to Category:Defunct newspapers of Dallas-Fort Worth, Texas

Propose renaming Category:Defunct newspapers in Missouri to Category:Defunct newspapers of Missouri

Propose renaming Category:Defunct New York City newspapers to Category:Defunct newspapers of New York City

The Kentucky, Oregon, and North Carolina categories mentioned at the end would be left alone. Later, we can nominate the entire "Defunct newspapers" tree and debate that, but I'm mostly focused on getting the phrasing consistent before dealing with it on a conceptual level.--Mike Selinker (talk) 15:33, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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