Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 January 10

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< January 9 January 11 >

January 10[edit]

Category:Llanelli Scarlets[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: no consensus. Kbdank71 14:40, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Llanelli Scarlets to Category:Scarlets
Propose renaming Category:Llanelli Scarlets directors of rugby to Category:Scarlets directors of rugby
Propose renaming Category:Llanelli Scarlets players to Category:Scarlets players
Propose renaming Category:Llanelli Scarlets seasons to Category:Scarlets seasons
Nominator's rationale: Rename. The team formerly known as the "Llanelli Scarlets" was renamed in November 2008, and the categories related to the team should reflect this too. – PeeJay 23:46, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support FruitMonkey (talk) 00:45, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think it would be better if it were Scarlets rugby club 76.66.198.171 (talk) 06:10, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I'm leaning oppose since I have this fear about scarlet being ambiguous. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:55, 15 January 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:GBdot[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, not exactly a user category, even though that's all that is left. Kbdank71 14:43, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:GBdot (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete This category used to contain maps showing the location of various UK settlements. Many of these have been replaced and deleted, others have been moved to commons. The only thing left in this category is User:Lupin/maplist which is a page contain a list of these maps Pit-yacker (talk) 22:53, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy close and relist as a user category -- In any event, it appears to be a redundant one, which should be deleted. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:00, 11 January 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:Football clubs in Silesian-Moravian Region[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 per nom; it won't be hard to renom it to add the "the" if needed. Kbdank71 14:48, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Football clubs in Silesian-Moravian Region to Category:Football clubs in Moravian-Silesian Region
Nominator's rationale: Rename. The region is named Moravian-Silesian Region. Darwinek (talk) 22:23, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Don't know. There is a Category:Rivers of Moravian-Silesian Region, without definite article. - Darwinek (talk) 13:16, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. I'm fine with changing it (without including the "the") to match the format of the rivers category, unless someone else comes up with some indication that the "the" should be used. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:32, 11 January 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:Parishes of Wales[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename. Kbdank71 14:48, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Suggest renaming Category:Parishes of Wales to Category:Communities in Wales
Suggest renaming Category:Parishes of Ceredigion to Category:Communities in Ceredigion
Nominator's rationale: Rename. More accurate an consistent with Welsh naming of localities. "Parish" is a defunct term. See this discussion. --Carlaude (talk) 20:58, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Nom. This is the correct term for the lowest kind of local authority in Wales, the equivalent of Civil Parish in England. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:01, 11 January 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:Former churches[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 (btw, was there supposed to be a third rename? I note the stray "and" making it seem like something was omitted in the nom). Kbdank71 14:50, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Suggest merging Category:Former churches into Category:Former church buildings
Suggest merging Category:Former churches in the United States into Category:Former church buildings in the United States and
Nominator's rationale: Merge, All pages in Category:Former churches are articles mainly (or entirely) about the buildings themselves. To say Former churches is unclear and there is of yet no source of articles about former church congregations that are notable apart from their church buildings. There would also be no purpose in maintaining two categories with the nearly the same content. Even the sub-cat Category:Former Christian Science churches, societies and buildings, has only one "article" out of its 35 mention any CS societies; it is only a list.
Note: A January 10 merger suggestion resulted in no consensus but generated interest in the alternative suggested here. --Carlaude (talk) 20:30, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per my comments on the previous nom. A note could be added to reflect than the congregations are also often covered. Johnbod (talk) 00:02, 11 January 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:Diseases of skin appendages[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:Medical conditions of the skin. Clearly there is a consensus to rename. However the target of the rename is at issue. In reading through this I sense that a rename to Category:Medical conditions of the skin could well be a reasonable alternative at this point. This rename does not preclude a later rename to something else if a different consensus develops. I did look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Dermatology task force/Categorization, skin appendages is only used for this one category so I don't see replacing this one use as a problem. I will hold the rename for 24 hours in case anyone wishes to object to this closing. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:49, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Based on feedback after the close, I am going to change this to no consensus. This may be brought back here at any point if there is a rename proposed that appears to have consensus. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:08, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Diseases of skin appendages to Category:Conditions of the skin appendages
Nominator's rationale: Rename. I started the WP:DERM taskforce, and have been working to categorize dermatology articles in an organized fashion. The proposed categorization scheme is specifically at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicine/Dermatology_task_force/Categorization, which was developed from discussions at the main wikipedia medicine page (see that link for more details). As per that scheme, the "Diseases of skin appendages" category should probably be renamed to "Conditions of the skin appendages" as the scope of the category is not strictly limited to diseases, but also contains some conditions that can be considered normal findings, such as melanonychia for example (see List_of_skin-related_conditions#Conditions of the skin appendages for a listing of all the conditions considered part of this category, some of which are not necessarily "diseases") kilbad (talk) 20:28, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
First, thank you for your kind words, and I appreciate your input in this area. I have been working on dermatologic content for several weeks now, and have found categorization of its content very challenging.
  • With regard to this particular category, I have suggested renaming because there are articles that encompass processes that could be considered normal at times, like, for example, melanonychia, as I cited above. With that being stated, I have always understood the term "condition," in the medical sense, to be broader and less specific than disease, "condition" being a term that could include normal variants, this contrasted with the term "disease" which excludes anything normal. This was my rational in suggesting the Category:Conditions of the skin appendages, attempting to include diseases and the occasional normal variant within the same category. Of course, the overwhelming majority of articles in this category will be disease articles, but I wanted to appropriately name the category to include any possible outlying articles. Therefore, unless my understanding of the word "condition" is off (and I am certainly open to other viewpoints), I would not be in favor of Category:Diseases and conditions of skin appendages, but simply Category:Conditions of the skin appendages.
  • Concerning the parent Category:Cutaneous conditions, the term "cutaneous" was specifically used because, technically, the term "skin" in the strict sense does not include the adnexa (i.e. hair, nails, glands). Additionally, some people do not even consider the subcutaneous tissues part of the "skin." Therefore, to provide a broader parent category to include all these things, the less specific term "cutaneous" was used, this with the less specific "conditions" in order to, again, include disease articles with some normal variants under the same category.
  • I hope I have not stepped on any toes here, and welcome any additional comments. Thanks again for your help! kilbad (talk) 03:04, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry not to respond sooner. Thanks for your persuasive explanation regarding "cutaneous" vs. "skin". And you certainly needn't have any concern about "stepping on toes" - this forum is yours as much as any of the "regulars". Your active participation in these discussions is much appreciated. Cgingold (talk) 09:53, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I am not opposed to this name, but perhaps we could have more editors look at this to get a greater consensus on the issue of "conditions" and "diseases" with respect to category names? I ask this because our consensus here will affect many future proposed category names and renames. kilbad (talk) 22:53, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree further input would be helpful. I'm not an expert so I don't consider my opinion "definitive". I'd like to know what others think too. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:57, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I posted a thread on the main Medicine Project talk page with a link here. However, if we do not get a lot of additional feedback, perhaps we could put this rename on hold, and I will try to start a discussion elsewhere? kilbad (talk) 12:10, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent idea, posting at WP Medicine. It looks like your note has already prompted a couple of responses. Cgingold (talk)
  • I support the original proposal ("Conditions of the skin appendages"). No phrase can perfectly meet every goal, but I think the proposal provides the best possible combination of being precise and being concise. --Arcadian (talk) 06:19, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The word diseases is unsatisfactory if the category also covers conditions. Being of the school that sees some diseases as possible adaptations and that believes genetic diversity is essential I'm a bit reluctant to use "disease" but am happy in this context for the renaming proposed.Mccready (talk) 07:14, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I understand what you're driving at, but I hope you're not seriously suggesting that the term "disease" be eliminated from Wiki category names. After all, many things can be considered both diseases and adaptations -- Sickle-cell disease being a prime example. In any event, my suggestion is to incorporate both terms in the name of the category, in order to indicate more clearly that the entire range is included. Cgingold (talk) 09:45, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps I'm not understanding properly. I thought a "disease" could be seen as a sub-type of "condition"? Not all conditions are diseases, but all diseases are conditions—No? If I'm right-thinking about this, then why is saying "diseases and conditions" not satisfactory just because there are conditions included the category? Because the category would then include conditions and diseases. So it would seem to be a perfectly descriptive phrase in that sense. Is it because not all of the conditions listed are diseases? If so, I think that's a bit of a over-parsing of the category name. Good Ol’factory (talk) 11:00, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
First, thank you again for your input, I appreciate it. In response to your comment:
  • Here are several propositions I think are fair to make concerning this category: (1) there are diseases within the category, (2) there are named physical findings that may be pathologic or simply nonpathologic variants (take racquet nails or melanonychia for example, see the list for more), therefore, (3) there are physical finding in the list that are not diseases.
  • With this being stated, if we agree that the term "condition" is less specific, and that it may include items considered "diseases" and those considered nonpathologic variants (based on my reasoning above (and I am not suggesting that we all necessarily agree)), then renaming to Category:Conditions of the skin appendages would seem appropriate to me as the term "conditions" encompasses all the diseases and normal variants relating to the skin appendages. kilbad (talk) 20:32, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that it's technically a correct term to encompass them all, but I think adding "and diseases" makes it somewhat clearer to the average reader who won't know the intricate details of "conditions" being a term that encompasses diseases. We aren't categorizing for experts, but for regular encyclopedia users. Oops, I think I already said that above—I'm just repeating what I said basically. Good to know I'm interpreting things correctly, though. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:30, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can't help being struck by how much this discussion parallels the discussion that resulted in the merging of Category:Diseases into Category:Diseases and disorders. Even though the term "diseases" does encompass disorders, the prevailing view was that both terms should be used in the category name because the words are construed variably by different readers/editors -- which is precisely why it would be good to do the same here. Having said that, I'm now wondering whether the word "conditions" should somehow be incorporated in the name of the super-category, Category:Diseases and disorders. We don't have to decide that here (nor should we), but as long as we've come this far, I'd like to throw that out for discussion as well. Cgingold (talk) 12:27, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree, and as far as the items being considered for this category, there are no exclusively nonpathologic items being included, only (1) frank diseases and (2) conditions that can be considered pathologic or, occasionally, nonpathologic (but because they can be pathologic at times, it seems reasonable to include them in this category, and under the parent Category:Diseases and disorders). kilbad (talk) 22:11, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think most of us agree that the term "conditions" can reasonable be considered to include "diseases." Therefore, I think most of us agree that Category:Conditions of the skin appendages could be considered an appropriate name for this category. However, I think where some of us differ is whether the term "diseases" should be included based on Good Ol’factory's reasoning that:
  • "I agree that it's [conditions] technically a correct term to encompass them all, but I think adding "and diseases" makes it somewhat clearer to the average reader who won't know the intricate details of "conditions" being a term that encompasses diseases."
  • However, I think this statement should be considered and discussed further. I certainly do not want to hold-up this proposed renaming, or be argumentative, but I personally disagree that adding diseases necessarily makes this category "clearer" to the average reader. My opinion is that Category:Conditions of the skin appendages is clear, concise, and precise, even for the "average" reader. Additionally, if there is concern that the term "condition" is too hard for the average user to understand, can't we simply add a nice discussion of the term in an intro paragraph on the category's page? kilbad (talk) 02:09, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • That may well be the next step, but at the moment I'd really like to know what your views are, and how you think it relates (or doesn't) to this particular sub-category. Cgingold (talk) 22:45, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The category structure should reflect a hierarchy of concepts, from the most generic one down to the very specific."
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:NA-importance Xbox articles[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: procedural close, category was already speedied on jan 14 as C1-empty. Kbdank71 14:54, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:NA-importance Xbox articles
Nominator's rationale: Delete:This category no use in WikiProject Xbox. BW21.--BlackWatch21 20:22, 10 January 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:Players financed by Hardball[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. Kbdank71 14:55, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Players financed by Hardball (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete overcategorisation. Very specific category and not part of any cat tree, nor should it be in my opinion. Mayumashu (talk) 16:56, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with extreme prejudice - Obviously, I have no idea what the creator's motivation was, but all the same, it inevitably smacks of commercial promotion. And I thought "professional athletes by agent" was bad in that regard! (We deleted several of those a month or two back.) Notified creator with {{subst:cfd-notify}} Cgingold (talk) 11:47, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I should have added Hardball (company) in my rationale statement. I m not sure of it commercial motives but certainly it is along the lines of 'sportspeople by agent' Mayumashu (talk) 16:30, 11 January 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:Monopoly (economics)[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: no consensus. While my own personal opinion did not enter into the close, I happen to agree with GO. If you want the monopoly game article and find yourself at Monopoly, you'll know immediately you're at the wrong article. With the category, it is entirely possible that someone will add Category:Monopoly to a game-related article and never click on it to see they added it to the wrong category. Better to have it as a redlink so the editor knows they added it to a non-existent category. Kbdank71 15:04, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Monopoly (economics) to Category:Monopoly
Nominator's rationale: Rename. I proposed this a couple of years ago with no consensus. The current naming reflects an approach to disambiguating this category (with main article Monopoly) from Category:Monopoly (game). The economic concept is the source of the name of the game, and the category has a dozen or so subcategories, and well over 100 substantial articles. The game category contains 30-odd articles most of which are and can never be more than stubs. And of course, monopoly is a major social and economic concern, while the board game is a minor item in popular culture. For all these reasons, the category should simply be called Monopoly. JQ (talk) 07:04, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. What about Category:Monopolism to avoid ambiguity? --Eliyak T·C 16:18, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggest Category:Monopolies. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:03, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • rename per nom to Category:Monopoly to match the main article. No reason to go looking for other names; alternatives proposed to not follow the naming pattern for categories when a clear article exists. Hmains (talk) 03:25, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom.-choster (talk) 04:58, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I think this was discussed before, in that it causes confusion with the game, because categories require more maintenance than an article, and as such should be a the "(economics)" name. 76.66.198.171 (talk) 06:11, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose nom's rename. Category names should be stand-alone unambiguous. Article-naming is another kettle of fish. Of the suggestions, Category:Monopolism is maybe the best. Category:Monopolies won't do as it already exists for specific monopolies. I'm fine with the current name, really. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:09, 12 January 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:Boston Terriers athletic directors[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:33, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Boston Terriers athletic directors to Category:Boston University Terriers athletic directors
Nominator's rationale: Rename. This school is referred to by U.S. sports media as "Boston University"—NEVER "Boston"—because of the existence of Boston College. This change will also align the category with the main article for the school's athletic programs at Boston University Terriers. Dale Arnett (talk) 03:25, 10 January 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.

disambiguating Category:Skåne[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: relisted on 16th. Kbdank71 16:40, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming
Nominator's rationale: to 'disambiguate' from Category:Skåne County (there are only these three cat pages) Mayumashu (talk) 02:27, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Scania (etc.) as our article on the place is named Scania not Skåne (province) (a redirect). Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:38, 16 January 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:ECPA Christian Book Award winners[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 15:09, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:ECPA Christian Book Award winners (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Category for an award given out by an association of book publishers. Not important and defining enough for a category. A list exists at ECPA Christian Book Award. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:42, 10 January 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:Austrian-Australian Jews[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 15:10, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Austrian-Australian Jews (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. This looks like it is intended for Australian citizens who are of combined Austrian-Jewish ancestry. It's a triple intersection of nationality/ethnicity/ethnicity-or-religion of the type that are usually deleted. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:32, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. It was created by the editor who wrote the article, who is new to Wiki (and apparently related to the subject of the article). I've already added two Jewish categories and an Austrian descent cat to the article to replace this one. Cgingold (talk) 23:45, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unnecessary race/religion category. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:39, 16 January 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.

United States federal elections by state[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 mainly for consistency. I'm torn on the arguments about "United States federal elections". For accuracy, I suppose it should be named as such, but unless there are federal elections in any other california, hawaii, kansas, etc, it's pretty clear that the categories are referencing the united states. Let's do this, rename for consistency, and then if someone wants to rename the whole lot to "united states federal elections in foo", they can put up an umbrella nom. Kbdank71 15:31, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:United States elections in California to Category:Federal elections in California
Propose renaming Category:United States elections in Georgia to either Category:Federal elections in Georgia or Category:Federal elections in Georgia (U.S. state)
Propose renaming Category:United States elections in Hawaii to Category:Federal elections in Hawaii
Propose renaming Category:United States elections in Kansas to Category:Federal elections in Kansas
Propose renaming Category:United States elections in New Mexico to Category:Federal elections in New Mexico
Propose renaming Category:United States elections in New York to Category:Federal elections in New York
Propose renaming Category:United States elections in North Carolina to Category:Federal elections in North Carolina
Propose renaming Category:United States elections in Rhode Island to Category:Federal elections in Rhode Island
Propose renaming Category:United States elections in Wyoming to Category:Federal elections in Wyoming
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Consistency. Most of their fellow categories in Category:United States federal elections by state are in this format. —Markles 01:03, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename All to 'United States federal elections in foo'. This pattern matches the parent category and leaves no question as to the category contents. Then also rename the rest of the sister categories to match this pattern. Hmains (talk) 17:52, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • But isn't "United States federal elections…" unnecessary and redundant? With the (possible) exception of the Georgia (US vs. Caucasus), "Federal elections…" is simple, accurate and unconfusing.—Markles 18:33, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support — "Federal" makes more sense than "United States". It is irrelevant for the parent category to be in the name. Above all, the name should make sense. I don't know what United States election is, but I do know what a federal election is.
  • Rename - per nom and consistency. No, "United States federal elections" in the parent is not redundant unless the United States is the only nation in the world that has federal elections. Otto4711 (talk) 23:04, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's redundant because Wyoming isn't in any other nation. All federal elections in Wyoming are United States elections. —Markles 01:17, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Read WP:NCCAT, specifically the bullet-point that says Choose category names that are able to stand alone, independent of the way a category is connected to other categories. Neier (talk) 10:02, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I haven't made up my mind yet on which of the two options I support. But I don't think "Federal elections in State X" actually runs afoul of the "stand alone rule" -- which I take very seriously -- unless there is some other type of "Federal election" (that I've never heard of) that could be held in a U.S. state. The parent cat, on the other hand, clearly does require the full term. Cgingold (talk) 11:35, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm undecided as well, which is why I just put a comment instead of a rename or keep suggestion. If any of the Confederate States held federal elections, then, I would strongly support the long (and somewhat redundant) version. Neier (talk) 11:59, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • That is a really excellent and fascinating question on a subject which I know little about. (It certainly isn't covered in any depth in US history courses outside of the South.) I've just read what little there is here on Wiki, but unsurprisingly, there's no direct reference to what term may have been used. However, based on everything I do know, I would say that it is exceedingly unlikely that they ever used a term like "federal elections". After all, they deliberately chose the very distinct word "Confederate" for their national government and its branches. There were only ever two elections held for the Confederate Congress, none for the presidency. Since the word "federal" was closely associated with the reviled government of the United States, I have to believe that use of that term was eschewed with respect to any government institution in the Confederate States. If you want to know "for sure", we could try asking one of the knowledgeable editors in that area. (Is there a Project?) Cgingold (talk) 17:04, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm no historian either; but, since I've delved into the world of Mozambique soccer players, and Japanese soft-porn starlets for the sake of WP, I guess it would be bad to not do the same in this case. :-) In the constitution on wikisource, "Federal" is used exactly as you would expect it to be. Notably, the end of section 2.1: "but no person of foreign birth, not a citizen of the Confederate States, shall be allowed to vote for any officer, civil or political, State or Federal." I left a note at the Civil War task force page to ask for their participation here. Neier (talk) 00:35, 12 January 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_January_10&oldid=1088721475"