Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 June 12

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< June 11 June 13 >

June 12[edit]

Category:BAFTA Awards[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: Do not rename. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:17, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:BAFTA Awards to Category:British Academy of Film and Television Arts awards
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Expand abbreviation per strong previous consensus and main article. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:55, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't know. But if this is approved, then there will likely be support for a similar change in the one you nominated. If you agree with this nomination, you could change yours to reflect this discussion. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:20, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it short. The acronym is unambiguous, easily recognized. As already said, inflating a five-letter acronyms creates atrociously long cat names. Typical BAFTA winner has two BAFTA categories ("winners" and "by trade"), expanded cats will become unreadable. Full name of the main article does not matter as long as the acronym is explained there. NVO (talk) 18:25, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it short. It is pronounced as a word (like NATO), at least in the UK. As Shawn observes from Montreal, expanding would make his category names take up several lines each. Occuli (talk) 21:57, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Per common name. The awards are referred to as BAFTA Awards, which, as noted on the category page, is given by the British Academy of Film and Television Arts. Other award categories, such as Category:Academy Awards aren't called Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences awards. Changing the name would be needlessly confusing. Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:56, 22 June 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.

BAFTA actor 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:  Relisted at 2009 JUN 22 now that CfD immediately above has been resolved. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:29, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Renaming rationale Using Category:Best Actor Academy Award winners as the model, I believe these categories would benefit by being renamed to clarify that they are categories for people who won. This would then be a natural subcat of Category:BAFTA winners (people), I suppose. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:44, 12 June 2009 (UTC) WITHDRAWN pending CfR discussion above[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Prime Ministers of Russian Federation[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) 01:01, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Prime Ministers of Russian Federation to Category:Prime Ministers of the Russian Federation
Nominator's rationale: correct terminology is "of the Russian Federation". We already have Category:Prime Ministers of Russia which is the parent category of the various forms that Russia has taken over the centuries (Empire, RSFSR, etc), so only a change to fix the terminology is being nommed here. Russavia Dialogue 20:53, 12 June 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:Film awards for Best Costume Design[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. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:38, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Film awards for Best Costume Design to Category:Film costume design awards
Nominator's rationale: Don't know if I'm splitting hairs, but I don't think we can use the "Film awards for foo" wording here -- because the category now contains awards for costume design in film given out by film bodies/critics, as well as an award for same from the Costume Designers Guild. The first group are film awards, the second, costume awards, at least to my way of thinking. I expect that at some point we'll be able to create a Theatre costume design awards category, as part of the new Category:Costume design awards, master cat, too. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:04, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just because I know Shawn expects it - rename to Category:Awards for film costume design which encompasses any award for designing costumes for films regardless of who bestows it. Otto4711 (talk) 06:30, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    And just because I know Otto expects it That would be fine with me, too Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:59, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Otto's suggestion. This will bring these in line with most of the others that have been renamed to eliminate the caps and the "best" wording. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:03, 16 June 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:Culture by continent[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Keep. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:14, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Culture by continent (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Recent (2009) creation, WP:OVERCAT with existing Category:Culture by nationality and Category:Culture by region. Continents don't have a culture. They have rivers and mountains.--William Allen Simpson (talk) 15:31, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree per nominator. And thanks for the laugh. Debresser (talk) 15:46, 12 June 2009 (UTC) Now keep per argument that this is a strictly administrative category. Debresser (talk) 19:35, 13 June 2009 (UTC) Apart from that, there are cultural organisations that are organised on a continental level, as evident from the category pages. Debresser (talk) 19:38, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question But do these not have value as top-level grouping categories? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:08, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - this nom is not fully considered, as it will leave Category:African culture and the various other ones unscathed but unparented. And there is nothing wrong with say Category:African culture, if one actually looks at it; a continent tends to have peoples and languages as well as geographical features. (Category:Culture by region misses out Africa altogether, and is thoroughly vague. Is 'Western' a region and if so where is it? The article Culture by region in contrast deals with culture in the different continents, plus a few other regions such as the Arabic region.) Occuli (talk) 16:15, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Occuli, and as a useful way to navigate via the top-level Category:Categories by continent. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:18, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep So there is no such thing as European culture, or African culture? A novel view, unlikely to be heard from anywhere except the US. This is needed for the very many articles like European Heritage Days, though whether everything in the tree needs to be there is a different matter. Johnbod (talk) 16:20, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep The purpose of categories is to aid in navigation to articles. Since the articles and subcats of this cat are not going to disappear, then neither should this category. Nomination is very unhelpful to WP. A waste of time. Hmains (talk) 03:50, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but primarily as a parent category. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:36, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep a perfectly logical parent category. Alansohn (talk) 05:31, 21 June 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.

Palace Station vandal sockpuppet categories[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Merge. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:40, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Tip Ipp Ipp to Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Snuffereet
Nominator's rationale: Merge. These categories are for sockpuppets of the same vandal. Powers T 12:45, 12 June 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.

Tamil topic of 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: No consensus because of lack of discussion of merits. This is indeed a confusing situation, and the nominator's actions w.r.t. these categories in the past 3 days of CfD listings is highly unusual. I would advise against such practices, not because it's necessarily inherently wrong, but because it is confusing for those participating and (as demonstrated here) a controversial practice. Please read this close in conjunction with the close of the 2009 June 11 nomination of the same categories. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:33, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming:
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Conform to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories). New proposal "[ethnicity] ... of [country]", based on a previous suggestion by Peterkingiron (talk · contribs). Third time is the charm?
--William Allen Simpson (talk) 12:30, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Close I have reverted the nom's withdrawal of the second attempt yeaterday, & will follow him in being too lazy to link to it. Oh, alright One and Two. Three noms in three days on the same cats. This is getting ridiculous; we should finish the last discussion. Johnbod (talk) 12:43, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – This is getting confusing. It is most unusual (but not necessarily a bad idea) to re-float a nom (not once but twice in 3 days, so far) but could the nom at least close the earlier ones with a note to this one? (I don't think this one is going to work either, any more than 'Welsh history of the UK' would. Also it doesn't always follow that a suitable topic category for Cat:XXXs will be Cat:XXX, eg Category:American actors, Category:Roman Catholic saints.) Occuli (talk) 12:50, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Curiously there was no edit conflict but Johnbod's comment was not there when I began mine. Perhaps there should an explicit requirement that a cfd should run its course before anyone can re-list it; there is no particular hurry. Occuli (talk) 12:59, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd actually closed and re-listed, with a reference pointing here. Johnbod reverted it. That was not helpful. Fixed. I've never heard of folks forcing a nomination to continue after it has been withdrawn, nor preventing a better idea from discussion.
    --William Allen Simpson (talk) 13:51, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There was a reference there pointing here, but no references here pointing to the two previous discussions on exactly the same categories you had opened in the preceeding 48 hrs, on which several editors had commented. I have seen several "withdrawals" by noms over-ridden in the past - typically when a naive editor unaware of the sharks that lurk in these waters finds his "rename" proposal turning into a "delete". You can't go on "debate-shopping" in an attempt to shake off all editors with opposing views. You are welcome to continue adding to the previous debate. On Occuli's point, there are times when a very lengthy debate has taken a new direction & may best be closed early for a new proposal. I don't think either of the two previous debates had reached this point by a long stretch, and the 3rd nom, as everyone except WAS seems to agree, was just going too far. Johnbod (talk) 14:00, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Admnistrative close the nominator is turning this page into a bathroom, to be visited several times a day with the same result. The discussion is on yesterday's page. Debresser (talk) 15:45, 12 June 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:Irish Roman Catholic saints[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Keep. (Also, the category was only tagged for first 2½ days of this discussion b/c it was removed by the nominator. I'm not sure if that indicates an intention to withdraw the nomination, but in any case it would probably invalidate any decision to merge or rename the category.). Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:17, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:Irish Roman Catholic saints to Category:Irish saints
Nominator's rationale: Merge. These are currently two largely overlapping categories, but the first is problematic: (1) "Irish Roman Catholic saints" is a bit of an ahistorical misnomer for many of the saints listed, who are mostly early medieval and therefore predate the Schism. (2) Nor is "Roman Catholic" a very meaningful qualifier here for later saints. Why should we have a separate category that distinguishes the vast majority of Irish saints from a minority of a different denomination (not currently listed as far as I'm aware)? Cavila (talk) 07:59, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments – I expect these are regarded as saints by the present RC church; and the suggested rename/merge would take them out of the RC category tree. The articles that are in both should only be in the RC one (which would leave the more interesting non-RC ones, if any, at the top). Some inclusion criteria would be handy for those of us who are not fully conversant with sainthood. (Eg George Augustus Selwyn is an English saint (Anglican) but not an RC one.) Occuli (talk) 08:57, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    OK I see. I agree that RC cannot refer to the saints' personal beliefs/affiliations (as in Roman Catholic monarchs or similar categories), but to their commemmoration, which is after all what gives them the status of sanctity. What makes some of them saints in later times or even today may not always be transparent. That's why I was thinking of a general Irish saints category, without the extra RC-tag, but with possible subcategories for non-Catholic saints. Then again, inclusion in the voluminous and fairly exhaustive collections by Colgan and the like may be a workable criterion, however rough and ready. I hadn't thought of the supra-category, so all in all, I'm inclined to support your alternative suggestion. Cavila (talk) 10:39, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Actually I think this wrong; "Roman Catholic" is used on WP for pre- and post- schism in almost all contexts, & this causes no problem here. The logic is that most early medieval saints are also recognised by the Church of Ireland etc, so are not just RC, but were themselves RC (ignoring the Celtic Christianity issue, probably correctly). The way round this would be to have shared pre-Reformation categories, then sectarian ones for post-Reformation saints. This has been implemented for bishops (English ones anyway) with Category:Pre-Reformation bishops in England and Wales, which slots into Catholic & Anglican trees, sort of. That was worked out here some time ago (in fact it just contains sub-cats by diocese which have both sorts). All these saint categories suffer from rampant excess categorizing, being in too many places in the same tree. Look at Wyllow, currently in:
  • Category:6th-century Christian saints]] X
  • Category:Christian martyrs of the Medieval era]] X
  • Category:Cornish saints]]
  • Category:Irish saints]] X?
  • Category:Irish Roman Catholic saints]]
  • Category:English saints]] X?
  • Category:English Roman Catholic saints]]
  • Category:6th-century Christian martyrs]]

- arguably 4 of 8 are uneeded, which is probably typical. Oliver Plunkett (RC post-Reformation) certainly does not need to be in both Irish & Irish RC cats, but of course is. But who is to do the work sorting them? This is not a reason to merge, however, even though both categories have 191 articles, which suggests they are identical. Are there any CofI-only saints? According to Plunkett's article, when he was canonized in 1975 he was the first new RC Irish saint for 700 years btw. Johnbod (talk) 11:12, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • No, for example I doubt any Irish ones are, purely for reasons of location. They would not have been known about in the Eastern church pre-schism. I think the EO saints don't have official lists & procedures in the Catholic way - it is easy (with the right sources) to confirm who is an EO saint, but I suspect less easy to show that an individual is not one. St Luke certainly would be one. Johnbod (talk) 14:10, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • In that case I shall proceed more confidently with AWB to remove the duplicates from the top category. (This is not silly, unike the 'Christian bishops' one, of pastorwayne, who was splitting the entire tree, country by country, year by year, because of a single non-christian bishop.) Occuli (talk) 14:41, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is just one left, incorrectly I expect. Occuli (talk) 15:51, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • He is just beatified - the treatment of these in cats (are they saints or not) is highly inconsistent, but sufficient for the day .... I've put him with others. I think this can be closed as sorted now. A merge of the Irish cat, now with just 1 sub-cat, would mess up the national scheme. Are there any CoI saints?? The Lutherans would have canonized Jonathan Swift, I'm sure.... Johnbod (talk) 19:31, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the speedy response, in word and in action. To clarify things, only about five Irish saints have been canonised, the first being St Malachy in c. 1200 (unsurprisingly as the official process for papal canonisation started off late). But then the recognition of sainthood was often more of a local affair of churches/paruchiae and ruling dynasties. Rome can't be expected to be involved in all things Roman Catholic, to put it paradoxically. Dunno about CofI saints, though they probably recognise some of the more popular saints (Patrick, Brigit, etc.). I'll remove the tags. Cavila (talk) 20:57, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The small sample of dedications at Category:Church of Ireland Parishes and Churches suggests many if not all medieval saints are recognised or at least not rejected, as in the CofE. Can an admin close this as I think we're all done here. Johnbod (talk) 21:28, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- The same medieval heritage is shared by the Catholic and Church of Ireland, so that it is not surprising that those recognised as saints before the Reformation should be shared by both. These should be categorised as Irish Saints. This also avoids the difficulty that the Irish Church was in practice separated from Rome (by distance) during the Dark Ages, with the result that the Celtic and Catholic churches developed differing practices, and might have regarded each other as heretical as a result. This was the conflict resolved in England by the Synod of Whitby. Those canonised by the RC church only since the Reformation should be categorised as Irish RC saints. This should be explained in short headnotes on the category pages. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:47, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That is not the way other saints by country categories work. As I've said above, all the saints categories are messy & duplicative, but what you suggest would not work for the RC saints tree. The Celtic and Catholic churches "might" have regarded each other as heretical, but in fact it is entirely clear that they did not - see Celtic Christianity. Don't forget there were Irish-founded monasteries across Europe, including Italy (Bobbio Abbey). Johnbod (talk) 01:27, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the category accurately reflects what's being categorized - it is immaterial that schismatic sects also adopt certain Roman Catholic saints these folks were RC <full stop>. It would be better worded as Category:Roman Catholic saints from Ireland to clarify we are talking about nationality not ethnicity, but our convention is otherwise at the moment. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:17, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. These are Roman Catholic saints. The CoI wasn't in existance until the establishment under Good Queen Bess. Arguing that Catholic saints weren't really Catholic doesn't fly. Benkenobi18 (talk) 23:56, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as part of a rather well-constructed structure in Category:Roman Catholic saints by country. Alansohn (talk) 05:34, 21 June 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:Images for redraw[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: Administrative close. Deleted by another user as an empty category. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:21, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Images for redraw (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Category is redundant to Category:Images for cleanup and Category:Images that should be in SVG format. All contents have been added to one of those appropriate categories, leaving the category empty. "Images for redraw" is basically either cleaning up the image or converting to SVG. ZooFari 05:39, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As a possible suggestion, perhaps Category:Images for cleanup could be renamed to Raster images for cleanup, and all vector images could be removed from that category, to outline the separation more clearly. This would actually make the cleanup job quite a bit more efficient as the skill-sets for cleaning up rasters and vectors are different, this would separate the images. ɹəəpıɔnı 22:55, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But Images for cleanup are not for rasters specifically. I was thinking more like Category:SVGs for cleanup, that way all the svgs in the image category are moved. Rasters for cleanup doesn't sound right, as rasters shouldn't be cleaned up, but converted to SVG instead.
This is exactly the kind of misinterpretation that was being discussed in the linked WP:GL talkpage above. There are quite a significant amount of rasters that should NEVER be converted to SVG, and in those cases, they can certainly be added to a Rasters for cleanup category. That discussion was proposing an essay to more clearly explain why raster images should be vectorised and (more importantly) when and why they should not. ɹəəpıɔnı 15:18, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have made Category:SVGs for cleanup, not to replace this category, but just thought it was a good idea (since the IFC had many of SVGs). I made the Template:CleanSVG to go along with it. So now images for redraw has grown more redundancy, so I think it should be deleted along with its template. Moving it isn't required (cat is empty), so one can be created manually and "what links here" can be transferred. ZooFari 00:50, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is a good idea alright, "redraw" is perhaps too specific as there can be other reasons other than a redraw that an SVG may be redone (I'm thinking mainly of SVGs which are far too large in filesize, but also other reasons). ɹəəpıɔnı 15:22, 14 June 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:Wikipedia files needing editor assistance at upload as of 4 June 2009[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 delete, G6 (housekeeping). BencherliteTalk 07:26, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Wikipedia files needing editor assistance at upload as of 4 June 2009 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Empty — TAnthonyTalk 03:28, 12 June 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:Spouses of U.S. Cabinet Members[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; qualifies for speedy. (While remaining surprised that anyone with a WP article is defined by being a spouse of a cabinet member. The U.S. is one wacky place.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:23, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Spouses of U.S. Cabinet Members should be renamed Category:Spouses of United States Cabinet members, a format similar to the one used by all other subcategories of Category:Spouses of American politicians. --TommyBoy (talk) 02:33, 12 June 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.

Leaders of the Opposition[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. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:41, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Moved and extended from speedy:

For the sake of completion - here is what was at the speedy section:

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Eleven of the 13 main articles on Leaders of the Opposition are at Leader of the Opposition (Foo) (the remaining two aren't straightforward - they are a list and the LotO of a specific parliament). The categories should match with that - or at the very least, with each other (note - these are the only three such categories, so no precedent has yet been set, other than by the articles). Grutness...wha? 01:44, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. I don't particularly care what format is chosen, but the categories should be the same. The format suggested is good because it matches the relevant articles. Such a solution will be as good as any other. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:21, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Rename' to match title of corresponding parent articles. Alansohn (talk) 06:33, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. Nb the Canadian category is a head cat for federal & state level leaders; don't know if the title is/was used in the Scottish Parliament and the various UK parliaments in Ireland. Johnbod (talk) 11:21, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I noticed about Canada, but wasn't sure whether provincial governments needed to have a similar system. I think getting the national ones sorted is more important. Grutness...wha? 00:17, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • At the present time, we don't actually have categories for the provincial opposition leaders in Canada — just lists. So there's not really much of anything to sort out in that regard yet. Bearcat (talk) 22:32, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. PasswordUsername (talk) 06:18, 13 June 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_June_12&oldid=1074802614"