Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 March 26

< March 25	March 27 >

March 26[edit]

Category:Aviation accidents and incidents attributed to pilot error[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 both into a new Category:Aviation accidents and incidents officially attributed to pilot error. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:59, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Aviation accidents and incidents attributed to pilot error to Category:Airliner accidents and incidents caused by pilot error

Nominator's rationale: Merge the categories as redundant. An airliner accident attibuted to pilot error was obviously caused by a pilot error or else it wouldn't have been attributed to pilot error. Tavix (talk) 22:08, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment causation is often a matter of best estimates, hence "attributed" is probably more accurate in practice. But we are left with the "by whom" is it attributed; should this be implied to be the accident investigation team? Which may or may not be unanimous (I think the EgyptAir flight from NYC was left with different attributions as to cause between accident investigation teams from the US and from Egypt). Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:54, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We could specify "officially attributed". Cgingold (talk) 23:11, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Or possibly after merging we could keep the title of the category at the "attributed" one if you think that is more accurate. Tavix (talk) 01:29, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Rename to Category:Aviation accidents and incidents officially attributed to pilot error. We group Category:People convicted of murder because what we are objectively tracking are those incidents where someone was charged and convicted of murder. Almost all plane crashes are officially investigated and an official determination is made if pilot error was involved. The current name implies any accident where any source blames pilot error. The target of Category:Airliner accidents and incidents caused by pilot error appears too definitive as to the cause. "Officially attributed" captures what I think is being sought here. Alansohn (talk) 02:09, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reverse merge adding "officially". Several cases originally attributed to pilate error ultimately turned out to be due to the failure of a small part. This would be "officially attributed" not in fact not "caused". All to often the pilate is dead, and the air accident investigators are not omniscient. "Cause" implies too great a certainly. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:07, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Historically, the Pilate has usually received the blame -- and not without reason, as most would surely agree. Cgingold (talk) 20:17, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reverse merge per Peterkingiron. Accident investigation is an inexact science, so "officially attributed" is the best we can do. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:14, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I just realized that I never officially weighed in on this, though I felt as though I had done so with my unofficial suggestion of specifying "officially". So let's make it official: Reverse merge and rename to Category:Aviation accidents and incidents officially attributed to pilot error (per myself and Alansohn). Cgingold (talk) 20:03, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reverse merge and rename to Category:Aviation accidents and incidents officially attributed to pilot error per Cgingold and Alansohn. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 16:18, 30 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:African Americans in the United States Congress[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: not a huge wave of support for the proposed rename, but with one clearly in favor (nominator), 1 presumably in favor (Markles), 1 O.K. with it but not seeing it as necessary (Cgingold), and 1 seemingly neutral on the issue (BHG), we'll go with the rename for now. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:57, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:African Americans in the United States Congress to Category:African American members of the United States Congress

Nominator's rationale: Rename - matches sibling categories in Category:Members of the United States Congress. Current name also carries the impression that this is for current members only. Otto4711 (talk) 21:30, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unnecessary race/ethnicity OCAT; this is the only race/ethnicity category for the parent without any explanation of why it is useful or proper. A list already exists at African Americans in the United States Congress. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:09, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (or rename per nom) - a perfectly valid category. I don't have any real problem with the current name -- to my eyes, it doesn't suggest that it's for current members only. However, if it turns out that there is concensus to rename, I won't raise a stink. Cgingold (talk) 22:42, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support WP:CATGRS, the relevant guideline on the subject, is rather clear in specifying that "an '(ethnicity) politicians' category should only be created if politicians of that ethnic background somehow constitute a distinct and identifiable group with a specific cultural and political context." Thus, the fact that there is a Congressional Black Caucus is rather strong evidence of African-Americans being a a distinct and identifiable group with a specific political context. A category appropriately exists for Category:LGBT members of the United States Congress and should for Category:Jewish members of the United States Congress. In contrast, the absence of a corresponding cohesive grouping for any part of the White Protestant men in Congress is an excellent explanation for why we don't have Category:White members of the United States Congress, Category:Protestant members of the United States Congress or Category:Male members of the United States Congress. Alansohn (talk) 00:20, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support.—Markles 00:54, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or rename per Cgingold and Alansohn. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:10, 27 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:Skiffle musicians[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: um, yeah. So I'm going to delete the category solely on the basis of it being empty; it was de-populated and never re-populated during the discussion. If anyone wants to re-create it and re-populate, this should be allowed. A future deletion of it will require a new nomination. Don't empty categories (or "blank them" of parent categories) before nominating them for deletion. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:51, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Skiffle musicians

Had a deleted main page. New category Category:Skiffle was created, existent main page Skiffle added, contents of "Musicians" category transferred, made subcategory of Popular music. Category void and redundant. Redheylin (talk) 20:21, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1) Category is not tagged for deletion. 2) If the category remains empty for 4 days it can be speedily deleted without going through CFD. Otto4711 (talk) 21:39, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Restore the category as a subcat of Category:Skiffle (main article for both is Skiffle), put the musicians back in it, subcat of Category:Musicians by genre or similar. See eg Category:Reggae for an exemplar. Occuli (talk) 21:48, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep the category is not marked for deletion. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:10, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't that a little nit-picky? Tavix (talk) 01:30, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No! Because those who watch the page will not be alerted to the proposal. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:19, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Skiffle was a particular musical fad when I was a small boy. It was certainly a notable one. Has some one emptied it? If so, it should be repopulated. Emptying a category before nominating it, is a grave abuse, because it means that the rest of us, are unable to judge it by its former contents (which do not appear on its history). If anything the problem is that the new Category:Skiffle should be renamed or merged here. We certainly do not need both, unless there was a separate category for skiffle songwriters that needed a common parent. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:19, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

'Skiffle instruments', 'Skiffle musical groups' spring to mind. It was a big deal in the late 50s; eg most of the Beatles started off in school skiffle groups. Occuli (talk) 12:36, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for responding. Please excuse any lapses in procedure: I am proposing deletion only on the grounds I mentioned and do not believe there is any rush - I tagged the category, and found it was unlinked and listed uncategorised. And yes, it is true that there was a category "skiffle musicians" without a mainpage, and no category "skiffle" - which seems the obvious parent and the first place to look. So I moved all the "skiffle musicians" to the new category "skiffle", and would be glad to see it further populated. The term "skiffle" is absolutely notable, the fashion was crucial in the development of British pop and blues, though the actual music differs little from jook bands of the 30s. There certainly might be subcategories, though there's no need on the strength of the amount of the material there now - which, by the way, is currently no more and no less than the contents of "musicians". I confess I do not understand exactly what is being proposed. Might be worth categorising some of the earlier American material as "roots of skiffle"? The move was done exactly to get a good main article and leave room for more, "non-musician", material. I do not think it makes sense to have "skiffle" a subcat of "skiffle musicians! Redheylin (talk) 01:16, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Occuli, I do take your point that it would be good for "musicians by genre" to point to a "musicians" subcat, but it seems a pointless point unless there's more material in the main category. And it would be great if that happened, but such was not the case when I did the job. I hope you all are rallying round and searching for pages enough to make the thing WORTH subdividing!!Redheylin (talk) 01:22, 28 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:Haqeeba[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: still wasn't tagged, but deleting as empty category. Without prejudice towards a future re-creation. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:46, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Haqeeba Had a deleted main page, was underpopulated. Pages moved to parent category. Category void and redundant. Redheylin (talk) 20:21, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1) Category is not tagged for deletion. 2) If the category remains empty for 4 days it can be speedily deleted without going through CFD. Otto4711 (talk) 21:40, 26 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:Port Vale F.C. seasons[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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:44, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete This category has only one article in it, the which is already categorised in the parent category. – Pee Jay 16:13, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. Lugnuts (talk) 18:19, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. (In fact the single article is already in both parent categories of Category:Port Vale F.C. seasons.) Occuli (talk) 18:28, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Giant Snowman 14:54, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Giant Snowman 14:55, 28 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.

Dundee United F.C. seasons[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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:43, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest upmerging Category:Dundee United F.C. seasons (1980s) to Category:Dundee United F.C. seasons

Suggest upmerging Category:Dundee United F.C. seasons (1990s) to Category:Dundee United F.C. seasons

Suggest upmerging Category:Dundee United F.C. seasons (2000s) to Category:Dundee United F.C. seasons

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge - These subcategories serve no purpose other than to divide a larger category into smaller ones. The number of articles in a category is not a good reason to split it. – Pee Jay 13:11, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. – Pee Jay 13:14, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - particularly as the articles will be in chronological order and easily browsed when upmerged (and no other clubs in Category:Scottish football club seasons or Category:English football club seasons are split). Occuli (talk) 13:14, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge division of category in this way seems to serve no purpose -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:54, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Giant Snowman 14:55, 28 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.

National Register of Historic Places[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) 02:42, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:National Register of Historic Places in Bardstown to Category:National Register of Historic Places in Bardstown, Kentucky

Propose renaming Category:National Register of Historic Places in Louisville to Category:National Register of Historic Places in Louisville, Kentucky

Propose renaming Category:National Register of Historic Places in Florida by County to Category:National Register of Historic Places in Florida by county

Nominator's rationale: Adding state names to the first two, and recapitalizing the third.--Mike Selinker (talk) 18:20, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

rename per nom. The goal of an enclopedia is not make people guess, guess, guess. It is to provide information for people looking for information they do not know. This and the other renames clarify the situation. Hmains (talk) 16:57, 29 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.

Cities in fiction[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. This and other similar renames on this date are the tail end of a long line of similar renames that have been recently approved, so it would be a bit strange to stop these now from conforming with the many others that have already gone through. Essentially I'm taking into account the numerous comments in the other recent similar discussions, of which there are many. Also see my closing comments in a 2009 MAR 29 CfD, which I could reproduce here but won't—and rather will just say that they may be incorporated here as part of the close rationale. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:28, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Boston in fiction to Category:Boston, Massachusetts in fiction

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

Propose renaming Category:Los Angeles in fiction to Category:Los Angeles, California in fiction

Propose renaming Category:San Francisco in fiction to Category:San Francisco, California in fiction

Propose renaming Category:Pittsburgh novels to Category:Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania in fiction (or Category:Novels set in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania)

Nominator's rationale: Adding state names. The last one is unclear to me. There are no other "(City) novels" categories that I can find. So renaming it more generally makes sense, as does renaming it specifically and making it a subcategory of a new Category:Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania in fiction along with Category:Films set in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania and Category:Television shows set in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.--Mike Selinker (talk) 03:36, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose to match titles of parent articles Boston, Chicago, Los Angeles, Pittsburgh and San Francisco, none of which have states in their titles per the far broader consensus reached (and described in detail) at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names)#United States. Alansohn (talk) 00:24, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. The naming convention clearly states 'Choose category names that are able to stand alone, independent of the way a category is connected to other categories.' Since some of these are ambiguous, it really needs to have the state added to allow it to stand alone. No harm is created by a rename like this unless the contents cover a broader area. Having predictable category names is a highly valued attribute from a style perspective. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:41, 31 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.

Boston[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) 02:40, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Boston-area streetcars to Category:Streetcars in the Boston area

Propose renaming Category:Boston cultural history to Category:Cultural history of Boston, Massachusetts

Nominator's rationale: Two odd ducks here. I think the first one could be "Railway lines in Boston, Massachusetts" for the ones in Boston, but there seems to be a special desire to call them "streetcars"; the only category like it I can find is Category:Street railways in Washington, D.C., which is a subcategory of Category:Streetcars in North America. There are no other "cultural history" city categories that I can find other than Category:New York City cultural history, but I'm not sure what to do with this other than rename it.--Mike Selinker (talk) 03:36, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose to match title of parent article Boston, which does not have state in its title per the far broader consensus reached (and described in detail) at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names)#United States. Alansohn (talk) 02:24, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Massachusetts is needed to disambiguate from the significant original Boston in England. This is not needed for streetcars, because that is an American term. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:23, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Are many people confusing Boston, Lincolnshire and its 35,000 residents with Boston and its 600,000, putting it just out of the top 20 in the United States? As far as I can tell, Boston, Lincolnshire has no categories associated with it and appears unlikely to ever have such categories. When, and if, it ever does, the place in England will have "Boston, Lincolnshire" included to match the title of the parent article. Alansohn (talk) 15:48, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
rename per nom. The goal of an enclopedia is not make people guess, guess, guess. It is to provide information for people looking for information they do not know. This and the other renames clarify the situation. Hmains (talk) 20:22, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. The naming convention clearly states 'Choose category names that are able to stand alone, independent of the way a category is connected to other categories.' Since Boston is ambiguous, it really needs to have the state added to allow it to stand alone. Having predictable category names is a highly valued attribute from a style perspective. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:43, 31 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.

Minneapolis and Saint Paul[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) 02:38, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Houses in Minneapolis to Category:Houses in Minneapolis, Minnesota

Propose renaming Category:Houses in Saint Paul to Category:Houses in Saint Paul, Minnesota

Propose renaming Category:Museums in St. Paul, Minnesota to Category:Museums in Saint Paul, Minnesota

Nominator's rationale: More items missed in the global renames. The last category seems to be the only Saint Paul-exclusive category with the "St." construction. (Though, bafflingly, it's "Minneapolis-St. Paul" when the metro area is named.)--Mike Selinker (talk) 03:36, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Minneapolis / Support Saint Paul to match titles of parent article Minneapolis, which does not have state in its title while Saint Paul, Minnesota does, per the far broader consensus reached (and described in detail) at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names)#United States. Alansohn (talk) 01:45, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
rename per nom. The goal of an enclopedia is not make people guess, guess, guess. It is to provide information for people looking for information they do not know. This and the other renames clarify the situation. Hmains (talk) 20:22, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. The naming convention clearly states 'Choose category names that are able to stand alone, independent of the way a category is connected to other categories.' Since these are ambiguous, it really needs to have the state added to allow it to stand alone. No harm is created by a rename like this unless the contents cover a broader area. Having predictable category names is a highly valued attribute from a style perspective. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:45, 31 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:Albuquerque, NM, images[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) 02:37, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Albuquerque, NM, images to Category:Images of Albuquerque, New Mexico

Nominator's rationale: Spelling out the state name.--Mike Selinker (talk) 03:36, 26 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:Piers in San Diego[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. This and other similar renames on this date are the tail end of a long line of similar renames that have been recently approved, so it would be a bit strange to stop these now from conforming with the many others that have already gone through. Essentially I'm taking into account the numerous comments in the other recent similar discussions, of which there are many. Also see my closing comments in a 2009 MAR 29 CfD, which I could reproduce here but won't—and rather will just say that they may be incorporated here as part of the close rationale. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:27, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Piers in San Diego to Category:Piers in San Diego, California

Nominator's rationale: Could also be upmerged into Category:Piers in California and Category:Buildings and structures in San Diego, California, since it contains only one item. But of course, there are lots more piers in San Diego.--Mike Selinker (talk) 03:36, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose to match title of parent article San Diego, which does not have state in its title per the far broader consensus reached (and described in detail) at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names)#United States. Alansohn (talk) 01:47, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
rename per nom. The goal of an enclopedia is not make people guess, guess, guess. It is to provide information for people looking for information they do not know. This and the other renames clarify the situation. Hmains (talk) 20:23, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
CFD doesn't get to make up its own unique naming rules, but is bound by WP:NC. If NC says that the city's article can be at Place rather than Place, State, and the city's article is thus at Place instead of Place, State, then CFD is locked into that in the related category names. This actually creates less of a "guess, guess, guess" situation than the obverse would, because having categories and articles governed by the same NCs, and thus being able to predict the category name by the article title, is the least guessworky option on the menu. Oppose rename. Bearcat (talk) 17:04, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. The naming convention clearly states 'Choose category names that are able to stand alone, independent of the way a category is connected to other categories.' Since San Diego is ambiguous, it really needs to have the state added to allow it to stand alone. No harm is created by a rename like this unless the contents cover a broader area. Having predictable category names is a highly valued attribute from a style perspective. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:47, 31 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:Municipal parks in Portland, Oregon[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. "Parks" is the current standard name for categories that include "municipal (city) parks". Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:27, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Municipal parks in Portland, Oregon to Category:Parks in Portland, Oregon

Nominator's rationale: Needlessly specific.--Mike Selinker (talk) 03:36, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support to use more reasonable title. Alansohn (talk) 01:47, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
comment This is a subcat of Category:Municipal parks in Oregon. There is also a Category:Municipal parks in California but all its subcats lose the term 'Municipal'. It basically means parks owned by a city. Can there be state or national parks within a city's boundaries? Can there be privately owned parks in a city? Hmains (talk) 02:25, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd say the answer to those questions is yes, but it's still needlessly specific. The "Parks" category tree doesn't specify who owns each park.--Mike Selinker (talk) 02:36, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Did you see the many 'county parks', 'state parks' and 'national parks' catgeories in the United States? Each is ownership. Hmains (talk) 20:17, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Sorry, I meant specifically the Category:Parks by city tree.--Mike Selinker (talk) 19:28, 29 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.

Dallas and Houston[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/delete as nominated. This and other similar renames on this date are the tail end of a long line of similar renames that have been recently approved, so it would be a bit strange to stop these now from conforming with the many others that have already gone through. Essentially I'm taking into account the numerous comments in the other recent similar discussions, of which there are many. Also see my closing comments in a 2009 MAR 29 CfD, which I could reproduce here but won't—and rather will just say that they may be incorporated here as part of the close rationale. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:25, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Landmarks in Dallas to Category:Landmarks in Dallas, Texas

Propose renaming Category:National Register of Historic Places in Houston to Category:National Register of Historic Places in Houston, Texas

Propose renaming Category:Houston public education to Category:Public education in Houston, Texas

Propose renaming Category:Houston, Texas musical groups to Category:Musical groups from Houston, Texas

Propose renaming Category:Austin, Texas musical groups to Category:Musical groups from Austin, Texas

Propose deleting Category:Houston hip hop albums

Nominator's rationale: More categories missed in previous nominations that added states. "Houston hip hop" doesn't seem to be a meaningful term (it's just Dirty south as far as I can tell), and I recommend not categorizing albums by US city.--Mike Selinker (talk) 03:36, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose to match titles of parent articles Dallas and Houston, neither of which have states in their titles per the far broader consensus reached (and described in detail) at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names)#United States. I have no objection to the Austin, Texas rename, which does not meet the criteria (and is not mentioned in the title of this CfD). Alansohn (talk) 00:27, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
rename per nom. The goal of an enclopedia is not make people guess, guess, guess. It is to provide information for people looking for information they do not know. This and the other renames clarify the situation. Hmains (talk) 20:23, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
CFD doesn't get to make up its own unique naming rules, but is bound by WP:NC. If NC says that the city's article can be at Place rather than Place, State, and the city's article is thus at Place instead of Place, State, then CFD is locked into that in the related category names. This actually creates less of a "guess, guess, guess" situation than the obverse would, because having categories and articles governed by the same NCs, and thus being able to predict the category name by the article title, is the least guessworky option on the menu. Oppose rename. Bearcat (talk) 17:04, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. The naming convention clearly states 'Choose category names that are able to stand alone, independent of the way a category is connected to other categories.' Since these are ambiguous, it really needs to have the state added to allow it to stand alone. No harm is created by a rename like this unless the contents cover a broader area. Having predictable category names is a highly valued attribute from a style perspective. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:50, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category name matches article title = predictable. Category name does not match article title = not predictable. Ambiguity of "Dallas" and "Houston" in these contexts = zero. Bearcat (talk) 09:16, 31 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.

Los Angeles[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 as amended. This and other similar renames on this date are the tail end of a long line of similar renames that have been recently approved, so it would be a bit strange to stop these now from conforming with the many others that have already gone through. Essentially I'm taking into account the numerous comments in the other recent similar discussions, of which there are many. Also see my closing comments in a 2009 MAR 29 CfD, which I could reproduce here but won't—and rather will just say that they may be incorporated here as part of the close rationale. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:15, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Defunct restaurants of Los Angeles to ~~Category:Defunct restaurants of Los Angeles, California~~Category:Defunct restaurants of the Greater Los Angeles Area

Propose renaming Category:Los Angeles art to ~~Category:Art in Los Angeles, California~~Category:Art in the Greater Los Angeles Area

Propose renaming Category:Los Angeles soccer teams to ~~Category:Soccer teams in Los Angeles, California~~Category:Soccer teams in the Greater Los Angeles Area

Propose renaming Category:Los Angeles area museums to Category:Museums in the Greater Los Angeles Area

Propose renaming Category:Airports in Greater Los Angeles to Category:Airports in the Greater Los Angeles Area

Propose merging Category:Los Angeles area street gangs to Category:Gangs in Los Angeles, California

Nominator's rationale: More categories missed in previous nominations that added states. The art one was proposed as "Arts in Los Angeles, California" in the previous Culture nomination, so maybe "Art" will be more palatable. The gangs are all LA-based except the Longos, which can go into Category:Gangs in California. (And yes, I know that I nominated the airports one on March 4, but I did it incorrectly, per the parent Category:Greater Los Angeles Area.)--Mike Selinker (talk) 03:36, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose to match titles of parent article Los Angeles, which does not have state in its title per the far broader consensus reached (and described in detail) at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names)#United States. Alansohn (talk) 00:29, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
rename per nom. The goal of an enclopedia is not make people guess, guess, guess. It is to provide information for people looking for information they do not know. This and the other renames clarify the situation. Hmains (talk) 20:24, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
CFD doesn't get to make up its own unique naming rules, but is bound by WP:NC. If NC says that the city's article can be at Place rather than Place, State, and the city's article is thus at Place instead of Place, State, then CFD is locked into that in the related category names. This actually creates less of a "guess, guess, guess" situation than the obverse would, because having categories and articles governed by the same NCs, and thus being able to predict the category name by the article title, is the least guessworky option on the menu. Oppose rename. Bearcat (talk) 17:04, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all to a form that uses 'Greater Los Angeles Area' unless it can be shown that these categories do not include articles outside of the city. This is an effective way to provide an accurate name that does not need a discussion of using the state or not. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:54, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, you're right about this one. The gangs one should just be LA as mentioned above, but the others should be Greater LA. I've amended the nomination.--Mike Selinker (talk) 18:36, 31 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.

San Francisco[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/merge as nominated. This and other similar renames on this date are the tail end of a long line of similar renames that have been recently approved, so it would be a bit strange to stop these now from conforming with the many others that have already gone through. Essentially I'm taking into account the numerous comments in the other recent similar discussions, of which there are many. Also see my closing comments in a 2009 MAR 29 CfD, which I could reproduce here but won't—and rather will just say that they may be incorporated here as part of the close rationale. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:14, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:LGBT history in San Francisco to Category:LGBT history in San Francisco, California

Propose renaming Category:Parks in San Francisco to Category:Parks in San Francisco, California

Propose merging Category:San Francisco Bay Area hip hop groups to Category:West Coast hip hop groups and either Category:Musical groups from San Francisco, California or Category:Musical groups from Oakland, California (manual split)

Propose renaming Category:San Francisco broadcasters to Category:San Francisco, California radio personalities and Category:San Francisco, California television personalities (manual split)

Nominator's rationale: More categories missed in previous nominations that added states. Jumping off from the previous Culture nomination, I don't see any real unique style to hip hop from the Bay Area; it doesn't seem like Category:Detroit hip hop, which developed a rap battle style. The broadcasters category appears to be the only one of its kind, so splitting into radio and TV makes sense to me. Other approaches welcome.--Mike Selinker (talk) 03:36, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose to match titles of parent article San Francisco, which does not have state in its title per the far broader consensus reached (and described in detail) at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names)#United States. Alansohn (talk) 00:31, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
rename per nom. The goal of an enclopedia is not make people guess, guess, guess. It is to provide information for people looking for information they do not know. This and the other renames clarify the situation. Hmains (talk) 20:24, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
CFD doesn't get to make up its own unique naming rules, but is bound by WP:NC. If NC says that the city's article can be at Place rather than Place, State, and the city's article is thus at Place instead of Place, State, then CFD is locked into that in the related category names. This actually creates less of a "guess, guess, guess" situation than the obverse would, because having categories and articles governed by the same NCs, and thus being able to predict the category name by the article title, is the least guessworky option on the menu. Oppose rename. Bearcat (talk) 17:04, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. The naming convention clearly states 'Choose category names that are able to stand alone, independent of the way a category is connected to other categories.' Since these are ambiguous, it really needs to have the state added to allow it to stand alone. No harm is created by a rename like this unless the contents cover a broader area in which case using the Bay area category structure would be the better choice. Having predictable category names is a highly valued attribute from a style perspective. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:57, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category name matches article title = predictable. Category name does not match article title = not predictable. Ambiguity of "San Francisco" in these contexts = zero. Bearcat (talk) 09:16, 31 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.

St. Louis[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) 02:33, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Gangs in St Louis to Category:Gangs in St. Louis, Missouri

Propose renaming Category:Parks in St. Louis to Category:Parks in St. Louis, Missouri

Nominator's rationale: More categories missed in previous nominations that added states. I left Category:St. Louis blues musicians alone, since "St. Louis blues" is a genre.--Mike Selinker (talk) 03:36, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support to match title of parent article St. Louis, Missouri, which does have state in its title per the consensus reached (and described in detail) at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names)#United States. Alansohn (talk) 01:40, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
rename per nom. The goal of an enclopedia is not make people guess, guess, guess. It is to provide information for people looking for information they do not know. This and the other renames clarify the situation. Hmains (talk) 20:25, 27 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.

Seattle[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. This and other similar renames on this date are the tail end of a long line of similar renames that have been recently approved, so it would be a bit strange to stop these now from conforming with the many others that have already gone through. Essentially I'm taking into account the numerous comments in the other recent similar discussions, of which there are many. Also see my closing comments in a 2009 MAR 29 CfD, which I could reproduce here but won't—and rather will just say that they may be incorporated here as part of the close rationale. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:13, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Shopping malls in Seattle to Category:Shopping malls in Seattle, Washington

Propose renaming Category:National Register of Historic Places in Seattle to Category:National Register of Historic Places in Seattle, Washington

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

Nominator's rationale: More categories missed in previous nominations that added states.--Mike Selinker (talk) 03:36, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose to match titles of parent article Seattle, which does not have state in its title per the far broader consensus reached (and described in detail) at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names)#United States. Alansohn (talk) 00:31, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
rename per nom. The goal of an enclopedia is not make people guess, guess, guess. It is to provide information for people looking for information they do not know. This and the other renames clarify the situation. Hmains (talk) 20:26, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
CFD doesn't get to make up its own unique naming rules, but is bound by WP:NC. If NC says that the city's article can be at Seattle, and the city's article is thus at Seattle, then CFD is locked into that in Seattle-related category names. This actually creates less of a "guess, guess, guess" situation than the obverse would, because having categories and articles governed by the same NCs, and thus being able to reliably predict the category name by the article title, is the least guessworky option on the menu. Oppose rename. Bearcat (talk) 17:02, 30 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.

Philadelphia[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. This and other similar renames on this date are the tail end of a long line of similar renames that have been recently approved, so it would be a bit strange to stop these now from conforming with the many others that have already gone through. Essentially I'm taking into account the numerous comments in the other recent similar discussions, of which there are many. Also see my closing comments in a 2009 MAR 29 CfD, which I could reproduce here but won't—and rather will just say that they may be incorporated here as part of the close rationale. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:13, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Parks and squares in Philadelphia to Category:Parks in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

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

Propose renaming Category:Defunct universities and colleges in Philadelphia to Category:Defunct universities and colleges in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

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

Propose renaming Category:Geography of Philadelphia to Category:Geography of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

Propose renaming Category:Philadelphia in the American Revolution to Category:Philadelphia, Pennsylvania in the American Revolution

Propose renaming Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in Philadelphia to Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

Nominator's rationale: More categories missed in previous nominations that added states. The squares in the "Parks and squares" category are all parks as well.--Mike Selinker (talk) 03:36, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose to match titles of parent article Philadelphia, which does not have state in its title per the far broader consensus reached (and described in detail) at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names)#United States. Alansohn (talk) 00:32, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
rename per nom. The goal of an enclopedia is not make people guess, guess, guess. It is to provide information for people looking for information they do not know. This and the other renames clarify the situation. Hmains (talk) 20:26, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
CFD doesn't get to make up its own unique naming rules, but is bound by WP:NC. If NC says that the city's article can be at Philadelphia, and the city's article is thus at Philadelphia, then CFD is locked into that in Philadelphia-related category names. This actually creates less of a "guess, guess, guess" situation than the obverse would, because having categories and articles governed by the same NCs, and thus being able to predict the category name by the article title, is the least guessworky option on the menu. Oppose rename. Bearcat (talk) 17:03, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. The naming convention clearly states 'Choose category names that are able to stand alone, independent of the way a category is connected to other categories.' Since these are ambiguous, it really needs to have the state added to allow it to stand alone. No harm is created by a rename like this unless the contents cover a broader area. Having predictable category names is a highly valued attribute from a style perspective. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:00, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category name matches article title = predictable. Category name does not match article title = not predictable. Ambiguity of "Philadelphia" = zero. Bearcat (talk) 09:16, 31 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.

Detroit[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. This and other similar renames on this date are the tail end of a long line of similar renames that have been recently approved, so it would be a bit strange to stop these now from conforming with the many others that have already gone through. Essentially I'm taking into account the numerous comments in the other recent similar discussions, of which there are many. Also see my closing comments in a 2009 MAR 29 CfD, which I could reproduce here but won't—and rather will just say that they may be incorporated here as part of the close rationale. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:12, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Parks in Detroit to Category:Parks in Detroit, Michigan

Propose renaming Category:Detroit rappers to Category:Rappers from Detroit, Michigan

Nominator's rationale: More categories missed in previous nominations that added states. I decided to leave Category:Detroit hip hop, Category:Detroit hip hop groups, and Category:Detroit blues musicians alone, since those seem to be genres rather than place descriptions.--Mike Selinker (talk) 03:36, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support - it would be nice to be able to create some sort of template which added my 'support' comment automatically to these routine Selinker 'city, state' noms. Is there far to go? Occuli (talk) 21:56, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, Occuli, this is about it. The only holdovers are Las Vegas (probably next week), New York City (not clear if I'm doing that one), and the Media categories, which are awaiting a close of the March 18 nomination before the rest of that type are posted. I've checked all of the other top 50 US cities by population, and believe I have rooted out all of their subcategories that lack state names. There are probably a few stragglers hiding in nooks and crannies, which I'm sure will be discovered in due time. But I'm mostly ready to fade into the sunset again.--Mike Selinker (talk) 23:17, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose to match titles of parent article Detroit, which does not have state in its title per the far broader consensus reached (and described in detail) at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names)#United States. Alansohn (talk) 00:34, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
rename per nom. The goal of an enclopedia is not make people guess, guess, guess. It is to provide information for people looking for information they do not know. This and the other renames clarify the situation. Hmains (talk) 20:26, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
CFD doesn't get to make up its own unique naming rules, but is bound by WP:NC. If NC says that the city's article can be at Place rather than Place, State, and the city's article is thus at Place instead of Place, State, then CFD is locked into that in the related category names. This actually creates less of a "guess, guess, guess" situation than the obverse would, because having categories and articles governed by the same NCs, and thus being able to predict the category name by the article title, is the least guessworky option on the menu. Oppose rename. Bearcat (talk) 17:06, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. The naming convention clearly states 'Choose category names that are able to stand alone, independent of the way a category is connected to other categories.' Since these are ambiguous, it really needs to have the state added to allow it to stand alone. No harm is created by a rename like this unless the contents cover a broader area. Having predictable category names is a highly valued attribute from a style perspective. Consider this comment for the following similar nominations. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:02, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category name matches article title = predictable. Category name does not match article title = not predictable. Ambiguity of "Detroit" = zero. Bearcat (talk) 09:16, 31 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.

Atlanta[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. This and other similar renames on this date are the tail end of a long line of similar renames that have been recently approved, so it would be a bit strange to stop these now from conforming with the many others that have already gone through. Essentially I'm taking into account the numerous comments in the other recent similar discussions, of which there are many. Also see my closing comments in a 2009 MAR 29 CfD, which I could reproduce here but won't—and rather will just say that they may be incorporated here as part of the close rationale. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:35, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Atlanta ferries to Category:Ferries of Atlanta, Georgia

Propose renaming Category:Atlanta roads to Category:Roads in Atlanta, Georgia

Propose renaming Category:Atlanta railroads to Category:Railway lines in Atlanta, Georgia

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

Propose renaming Category:Atlanta musicians to Category:Musicians from Atlanta, Georgia

Propose renaming Category:Atlanta television personalities to Category:Atlanta, Georgia television personalities

Propose renaming Category:Atlanta footballers to Category:CA Atlanta footballers

Propose renaming Category:Atlanta managers to Category:CA Atlanta managers

Nominator's rationale: More categories missed in previous nominations that added states. The last two are about the Club Atlético Atlanta football club in Argentina, which has the parent Category:CA Atlanta.--Mike Selinker (talk) 03:36, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose to match titles of parent article Atlanta, which does not have state in its title per the far broader consensus reached (and described in detail) at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names)#United States. Alansohn (talk) 00:34, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
rename per nom. The goal of an enclopedia is not make people guess, guess, guess. It is to provide information for people looking for information they do not know. This and the other renames clarify the situation. Hmains (talk) 20:27, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
CFD doesn't get to make up its own unique naming rules, but is bound by WP:NC. If NC says that the city's article can be at Place rather than Place, State, and the city's article is thus at Place instead of Place, State, then CFD is locked into that in the related category names. This actually creates less of a "guess, guess, guess" situation than the obverse would, because having categories and articles governed by the same NCs, and thus being able to predict the category name by the article title, is the least guessworky option on the menu. Oppose rename. Bearcat (talk) 17:06, 30 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.

Baltimore[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/merge as nominated. This and other similar renames on this date are the tail end of a long line of similar renames that have been recently approved, so it would be a bit strange to stop these now from conforming with the many others that have already gone through. Essentially I'm taking into account the numerous comments in the other recent similar discussions, of which there are many. Also see my closing comments in a 2009 MAR 29 CfD, which I could reproduce here but won't—and rather will just say that they may be incorporated here as part of the close rationale. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:35, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Baltimore musical groups to Category:Musical groups from Baltimore, Maryland

Propose renaming Category:Public schools in Baltimore to Category:Public schools in Baltimore, Maryland

Propose renaming Category:Government Buildings in Baltimore to Category:Government buildings in Baltimore, Maryland

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

Propose upmerging Category:Unnumbered Baltimore area streets and roads to Category:Roads in Baltimore County, Maryland

Nominator's rationale: More categories missed in previous nominations that added states. The last one contains one road in Baltimore County, and is already in Category:Roads in Baltimore County, Maryland.--Mike Selinker (talk) 03:36, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As for Category:Unnumbered Baltimore area streets and roads, per creator's request, it should be merged. I initially created this category myself before there was a naming convention for categories that is now in place.

As for the others, I oppose renaming. In most other countries, large cities are named by themselves, provided no other large cities bare their names, and the title is not associated with another common use. Sebwite (talk) 15:20, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose to match titles of parent article Baltimore, which does not have state in its title per the far broader consensus reached (and described in detail) at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names)#United States. No opposition to upmerge. Alansohn (talk) 00:36, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
rename per nom. The goal of an enclopedia is not make people guess, guess, guess. It is to provide information for people looking for information they do not know. This and the other renames clarify the situation. Hmains (talk) 20:28, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
CFD doesn't get to make up its own unique naming rules, but is bound by WP:NC. If NC says that the city's article can be at Place rather than Place, State, and the city's article is thus at Place instead of Place, State, then CFD is locked into that in the related category names. This actually creates less of a "guess, guess, guess" situation than the obverse would, because having categories and articles governed by the same NCs, and thus being able to predict the category name by the article title, is the least guessworky option on the menu. Oppose rename. Bearcat (talk) 17:06, 30 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.

Architects[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 Category:Oregon architects and Category:Tucson artists as nominated. Delete city architects and upmerge contents to Category:American architects and Category:People from (City, State). Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:31, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Oregon architects to Category:Architects from Oregon

Propose renaming Category:Architects in Omaha, Nebraska to Category:Architects from Omaha, Nebraska

Propose renaming Category:Architects based in Baltimore, Maryland to Category:Architects from Baltimore, Maryland

Propose renaming Category:Architects from Cincinnati to Category:Architects from Cincinnati, Ohio

Propose renaming Category:Tucson architects to Category:Architects from Tucson, Arizona

Propose renaming Category:Tucson artists to Category:Artists from Tucson, Arizona

Nominator's rationale: General cleanup, and adding state name where needed. These seem to be the only US architect categories. The artist category was missed in a previous rename of several such categories.--Mike Selinker (talk) 03:36, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I concur that standardizing the categories is appropropriate. The reason I titled the category I createdCategory:Architects based in Baltimore, Maryland is because not all the individuals listed were originally FROM Baltimore. Godefroy, for instance, was from France, but he came to Baltimore and that is where his practice was based for some years. That is why I chose to use the word BASED versus FROM. Perhaps splitting hairs, but I thought it was an important distinction.--Pubdog (talk) 09:57, 26 March 2009 (UTC)--Pubdog (talk) 09:57, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pubdog makes a good point with respect to categories for architects. If we're going to have categories for architects by city, I think we should seriously consider renaming all of them using "based in" instead of "from" -- just as we do for many other things (companies, organizationas, etc.). Cgingold (talk) 12:20, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think "from" can mean "currently from" as well as "originally from." But "based in" is fine with me too.--Mike Selinker (talk) 14:10, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose for Cincinnati / Rename Baltimore, Maryland to Baltimore / Support others to match titles of parent article Cincinnati and Baltimore, which does not have state in its title per the far broader consensus reached (and described in detail) at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names)#United States. Alansohn (talk) 02:26, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Oregon only; delete the others. We most certainly don't need categories for architects grouped by individual city, which are pure WP:OCAT. Bearcat (talk) 17:31, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, or if no consensus to delete, rename per nom (per my explanation below). --Kbdank71 13:57, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If we don't want architects categorized by city (and I don't particularly care), then we should upmerge to Category:American architects and Category:People from (City, State). There are several more artist by city categories, so we should still rename that one.--Mike Selinker (talk) 14:45, 1 April 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.

Cincinnati[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: Mixed rename/upmerge per Mike Selinker's concluding suggestions. I'll do my best to prune/clean-up after these changes but it may need further attention. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:45, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Companies established in Cincinnati to Category:Companies established in Cincinnati, Ohio

Propose renaming Category:Cincinnati television personalities to Category:Cincinnati, Ohio television personalities

Propose renaming Category:Cincinnati in the American Civil War to Category:Cincinnati, Ohio in the American Civil War

Propose renaming Category:Cincinnati military history to Category:Military history of Cincinnati, Ohio

Propose renaming Category:Cincinnati civil rights activists to Category:Civil rights activists from Cincinnati, Ohio

Propose renaming Category:Abolitionists from Cincinnati to Category:Abolitionists from Cincinnati, Ohio

Propose renaming Category:Journalists from Cincinnati to Category:Journalists from Cincinnati, Ohio

Propose merging Category:Business in Cincinnati to Category:Office buildings in Cincinnati, Ohio

Nominator's rationale: Adding state name, and suggesting a merge of the "Business" category since all the articles are of buildings. Some of these seem to be overcategorization; there's no tree of abolitionists or civil rights activists by US city, for example. So deletion is OK with me in some cases.--Mike Selinker (talk) 03:36, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge all for which no Foo by city category structure exists. Rename all for which a structure does exist. What is it with Cincinnati? Seems like every couple of months we have another cluster of new categories for this city that we don't have for any other city in the country or world. It's almost rising to the level of pointedness. Otto4711 (talk) 11:20, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- All of these actually date from August 2007, created by the same individual. I think it's just taken some time for them to trickle to CFD. Postdlf (talk) 16:44, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - See Wikipedia:WikiProject Cincinnati/Categories, btw. Postdlf (talk) 18:49, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - I have updated this.--Mike Selinker (talk) 19:57, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge all per Otto4711; the rename is appropriate if any are kept. Postdlf (talk) 16:44, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose to match titles of parent article Cincinnati, which does not have state in its title per the far broader consensus reached (and described in detail) at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names)#United States. Alansohn (talk) 00:36, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
CFD doesn't get to make up its own unique naming rules, but is bound by WP:NC. If NC says that the city's article can be at Place rather than Place, State, and the city's article is thus at Place instead of Place, State, then CFD is locked into that in the related category names. This actually creates less of a "guess, guess, guess" situation than the obverse would, because having categories and articles governed by the same NCs, and thus being able to predict the category name by the article title, is the least guessworky option on the menu. Delete occupational subcategories and any other subcategory whose parent isn't otherwise subcatted by individual city, and oppose rename on the others. Bearcat (talk) 17:07, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge/rename per otto. WP:NC, which yes, is policy, has this to say about categories: "See: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories)." And naturally, Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories) is a guideline which allows exceptions. "When creating an article one should ... create a category of the same or similar name on the same topic" So no, CFD is not locked into that. And even if you were to remove "or similar", I don't see how Cincinnati is the same name as Category:Companies established in Cincinnati. No, there are a few more words in the category title. If you want the article Cincinnati to match the category Category:Companies established in Cincinnati, then we'd have to merge Category:Companies established in Cincinnati into Category:Cincinnati? Whoops, it doesn't exist. But Category:Cincinnati, Ohio does. Ok, then, go with what Otto said. --Kbdank71 13:54, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If we're upmerging the ones without similar categories, then I would say the right targets are:

Propose renaming Category:Companies established in Cincinnati to Category:Defunct companies based in Cincinnati, Ohio (and prune the non-defunct ones)

Propose renaming Category:Cincinnati television personalities to Category:Cincinnati, Ohio television personalities

Propose renaming Category:Cincinnati in the American Civil War to Category:Cincinnati, Ohio in the American Civil War

Propose upmerging Category:Cincinnati military history to Category:History of Cincinnati, Ohio

Propose upmerging Category:Cincinnati civil rights activists to Category:American civil rights activists and Category:People from Cincinnati, Ohio

Propose upmerging Category:Abolitionists from Cincinnati to Category:American abolitionists and Category:People from Cincinnati, Ohio

Propose upmerging Category:Journalists from Cincinnati to Category:American journalists and Category:People from Cincinnati, Ohio

Propose merging Category:Business in Cincinnati to Category:Office buildings in Cincinnati, Ohio

That's what I would do, anyway.--Mike Selinker (talk) 15:00, 1 April 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:Birds of Islamabad[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. Technically, a "squazillion" is a "gazillion" squared, hence the name. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:30, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete Duplicated information from Birds of Islamabad but without recourse to citations to prove existence in the geographic region. Shyamal (talk) 03:07, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is too narrow a category in any event. Do we even have any other categories for biota of individual cities? I hope not. Cgingold (talk) 03:32, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. prashanthns (talk) 07:50, 26 March 2009 (UTC) We DOdon't have categories for biota of other cities. This one needs to be deleted for the duplication of info.[reply]
Delete, overcategorization. By country is usually too narrow for biota; by city is just ridiculous. Postdlf (talk) 16:46, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete birds by city would be a first. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:14, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete, before every piece of flora and fauna sprouts squazillions of city categories. ---BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:46, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the proper term is gazillions. Cgingold (talk) 17:46, 31 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:Evanescence former 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: merge. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:28, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Evanescence former members to Category:Evanescence members

Nominator's rationale: All other subcategories of Category:Musicians by band combine present and former members into one category.--Mike Selinker (talk) 01:52, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge – true. Occuli (talk) 02:03, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Lugnuts (talk) 07:54, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. This sort of thing is normally dealt with in a navbox template for the band. Notified creator with {{subst:cfd-notify}} Cgingold (talk) 13:15, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge no current categories, no former ones, for bands. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:51, 26 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.