Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 October 13

< October 12	October 14 >

October 13[edit]

Relisting of U2 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: Delete:

--Xdamr^talk 11:08, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: This is a procedural relisting of this CfD, based on the outcome of this DRV. The original justification for deletion was overcategorization. As this is a procedural nomination, I am neutral. IronGargoyle (talk) 23:37, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete "The Best of" categories as non-defining; we should never categorize songs by greatest hits compilations. The Unforgettable Fire album category holds articles on the songs actually released on that album originally, and so is a different issue; no opinion yet until I see some discussion. Postdlf (talk) 23:53, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "Best of's" per Postdlf. I am neutral on the third category, though I feel it is superceeded by {{The Unforgettable Fire Track Listing}}, as are other U2 albums by similar templates. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 01:01, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Category:The Unforgettable Fire The album a song is originally released on is a strong defining characteristic. Alansohn (talk) 02:04, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As I said last time, no band on Wikipedia has so many song articles that it needs to have those songs broken up by albums. Not even this one.--Mike Selinker (talk) 15:31, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This one doesn't break up Category:U2 songs; it exists only as a subcategory of Category:U2 albums. Postdlf (talk) 15:34, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which is wrong - songs are not albums and it should definitely be a subcat of Category:U2 songs and not a subcat of the albums. Occuli (talk) 21:04, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Only if it were titled Category:The Unforgettable Fire songs, in which case it wouldn't properly contain the album's own article. Topical categories, such as this one for the album, which are named after a particular thing and contain subtopics of that thing, are proper members of series categories, such as Category:U2 albums, which are clearly named to group multiples of the same kind of thing. No one would understand Category:The Unforgettable Fire to further contain more albums as it is just about one album, and contains articles related to that album. Just as Category:United States is clearly a member of Category:Northern American countries, but naturally contains U.S.-related articles and categories that are not countries. None of which is an endorsement of this particular category existing (I don't see a need for it or a reason to spend time deleting it), but I had to respond to your misconceptualization of category hierarchies. Postdlf (talk) 14:48, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all: the "best of"s per Postdlf and the UFF one per Mike Selinker. Adding an album category to songs is of little benefit—really will just result in an extra layer of categorization, and the album is always prominently linked to on the article page, so there is little added benefit. Now {{The Unforgettable Fire Track Listing}} essentially does the job, so there's no need to keep this category, especially as it is apparently unique within WP. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:05, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Categorizing songs this way simply isn't necessary or desirable; the album's article and {{The Unforgettable Fire Track Listing}} (oh, dear gawd) already serve to link the articles appropriately. Bearcat (talk) 06:32, 15 October 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:Police history[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:Police history to Category:Law enforcement history. --Xdamr^talk 11:13, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Police history to Category:History by law enforcement agency

Nominator's rationale: Rename. I created this in haste without realizing that the higher-level cat is Category:Law enforcement not "Polce". New name reflects intended scope. --Kevlar (talk • contribs) 22:51, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Why not Category:Law enforcement history? Vegaswikian (talk) 23:16, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Law enforcement history as suggested above to reflect title of parent category. Alansohn (talk) 02:05, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Law enforment history would be OK, but I'm not sure the scope of such a category would be as clear. If there's one thing WP doesn't need it is more muddy categories. The proposed named would have much clearer boundries. --Kevlar (talk • contribs) 04:13, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Ideally we should have a Category:Law enforcement history, but Category:History by law enforcement agency suits the contents better, & would be a sub-cat of it. Rename with consensus either way. Johnbod (talk) 15:21, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It's a little awkward. Category:Law enforcement history by agency? Postdlf (talk) 15:27, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's better. Johnbod (talk) 15:41, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Law enforcement history. It's not "by [law enforcement] agency," as for example History of law enforcement in the United Kingdom is not an "agency" and most "X by Y" categories are subcategory navigational aids. In the future, I could see Category:Histories of law enforcement agencies created, in the style of Category:Histories of cities in the United States, but there are not enough entries yet. In any event, a review of Category:History by topic finds that by and large, the history of particular examples of subjects coexist just fine with articles about the general history of the subject; they are intermingled in almost every branch and seem not to have produced mass confusion. It is the absence of a general History of law enforcement article that produces the equivocation here, IMHO.-- choster (talk) 05:50, 15 October 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:Characters in Bhagavatam[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) 04:03, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Characters in Bhagavatam to Category:Characters in Bhagavata Purana

Nominator's rationale: Rename, as the category should reflect the name of the article, and what is also the most widely used name for the text: Bhagavata Purana. Priyanath ^talk 17:24, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support Rename to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 20:56, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nominator. Debresser (talk) 21:19, 14 October 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:Florida A&M University alumni[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 iot match main article. --Xdamr^talk 11:21, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Florida A&M University alumni to Category:Florida Agricultural and Mechanical University alumni

Nominator's rationale: Rename. To match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 16:32, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename. To expand abbreviation and match parent article. — ξ ^xplicit 19:49, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question. What about the parent category Category:Florida A&M University and the sister category Category:Florida A&M University faculty, and the related sports ones? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 10:08, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nominator and per guideline to avoid abbreviations. Support renaming all of the above if they would be added to the nomination (or even without that, as far as I am concerned). Notice that the main article Florida Agricultural and Mechanical University is also spelled out.Debresser (talk) 21:19, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Apologies, I did not know that this was in process and have just created the category with the new name for an article I came across, before discovering that this was going on. Hope someone can sort it out.--Jackyd101 (talk) 11:18, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A&M is much more common and should be kept.--TM 03:20, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Main article now matches other A&M universities, therefore, category should be kept in current namespace.--TM 03:37, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Canadian Isles class trawlers[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) 04:02, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Canadian Isles class trawlers to Category:Isles class trawlers of the Royal Canadian Navy

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Current name is ambiguous as to whether the ships were built in Canada or operated by Canada. There were Isles class trawlers built in Canada but operated only by the Royal Navy. Currently the category holds only ships operated by the Royal Canadian Navy. The proposed name mirrors the setup of other multi-navy ship classes, like Category:Flower class corvettes. — Bellhalla (talk) 16:18, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support rename to clarify category content. Alansohn (talk) 16:34, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nominator. Debresser (talk) 21:16, 14 October 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:Bradley Foundation[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. --Xdamr^talk 11:09, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Similar to below. An odd hodgepodge category that included members and donor recipients. Does not appear any of these articles are actually related to the topic. How it is being used is overcategorization. Andrew c ^[talk] 15:16, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see that a few other foundations also have categories that include recipients. See Category:Rockefeller Foundation, Category:Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and Category:Alfred P. Sloan Foundation. Can we find a solution that'd apply to the criteria of all of these in a consistent way? Simply deleting this one category doesn't seem like a good solution. Will Beback talk 21:40, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Excellent point. I hadn't come across those. I think Category:Alfred P. Sloan Foundation is a prime example of how this sort of categorization can work. I don't see any issue with the categorization of articles currently in that category. On the other hand, the Rockefeller Foundation is a mess. It mixes personal with grant recipients with closely related topics. The Gates Foundation is a bit better, because the personnel are separated in their own people category. I don't think it is appropriate to categorize articles based on being grant recipients, and would support removing all such articles from these categories at the very least. I'd like to hear what others think about this.-Andrew c ^[talk] 23:40, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Removing all grant recipients is probably going a step too far. For example, Sloan Digital Sky Survey is a grant recipient but the foundation is the primary supporter and the project is named after the foundation. Category:Sloan Fellows is an entire subcategory of grant recipients. Obviously, neither of those should be removed. I think what's needed is a case by case determination of whether the foundations in question are the primary sources of funding for the categorized topics, or are otherwise closely associated with the foundations. Will Beback talk 23:44, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - I agree 100%. Maybe you missed the part about I think Category:Alfred P. Sloan Foundation is a prime example of how this sort of categorization can work. :P -Andrew c ^[talk] 12:59, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Uncertain Since the grant recipients are likely to be notable, it's reasonable to have categories for them. For smaller foundations, it seems unnecessarily pedantic to have two or more categories, though they may be needed for larger ones. This is small enough to keep as is on grounds of practicality. Agreed, the Rockefeller one needs some work, but that;'s another question. DGG ( talk ) 04:07, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you look at this and honestly tell me you believe categorizing articles by being donor recipients is within the spirit of WP:CAT?-Andrew c ^[talk] 12:58, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

it depends on the degree of relationship and the degree of support. If the support is not substantial, then it might be inappropriate. Looking deeper, this particular one might indeed be a problem DGG ( talk ) 03:23, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unlike the Sloan or Gates categories, none of the articles in this category are notable on account of their relationship with the Bradley Foundation, and most do not even mention a relationship in the text of the article. Speaking generally, it is true that in some cases, a foundation is intimately involved with a project, managing as well as funding it, over a long period of time. But that isn't the case often as not. The Gates Foundation may fund hundreds and hundreds of projects in any given year, and just because the Taylors Falls Public Library received one grant for one project one year does not mean they will see another, that the foundation is closely associated with the library, that one can learn about the library by being linked to other organizations which share its funding source, that it is notable on account of having a famous patron, or really very much else that is worth categorizing for. We wouldn't categorize law firms with their clients, or corporations based on their institutional shareholders, or politicians based on their lobbies. So why would we think it useful to link the Milwaukee Symphony Orchestra, Terry Considine, Citizens for a Sound Economy, Berkman Center for Internet & Society, and American Enterprise Institute together because they received a grant from Bradley?- choster (talk) 03:38, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per choster: being related to the Bradley Foundation is not defining for those included in this category. Because of this, this information is much better dealt with in a list, I would think. This is essentially categorizing organisations based on their financial relationship to another organisation, which is never how consensus has agreed that categories should be structured. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:40, 20 October 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:Democrats for Life of America[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. --Xdamr^talk 11:10, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. This category is a bit of a mess (and was worse last night). I started to clean it up, but encountered resistance, and decided to go to bed. On second thought, I realized that we don't categorize political organizations like this. Imagine what the categorization section of politicians' articles would look like if we did. If we remove all the individuals, we are left with 6 articles, half of which I believe this category has nothing or very little to do with (overcategorization). With the remaining articles, I don't forsee the category being expandable, nor necessary to group the small amount of articles that are related or slightly related to this organization. Andrew c ^[talk] 14:52, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Obviously, as I created it. As Andrew pointed out on my talk, while it is not common to create these kind of categories for sub-party factions and inter-party political movements, there is Category:National Rifle Association members and I don't think it would be problematic for there to be (e.g.) Category:Congressional Black Caucus. In point of fact, some of these politicians are primarily notable for being pro-life Democrats. His argument about what specifically belongs in the category is a completely valid one, but secondary to the discussion of deletion per se. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:34, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Being supported by Democrats for Life of America isn't an "essential, 'defining' features of article subjects," as required by Wikipedia:Categorization#What categories should be created. For a similar situation, please see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 July 29#Category:ARMPAC recipients.--Blargh29 (talk) 20:10, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom as overcategorization by political position. It makes sense to break down politicians by political party but not by sub-groups within the party which stand for various issues. And frankly the NRA one is overcat too. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:38, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unnecessary category essentially trying to categorize every wikilink in the group's article and everything that links to it. There are really only three articles that belong in this at all; the group's article, its book (which is currently prodded for deletion), and maybe the Act it authored. All others are at best tenuously connected, like Martin Sheen, included because "He also supports the Democrats for Life of America's Pregnant Women Support Act." Which does not even say he supports the group itself, let alone that he is a member. 2004 Democratic National Convention is certainly not a subtopic; the only connection is that the group staged a contemporaneous rally. People need to learn to use "what links here" if they want to see everything that is tangentially related to everything else. Postdlf (talk) 15:33, 17 October 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.

Subcategories of Category:Endemic birds of the Western United States[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/Delete per nom. --Xdamr^talk 11:15, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Endemic birds of the Pacific region U.S. to Category:Endemic birds of the Western United States

Suggest merging Category:Endemic birds of the U.S. Rocky Mountains to Category:Endemic birds of the Western United States

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge, unnecessary subdivisions. The Rocky Mountain category has two articles, the Pacific region category has only one. The Southwestern category is empty and so can just be deleted. Postdlf (talk) 14:20, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support all and thank the nominator for his endeavors in these categories. Debresser (talk) 21:15, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep all As the birds are not the same in each region, the added specificity is valuable. It corresponds moderately well to the actual ecology. The upmerging of these is a mistake. DGG ( talk ) 04:09, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - You might have a point if these categories weren't restricted to the U.S., but the Rocky Mountains extends into Canada, the Pacific Coast obviously includes Canada and Mexico, and the deserts of the Southwestern United States extend into Mexico. So these are not truly regional categories, but rather just underpopulated/unpopulated subdivisions of one class of fauna in one country. Maybe Category:Endemic fauna of the Rocky Mountains might make sense, provided there are more applicable species than just two birds.
  - But one of the included species isn't even restricted to the Rocky Mountains (U.S. or otherwise); its article just says "western United States," and this source says its range extends into Nevada, which is outside the Rockies. So we're left with an empty category and two categories with one article each. Postdlf (talk) 21:20, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom; I'm not convinced that at this point these are established in the category system as meaningful subdivisions. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:43, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and populate -- Fauna and flora do not respect political boundaries, but climatic or geographic regions. Those of the Rocky Mountains are likely to be characteristic of them and not of adjacnet lowlands, similarly the Pacific coast. I know little of the area (being in England), but Western USA is much to broad, why not just USA, or North America? Peterkingiron (talk) 23:18, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- These categories are arbitrarily divided by political boundaries; they are all U.S.-specific even though the regions they purport to describe extend beyond the U.S. And with which other bird species endemic to those regions should these categories be populated? Postdlf (talk) 23:28, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:People from Beograd[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) 04:01, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:People from Beograd to Category:People from Belgrade

Nominator's rationale: Merge. Merge to article name for the city of Belgrade. Beograd redirects there. Tassedethe (talk) 08:56, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support Merge to use category that matches title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 13:16, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nominator. Debresser (talk) 21:14, 14 October 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 Sierra Madre Oriental[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. --Xdamr^talk 11:10, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete, OCAT. As with the separately listed Birds of Sierra Madre Occidental category, we shouldn't categorize fauna by such narrow distributions as a single mountain range in a single country. All but a handful of the included articles do not even mention this mountain range. There is one species that is endemic to this range, but it is already categorized in Category:Endemic birds of Northeastern Mexico, which only has five articles, so there is no basis for subdividing that further. I've already created a list of the categories contents, and all of the included articles are already categorized by other, broader geographic distribution categories, so there is no need to merge anywhere. Postdlf (talk) 05:05, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and similar discussion about Birds of Sierra Madre Occidental — Preceding unsigned comment added by RL0919 (talk • contribs)
Delete per nominator, who is doing a great job on these categories. Debresser (talk) 21:14, 14 October 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:Wars involving Asanteman[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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 11:12, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Wars involving Asanteman to Category:Wars involving the Ashanti Empire

Nominator's rationale: Rename. To match main article Ashanti Empire. Asanteman redirects there. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:26, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support Rename to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 13:15, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nominator. Debresser (talk) 21:13, 14 October 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:Mysore Kingdom[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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 11:08, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Mysore Kingdom to Category:Kingdom of Mysore

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Tweaking category name to match article Kingdom of Mysore. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:04, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support Rename to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 13:16, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nominator. Debresser (talk) 21:11, 14 October 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:Great Wall[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 Category:Great Wall. Rename Category:Great Wall vehicles to Category:Great Wall Motor vehicles. --Xdamr^talk 11:18, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Great Wall to Category:Great Wall Motor

Propose renaming Category:Great Wall vehicles to Category:Great Wall Motor vehicles

Nominator's rationale: Rename. To match main article Great Wall Motor, since "Great Wall" alone is ambiguous. Great Wall redirects to Great Wall of China, with Great Wall (disambiguation) providing the other meanings. Category:Great Wall should probably be a DAB category that points to Category:Great Wall of China and this category. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:40, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support Renames to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 13:14, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nominator. Also suggest upmerging the "vehicles" category. It has only 6 articles, and the parent has only 1. Debresser (talk) 21:12, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Or would we do it like we do the music ones—delete the eponymous one and keep the vehicles (albums) ones as part of an established scheme? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:07, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Category:Great Wall, Rename Category:Great Wall vehicles to Category:Great Wall Motor vehicles per Good Ol’factory. I have been trying to decide about this since the name reads so badly, but it does match the lead article. I think this fixes my concern. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:11, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Clarification (nom). Deleting Category:Great Wall is fine with me. This seems like the most sensible solution. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 20:59, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Delete "Great Wall" i.e. no DAB or redirect, as these make unnecessary work for some one who had to ensure that they do not get populated by accident. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:20, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- A bot automatically unpopulates category redirects. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:24, 22 October 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.