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.
Nominator's rationale:Delete. OC for the single entry. If you look in Category:Hotel chains, the main parent, attempts to this point to split out the contents have centered on the type of hotel chain rather then where the chain operates or is based. Starting to split out these companies by where they are based would not be an aid to navigation. Consider this a test case for the two other related categories. If kept, it should probably be renamed to Category:Hotel chains based in Syria. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:31, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. There are some large multinational hotel chains which are suitably divided by type, but it seems to me that there are also a lot of smaller hotel chains which operate only in one country. It seems to me to make sense to have by-country categories for these (e.g. Whites Hotels), as sub-categories of Category:Companies of name-of-country. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 14:31, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Those are available with a simple search so the category is not really needed. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:23, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Good Ol’factory(talk) 23:31, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 1. They contain only 1-2 articles. 2. There is no such category tree as Hotel chains per country. 3. We only have Category:Hotel chains in the United Kingdom because it has 16 members, and even that I personally do not see as sufficient reason to keep it, in view of the first two arguments. Debresser (talk) 21:55, 21 January 2010 (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.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:No Consensus. --Xdamrtalk 04:25, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the presumptive parent article at HC Milano states that the team folded in the mid-1950s, which seems to be at odds with the bios of the players in the category. Is this team name correct? Alansohn (talk) 01:21, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting. I didn t expect there to be an article (my presumptiveness). According to eurohockey.net, the WP article contents would seem to be correct, but incomplete. There seems to have been two incarnations of a club by this (exact) name, one from the 1920s to the 1956 (although it was named 'Inter Milan' during the 1950s, as the WP article page says) and another from the mid 1980s till 2008. The Milano club now is called Hockey Milano Rossoblu [1]. Eurohockey.net does not list any HC Milano Saima per se and the players listed on the HC Milano Saima players WP category page played for HC Milano according to Eurohockey.net Mayumashu (talk) 03:41, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Good Ol’factory(talk) 23:04, 19 January 2010 (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:WikiProject Anime and manga redirects[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:No Consensus. --Xdamrtalk 04:29, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to oppose rename for now. Maybe it is possible to resolve the issues I mentioned below elsewhere. G.A.Stalk 04:46, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Move proposed as the abovementioned category is used as an "quality assessment" category but does not currently fall within the standard naming scheme, breaking templates such as {{cat class}} and showing as unassessed on WP1.0. The category is only populated by {{WikiProject Anime and manga}}. G.A.Stalk 16:42, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename for consistency. However, this sort of category should be populated only by the categories generated through the template {{WikiProject Anime and manga}}. Once the template is fixed, the Category:WikiProject Anime and manga redirects should depopulate automatically over the course of a few days as the template is purged, at which point the category can be speedily deleted as empty. I suggest asking Happy-melon (talk·contribs) for help in converting the project banner to use {{WPBannerMeta}}, which simplifies and standardises project banners. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 18:39, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to fit the usual assessment scheme, and follow BHG's advice. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 19:00, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The latter was decided against (see below) as the existing template has functionality not currently in {{WPBannerMeta}}, and is maintained by the project (WPBannerMeta was created due to projects not updating their templates (i.e. when C-class was enrolled), yet the Anime banner was updated before C-class was announced (but after it was approved). Its display is also more customizable (In terms of CSS) as WPBannerMeta, uses better wording, etc. G.A.Stalk 13:01, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This rename was not initiated by WP1.0. (However, http://toolserver.org/~enwp10/bin/pindex.fcgi?sec=A currently lists the redirects as incomplete (I know, I could probably file a bug report, but it made more sense if the naming was also consistent). Furthermore, the TOC navigation templates ({{cat class}}, etc) does not offer links to redirect class if the standard naming is not followed (Or is that intended?). I originally considered only populating Category:Redirect-Class anime and manga articles in addition to Category:WikiProject Anime and manga redirects, which should work correctly, but I rathered that there is little use in having a duplicate category. But yes, your mentioning the other WP:ANIME categories makes me wonder if this is rename is really worthwhile... G.A.Stalk 06:25, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
When this was being discussed a while back, the developers of {{WPBannerMeta}} did admit that the naming scheme that WP:ANIME used was actually clearer than the one implemented by the template. In fact, they admitted that they didn't put much though into the naming scheme. However, since they didn't realize their mistake after hundreds of project banners were switched to using that scheme, but they didn't think it was appropriate to adopted it as it would be "makework". The problems with {{cat class}} and other templates can be fixed at the templates by allowing the default categories to be override, just like it was fixed at {{class}}. I'm perfectly willing to let sleeping dogs lie so long as Wikiprojects can use alternative cat schemes for non-assessment categories. —Farix (t | c) 11:03, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I hardly imagined that category names are that controversial... :Shocked: G.A.Stalk 11:47, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
When you attempt to change a perfectly reasonable category name to one that, in many ways, is downright silly all for the sake of "conformity", than you should expect some pushback. —Farix (t | c) 12:07, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The rename was suggested not as much for conformity as "make stuff work", though. G.A.Stalk 13:01, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Consistency is generally given a high priority at CFD for category names, and while Farix has reasons for opposing it, none of them seems strong enough to break the convention. (Editors may wish to review the convention, bit that's another matter). It's also notable that atthe discussion to which Fanix linked, there was no evidence of any consensus at that wikiproject non-standard category names: AFAICS, Fanix was the only editor arguing in favour of the non-standard scheme. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 16:41, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The categories name is consistent with other WikiProject Anime project categories. And as I said before, the "convention" that was "enforced" on other wikiproject without discussions at all. (fait accompli) And I do think it is absurd to categorize non-articles into a category that claims that they are articles. Redirects are not articles, so it's stupid to categorize them under redirect-class artices. And Category:WikiProject Anime and manga redirects is a far less ambiguous name than Category:Redirect-Class anime and manga articles,which is actually miss-named for the reasons I've just pointed out. —Farix (t | c) 21:33, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It may be consistent with WikiProject Anime project categories, but it's not consistent with the hundreds of other wikipedia categories for redirects. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 22:37, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how the naming schemes of other wikiprojects for non-assessment categories really matters here. Thoughtless consistency does not improve Wikipedia, especially when that "standard " is a rather dumb, ambiguous, and arbitrary to begin with. The fact that it was created and enforced by about four or five editors when they converted project banner to {{WPBannerMeta}} doesn't make it a standard to begin with. —Farix (t | c) 23:28, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Describing something you disagree with as "thoughtless" and "dumb" doesn't help anyone. You may disagree with the category name, but the reason for using that one is that it fits the same format as the other by-quality categories. As to how this consistency was reached, that isn't particularly relevant: what matters is that the convention for such category names gas been stable for a long time, and I am not aware of any demand to change it (other than from you). --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 23:46, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's pretty clear that the naming scheme you are advocating was not actually thought-out and in hindsight was pretty dumb. However, most editors have decided to let sleeping dog lie. But since a couple of editors want to enforce the scheme, perhaps it's time to wake up those dogs and correct the mistakes. But back to the primary topic. Redirects are not an "assessment quality" nor are they articles. So they shouldn't be pigeonholed into something that they are not. If all you are going to say is, "it's the standard", than you need to make an argument as to why the "standard" scheme is better than the alternative. —Farix (t | c) 00:18, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, consistency is more important than perfection. By all means start a discussion to change to change the convention, but it the meantime it's more important to keep the categories conistent. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 21:41, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Consistency for the take of consistency, especially when you won't even defend the problems with the consistency you are arguing for, is an extremely poor argument. But it is already consistent with the other WP-AM categories. —Farix (t | c) 23:43, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rebuild WPBANNERMETA and make it so that it always uses "WikiProject xxx yyy-class pages" "WikiProject xxx yyy-importance pages" 70.29.211.138 (talk) 05:21, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
reasoning: These are related to specific wikiprojects, the current naming scheme used by WPBANNERMETA doesn't make an ounce of sense, it doesn't indicate that it is related to wikiprojects at all, but to a general subject, which many of the pages being categorized don't fit under, since wikiproject coverage differs from the name that they chose to name themselves, sometimes significantly. Further, redirects, categories, templates, articles, portals, etc, are all pages. (usually the WPP covers a broader topic area) 70.29.211.138 (talk) 05:24, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I seem to recall that there was a consensus established that Wikiproject based categories were required to have "WikiProject" as part of their category name, to make them distinct from encyclopedic categories, and separate from other sorts of maintenance categories. Did WPBANNERMETA crew override or ignore that? 70.29.211.138 (talk) 05:28, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment For the record, the maintainers of WPBM have stated that they are also not particularly fond of the current assessment/quality category naming scheme, and would support on principle a proposal to correct/update it. I have had such a proposal drafted for half a year now (but have never taken the time to polish it up) at User:Dinoguy1000/Assessment category RfC, and I would prefer to hold off on changing any part of the scheme until the proposal is finished and presented to the community for discussion. --Dinoguy1000 (talk·contribs) as 72.251.164.58 (talk) 04:05, 28 January 2010 (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.
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.
Nominator's rationale:Delete, for much the same reasons as the rugby footballers nomination below. There are still largely unpopulated categories which seem to be one the latest descendants of Category:People by occupation and century. Whatever the merits of these categories in other parts of the category tree, it's a bad idea with cricket, for a number of reasons:
cricket players are already categorised by team, which groups players who had some connection with each other
if fully populated, these categories will be huge; too huge to be useful for navigation
splitting them further either requires creating a huge collection of triple or quadruple intersections such "20th century bowlers from India". That will be a maintenance nightmare
Even if split as above, many of the categories will still be too big to be useful. One solution is to split them by decades creating for example "1960s bowlers from Pakistan" ... but sportspeople's careers don't fit neatly into decades, so most players would end up in two or more by-decades categories, creating category clutter
I can't see any way of making these categories work, and it seems best to delete them now before someone goes to a lot of work populating them. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 22:54, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think it makes very little sense to nom a category for deletion, and say simultaneously that it is underpopulated and that it might become too large. If it does grow as it ought, it can be subdivided, as any other category, by any of several possible criteria. (I agree with BHG that decade does not seem sensible for exactly the reason she gives) This is the sort of articles that people are very likely to want to browse. DGG ( talk ) 21:33, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It would make more sense, DGG if you actually read the nomination. I did not say that the categories are "underpopulated"; I said that they are "largely unpopulated". In my view, these categories are not capable of being underpopulated, the fewer articles cluttered with these categories, the better. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 23:45, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All as an effective means of navigation across a set of defining characteristics. Alansohn (talk) 21:47, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm starting to think that division of people by century is a tad arbitrary when it comes to things like this. I'm not clear with what navigational purpose such a scheme would serve. I could understand if they were holding subcategories for decades or years, but obviously they can't. Good Ol’factory(talk) 02:38, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 09:27, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I don't see how it is useful to have a category containing (say) an English cricketer who played from 1885 to 1901 and a Zimbabwean cricketer who played from 1999 to 2007 and moreover I don't see how any subcat scheme can remedy the problem. Occuli (talk) 16:00, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete those categories relating to the 20th and 21st centuries and ".......by century" (no pun intended). Clearly, if fully populated, the 20th and 21st century categories would become too large to be meaningful. However, I am not certain that this applies to Category:19th-century cricketers, which is unlikely to become too conjested and, if populated, may be a useful historical tool. If retained, it should become a direct subcategory of Category:Cricketers. Davshul (talk) 21:09, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I generally dislike century categories for people, this one included. Debresser (talk) 21:51, 21 January 2010 (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.
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.
Nominator's rationale:Rename. Use an ndash in a year range. Rjwilmsi 18:44, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Endashes in category names look better, but are a pain-in-the-arse to type, for both readers and editors. They work in article names, where we use hard redirects, but since hard redirects are not yet used in categories it's silly to include a character which isn't marked on any keyboard I have ever used. (The multi-key special techniques for entering such characters vary between operating systems, even if anyone can be bothered to remember them). --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 18:55, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The key article is Confederate States of America. Whether the en-dash, a hypen, or some squiggly line is used, the "...of America" and capitalisation of "States" should still be part of the category name. Grutness...wha? 22:19, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Prompted by Grutness's comment, I have been looking more closely at this, and it seems a bit odd. Category:Confederate states (1861-1865) is a sub-category of Category:Confederate States of America. Since the confederacy only exist from 1861-1865, the disambiguator appears superfluous. I think I can infer why it was added: the purpose of the category seems to be to separate off the articles and categories on the 11 states from the other articles and sub-categories of [:Category:Confederate States of America]]. However, this seems to me to be an unsatisfactory way of doing things. If it really is necessary to use a sub-category such as this, why not follow the example of Category:States of the United States and rename this category to Category:States of the Confederate States? --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 23:18, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I could support that - though I'd suggest that this too needs an "...of America" at the end. Grutness...wha? 00:12, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Categories need to be in a format that can easily be added to articles, but most keyboards do not provide an em-dash. If changed articles are liable to be miscategorised with the en-dash. I know we prefer an em-dash in article titles, but the en-dash version will usually also exist as a redirect. Category redirects do not function the same way, and are a problem to some one who has to patrol them to keep them empty. Wider issue -- The articles and subcategories are about the entire state throughout its history, not about Alabama in the Civil War (for example). This is accordingly a misconceived category and should be deleted. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:08, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reply I agree with Peterkingiron on the en-dash, although I think I have a better solution (as above, Category:States of the Confederate States ... but I disagree on the appropriateness of the category. I understand Peter's concern, and used to argue similar positions, but I have come round to the view that the wikipedia category system is not a precise taxonomy, but rather a navigational tool which necessarily makes some compromises with taxonomical perfection to allow easy navigation. In this case, I don't actually think the problem is all that great: it's a category which is accurate for time period it describes, but doesn't claim to cover all aspects of the articles within it. I don't see this as being different from other categories with a limited time-frame applied to articles with a longer time-span. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 01:56, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose use the states of the CSA category suggested instead above. 70.29.211.9 (talk) 03:44, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So we're still debating special characters in category names? Time to revisit speedy criterion #7, no doubt. Good Ol’factory(talk) 06:11, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Should Kentucky and Missouri be included in that category, or perhaps in a separate one? Both had Confederate governments, both elected members to both houses of the Confederate Congress, each had a star on the Confederate flag, etc. They both maintained pro-Union governments as well, obviously. Perhaps articles on the Confederate governments of both states should be added to this category? Example: Confederate government of Kentucky. Perhaps that second category should be structured so as to include articles such as Arizona Territory (Confederate States of America)?LanternLight (talk) 05:06, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support either of the suggestions mentioned immediately above. Good Ol’factory(talk) 21:24, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 09:15, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good grief not the en-dash hassle again. I repeat for the nth time that copy and paste is the obvious way to replicate an en-dash; and that there are far worse than en-dashes in category names (pick any category involving Turkish football). I would prefer Category:States of the Confederate States of America as 'Confederate States of America states' sounds incomplete. Occuli (talk) 09:37, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Don't mind what we rename it to provided we drop the year range without the endash. I don't have specific knowledge of the affected articles' content to have a preferred new name from those mentioned above. Rjwilmsi 13:39, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I constitutionally dislike en-dashes. Debresser (talk) 21:50, 21 January 2010 (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.
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.
Nominator's rationale: The term is synonymous with biology. Currently the only contents (unchanged by me) are the page Biology, which is already categorized as Category:Biology, and Category:Homeopathy, which is already categorized as, well, itself. - 2/0 (cont.) 07:29, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep . Biosciences are much more than biology. See wiktionary:bioscience. Also biosciences interdisciplinary research is nowadays a very sucessfull field that helps to combat diseases.-- Nopetro (talk) 20:51, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The "biosciences" are more than "biology", homeopathy isn't bioscience and doesn't belong. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:58, 24 January 2010 (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.
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:withdrawn as moot per nominator's comments.Good Ol’factory(talk) 02:27, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename both since in each case the libraries mentioned are libraries of the university, rather than of the city. BencherliteTalk 01:59, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Oxford Central Library is the most important non-university library in the whole of Oxfordshire and used to house the Oxfordshire Archives as well (which is notable in my view), so may be worth including. It would be nice to keep the city-level library categories for Oxford(/Cambridge), as discussed above. I would be happy to do an Oxford Central Library article if deemed appropriate for this category. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 11:27, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: there's Tyndale House (Cambridge), which I don't think is part of the University, so would stay in "Libraries in Cambridge". - Pointillist (talk) 11:33, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be right there, although the Tyndale House website confuses matters by having a ".cam.ac.uk" address! I'm happy to have OU/CU libraries in new sub-cats leaving the existing ones as parents. BencherliteTalk 11:42, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've created the OU category, but will hold off transfer for now as (1) there's no rush (2) there's not unanimity on whether the Oxford parent category should stay or go, and I don't want to be accused of "bouncing" the decision (3) if the nominated category goes, then a bot will do the job for me! BencherliteTalk 12:21, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support the idea of retaining a city cat in each case with a subcat for the Universities. (I would be surprised if Oxford does not have a notable non-University library. Croydon seems to have 5.) Occuli (talk) 16:29, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominations withdrawn as moot In the light of the discussion, this didn't need a CFD, I now realise, just creation of a sub-category in the existing category and editorial discretion to move from parent to subcat. The university libraries have been moved to the subcats, so there's nothing left to discuss. Would somebody care to tidy up the paperwork here, please? Thanks. BencherliteTalk 22:50, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks anyway for all your hard work: it looks like several mis-categorizations got fixed on the way and it's reminded me how many bits of the Bodleian I have yet to visit. - Pointillist (talk) 23:33, 19 January 2010 (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:Musical artist logos licensed under Creative Commons[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.
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Empty category. Seems like any appropriate images should be on Commons and the category should be there too. Prezbo (talk) 00:39, 19 January 2010 (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.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:Rename to match the structure of the parent category. Anyone displeased with that structure can make a broader nomination to change it. Jafeluv (talk) 13:20, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Rename per BHG. All criteria are met. Alansohn (talk) 02:04, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Part of my reason for nominating this was the current form is somewhat ambiguous. Is it sculpture by or of the artist? If this passes, then we still need to address the subcategories in Category:Ancient Greek sculptures by artist. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:42, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, this ambiguous naming format is the convention of all the creative works categories: "foo books", "foo albums", "foo songs", "foo paintings", etc. I don't like it, but it would be huge job to change it. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 03:15, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, we recently changed it for the plays category. The standard is now "Plays by ...". It was a big job, though. It would be nice if we could at least gradually start to change these, especially the sculpture and paintings ones. (We could leave out the music ones.) In my opinion, these should all conform to the "Works by ..." standard. Good Ol’factory(talk) 01:46, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Opposed, because, like Good Olfactory, I'd prefer to see all these changed in the other direction. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 06:08, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I too would prefer to go the other way. Johnbod (talk) 18:26, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If there is a consensus not to do this rename, then we will need to rename the other sub-categories of [{:Category:Sculptures by artist]]. Is anyone volunteering to do a group CFR nomination for the lot? If so, I'll withdraw my support for this renaming. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 20:00, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I volunteer to do the sculptures one. However, it may not happen immediately after this is closed, because I'm going to be away for a little while in the coming weeks. I will make it a priority for when I am around, though. There are not too many in Category:Sculptures by artist, so I should be able to get it done soon. If anyone gets to it before I can, so much the better. Good Ol’factory(talk) 22:35, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy rename per nominator. If anybody wants it the other way around, thay should tag all those categories, but until such times this remains a sspeedy. Debresser (talk) 21:47, 21 January 2010 (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.
Relisted at today's CfD page. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:51, 26 January 2010 (UTC)