Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 June 20

< June 19	June 21 >

June 20[edit]

Category:Red politicians[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. Courcelles (talk) 08:28, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Red politicians to Category:Red (Norway) politicians

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Propose disambiguating to match parent Category:Red (Norway) and Red (Norway). Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:54, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support highly ambiguous name, does not mean Republican (US) politicians, or all Communist politicians. 76.66.195.196 (talk) 02:40, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support like 76.66.195.196. John Anderson (talk) 08:17, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. The current name suggests any Communist politician and might even sound derogatory. Dimadick (talk) 07:19, 25 June 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:Articles with excessive links[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. — ξ ^xplicit 22:44, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: The category is empty, and nothing indicates that any template is using it. What links here is empty too, so I think this category should be deleted. Svick (talk) 23:45, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think this could be a useful maintenance category, to go hand-in-hand with this project. Lugnuts (talk) 08:31, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The category name doesn't say anything about red links and if that WikiProject wanted a category, they could easily create it. Svick (talk) 08:45, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ha! So it does - ignore me, too early I guess! Yep, delete away. Lugnuts (talk) 09:44, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as empty/dupe. While not exactly the same as Category:Wikipedia external links cleanup, the latter is sufficient. jonkerz ♠ 00:13, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I created this category. While it may be empty now, it is often not empty. It has been used many, many times. There also seems to be no clear substitute which can be used to describe this situation. "External links cleanup" isn't clear at all, especially for light to moderate users -- it is very "inside baseball." Quatloo (talk) 21:20, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How do you add it to an article? Directly by typing [[Category:Articles with excessive links]]? That's not usual for cleanup categories at all, probably because it's useful to have indication of the problem in the article itself. Also, to me, “Articles with excessive links” is not clear at all – I don't know whether it's talking about internal or external links. Svick (talk) 21:58, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"{{excessive_links}}" at one time should have worked. Not sure if it still does. Quatloo (talk) 10:27, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That template redirects to {{external links}} (that adds the category Category:Wikipedia external links cleanup) and is not used anywhere. (Category:Wikipedia spam cleanup claimed that {{excessive links}} adds the page there. I removed that claim, since it's not true.) Svick (talk) 11:48, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No need for keeping this category has been established. Note to closer, one of the Keep opinions above on closer reading appears to have been changed to delete. Vegaswikian1 (talk) 01:28, 29 June 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:Doris Day soundtrack albums[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: speedy rename per creator's intent.--Mike Selinker (talk) 03:56, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Doris Day soundtrack albums to Category:Doris Day soundtracks

Nominator's rationale: My own stupid error; this will match the scheme of the parent category. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:26, 20 June 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:Enamel[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. — ξ ^xplicit 22:44, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Enamel to Category:Dental enamel

Nominator's rationale: The current category is just for dental enamel, whereas as I see it there are three main divisions of enamel: dental, artistic/decorative, industrial, the last two being both vitreous enamel. There are various ways of playing this & I don't have strong views on which is best. Category:Enamellers are all artists, and we have a fair number of articles on artistic techniques & objects, not all in the category yet. I can't see much, well anything except vitreous enamel, on industrial uses, but there must be stuff - oh yes Le Creuset. I think the toothy stuff should go to Category:Dental enamel, under Category:Enamel, and then either everything else goes to Category:Vitreous enamel - my proposal - or that has art and industry sub-cats.

To sum up the proposal is to move as above, & I can set up Category:Enamel again as a head-cat, and Category:Vitreous enamel (now done - see below), and populate. But I'm open to alternativesJohnbod (talk) 23:09, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- - - Note I have now set up Category:Vitreous enamel, which seems a no-brainer; hope no one minds. The proposal remains , but the nominated category now just contains dental stuff and the vitreous sub-cat. Johnbod (talk) 13:30, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. All sensible. The only thing I disagree with is Category:Dental enamel, which should come under Category:Anatomy somewhere. It has no connection with man-made enamel other than sharing a name. Twiceuponatime (talk) 08:31, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Currently its only parent is Category:Teeth, which it would keep. I think (from non-technical knowledge) dental & vitreous are similar enough to share an empty? head cat. Otherwise one has to put notes & maybe redirects everywhere anyway. Johnbod (talk) 09:58, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Teeth is where I would expect it to be; and sorry I should have looked more carefully. The only feature they share is that they are 'hard and shiny' - I don't think that warrants them being in the same category. Both Category:Dental enamel and Category:Vitreous enamel should have a brief note at the top; and since they share the word 'enamel' there should also be a cross-reference to the other to help those people who might get lost. Twiceuponatime (talk) 13:15, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see the logic, but in practical terms that still leaves people who search on, or try to add to, "category:Enamel" with nothing. Since neither of the two group categories start with Enamel, they probably won't be picked up. Johnbod (talk) 13:39, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps we should keep the present category as a parent-only category. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:08, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well that has the same effect as the proposal, which moves it & then recreates it. Given the vitreous stuff has to be moved, it makes little difference which way it's done. Johnbod (talk) 19:55, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support nom's proposal, however it is carried out. I would have thought Category:Enamel should be a disambiguation category rather than a head category, though. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:14, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that seems to be the way the debate is going; fine by me. Johnbod (talk) 00:16, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support as per Good Ol’factory. Category:Enamel to be a disambiguation category. Twiceuponatime (talk) 08:27, 22 June 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:Heinie[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. — ξ ^xplicit 22:44, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. A pure case of overcategorization by shared name. This groups all the bio articles on WP that have the first name (usually a nickname) of "Heinie". The list already exists at Heinie, which is a disambiguation page. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:55, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

upmerge articles to its parent Category:American sportspeople of German descent where they really belongs. Hmains (talk) 03:24, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Since when do we categorize people by nickname? Or for that matter, first name? The upmerge is also ill-advised. Who is to say descent was not actually Austrian, Swiss or from any other country where the name Heinrich was popular? Dimadick (talk) 07:15, 25 June 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:Transformers[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. — ξ ^xplicit 22:44, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Transformers to Category:Transformers (franchise)

Nominator's rationale: Rename as nominated or to Category:Transformers (fiction) to match commons. Category:Transformers is ambiguous as this is the correct name for a category supporting the main article Transformer. Also Category:Transformers, even if used for the comics/toys/etc., is still ambiguous, so adding franchise makes the scope of the category clear and more focused. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:08, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support adding (franchise) for disambiguation. The franchise is the main use of the term Transformers. But the singular Transformer has its own category, named Category:Transformers (electrical). Dimadick (talk) 07:14, 25 June 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:Cook Islands culture[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: Withdrawn. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:34, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Cook Islands culture to Category:Cook Island culture

Nominator's rationale: per recent CfD where the renaming Category:Cook Island people to 'Cook Islands people' was effectively argued against Mayumashu (talk) 20:55, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose as the place is Cook Islands any categorisation should also be in the Cook Islands format Gnan garra 23:56, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Shouldn't this discussion follow whatever is decided at the other discussion, which is still open? Why was this discussion opened prior to that one being closed? As mentioned there, "Cook Island" is probably more correct, but of course is less intuitive. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:54, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination withdrawn. I did nt intend to put out this nomination, actually. Started it, then thought better against it, and didn t think I saved the page, in fact - terribly clumsy and apologies double! Mayumashu (talk) 12:58, 21 June 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.

UK Parliamentary constituencies by region[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: rename. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:00, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming

Nominator's rationale: Rename to match regional head articles grandparent categories. E.g. the South-west category to match head article South West England and grandparent category Category:South West England ...and to disambiguate from the many other areas of the globe known as the South West. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:47, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rename – this seems entirely uncontroversial. There are others in Category:Parliamentary constituencies in England which are similarly ambiguous. Occuli (talk) 16:49, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I originally nominated only one,and we may have had an edit conflict as I added the rest. However I think that the expanded nom includes all those where there is a mismatch with the regional name. (e.g. Category:Parliamentary constituencies in the East Midlands relates to the undisambiguated article East Midlands). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:10, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. This also makes it clear that they are UK constistuencies, not (for example) Austrialian. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:54, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support suggested rename, it makes it clearer. John Anderson (talk) 08:19, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. For clarity reasons. South West of what? Dimadick (talk) 07:08, 25 June 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:Brazil – French Guiana border[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. Courcelles (talk) 07:39, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Rename to Category:Brazil – France border. Legally speaking, French Guiana is not different than other parts of France, and the border is between the two states (Brazil and France), not between French Guiana and Amapá. Soman (talk) 15:09, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose – I doubt if Brazilians (even lawyers) say they are going to France when crossing this border. Category:Borders of France seems fine as it is: there are geographical considerations as well as legal ones. Occuli (talk) 15:18, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- This is stupid suggestion. The boundary is with a department of France called French Guiana. FRance normally means metropolitan France (excluding its overseas departments). Peterkingiron (talk) 17:57, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, actually Brazil is a federal state, which France isn't. Thus it would make more sense to highlight the fact that the border is with Amapá. --Soman (talk) 19:03, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - In Brazil, do the states control border security and immigration, or is it a federal responsibility? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:39, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Category:Borders of Brazil at present is consistent in not mentioning any sub-regions of Brazil. A introductory sentence in Category:Brazil – French Guiana border explaining the exact situation would seem to me to be the best solution - most readers would be startled to find that France shares a border with Brazil. Occuli (talk) 00:04, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - My point in asking the question was to point out that it would not make much sense to subdivide borders of Brazil by state when the federal government of Brazil controls borders and immigration. I guess I should just come out and state things rather than trying to be socratic. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:56, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Does French Guiana have any control of its own regarding borders? (not a rhetorical question) From what I can read, its the Directorate-General of Customs and Indirect Taxes that manages border issues in French Guiana, not the local Guiana gov't. There is a "Direction interrégionale des douanes et droits indirects Antilles-Guyane", but there are also "Directions interrégionale des douanes et droits indirects" for Lille, Dijon, Nantes, etc.. Btw, some readers might be startled by finding out many things they didn't know about. That shouldn't be a hinderance in writing Wikipedia, though. --Soman (talk) 03:28, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        From what you are saying, France might well be unique in having land borders in 2 continents in different hemispheres. Let us at least be grateful that France no longer has any territories in Africa or we would have Nigeria-France problems as well. I think this fact is too subtle and too little known to be conveyed via category names. Occuli (talk) 07:58, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Help - I'm laughing too hard to type! This is one of the silliest ideas I've ever seen proposed at CFD. It would make Wikipedia a laughingstock. By this logic we should also change Category:American Samoa – Cook Islands border to Category:Cook Islands - United States border. Can we use a tiny bit of common sense, please? Cgingold (talk) 23:51, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Regarding common sense, no that would not be the same. American Samoa does not have the same relation to the United States as French Guiana has to France. French Guiana has the same relation to France as Hawaii has to the United States. Some people might not think that Hawaii is really a part of America, but it is still, constitutionally speaking, one of the states of the USA. --Soman (talk) 03:28, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I am of course quite aware that American Samoa is not a State, and thus is not a full counterpart of French Guiana. The real point here is that, even if it were a State, I would not support renaming the category, because the paramount issue is geographical, not legal jurisdiction. That's what I mean by "common sense". Cgingold (talk) 13:49, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose (cat creator). It seems to me the current name should be kept if nothing else so it is consistent with its parent, Category:Borders of French Guiana. This category is a subcategory of Category:Borders of France, so what the nominator intends to rename actually is already implied by the category structure, in a roundabout way. I don't think we should call the proposal "stupid" or laugh at the nominator, though. To me this seems to have been a good-faith effort to improve things. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:03, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Just a slight clarification, though perhaps too subtle a distinction: I was laughing at the idea - not at the nominator. Cgingold (talk) 13:52, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the current category title is far more clear than the proposed alternative. Alansohn (talk) 05:14, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support per suggestion and to make it neutral. The current name makes it look like French Guiana was not a full part of France, which it legaly is, and would tend to say France is a colonial power of the 19th Century kind. John Anderson (talk) 08:22, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Very STRONG support and I suggest that Cat:Border of French Guiana which should have no subcats. People, don't you see the danger here of having a the Rio Grande catagoriezed into Category:Nuevo Loredo - Texas border and a dozen others, while 49th parallel north goes into BC-WA, BC-ID, BC-MT, AB-MT, SK-MT, SK-ND, MB-ND, and MB-MN! That's madness and quite uneeded. Also it seems to give boundries between sub-national units the same legal standing as boundries between soverign states, which they DO NOT have. --Kevlar (talk • contribs) 09:56, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The current name is more specific. Clarity is needed in geographical categories. Dimadick (talk) 07:07, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose current name is fine not meant to be a lesson in politics. The three items in the category, one is a river on the border between French Guiana and Brazil. Nobody would describe the river as on the border between Brazil and France. The other are in a subcat Category:Brazil – French Guiana border crossings again it says what it is on the box. Rename would involve a whole raft of related categories like Category:French Guiana – Suriname border. Categories are to help find stuff not define political entities or be part of legal definitions. MilborneOne (talk) 19:31, 25 June 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:People from Frankfurt[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. — ξ ^xplicit 22:44, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:People from Frankfurt to Category:People from Frankfurt am Main

Nominator's rationale: Parent article uses the full title and the category should match it. There is an existing Category:People from Frankfurt (Oder) that further justifies the need for disambiguation in the category title. Alansohn (talk) 14:51, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support – there is also Category:Frankfurt + a host of subcats. I would personally like to see a disamb category such as Category:People from Birmingham (which usually contains various Americans + Brummies, awaiting directions). Occuli (talk) 15:15, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support but keep present name as a dab category. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:58, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom, but keep the dab category. Dimadick (talk) 07:04, 25 June 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:University of Detroit Jesuit High School 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: withdrawn. Guess we do categorize by high school. — ξ ^xplicit 17:43, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. As far as I'm aware, we don't categorize people as alumni by high schools, so I'm thinking this is overcategorization. — ξ ^xplicit 06:21, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – a correct parent is Category:People by high school in the United States. This (or part of it) has been at cfd and drv several times and generally reaches no consensus after acrimonious exchanges. Occuli (talk) 11:36, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as part of the overall structure at Category:People by high school in the United States, where we do categorize people as alumni by high schools. Alansohn (talk) 14:53, 20 June 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:Buildings and structures by owner[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) 07:35, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Buildings and structures by owner to Category:Buildings and structures by company

Nominator's rationale: Most companies lease office space rather than own it now. And, increasingly, companies sponsor different stadiums and other buildings. Also,there has been a rapid growth in new article about historic buildings that had a previous relationship with the company. All of this means that most of the articles in the sub-cats are no longer technically "owned" but otherwise associated. This renaming reflects the original intent of grouping building articls by company while being more accurate. RevelationDirect (talk) 09:43, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

comment. I have no real interest to keep this category (keep was my first batle cry; it passed). But there are some concerns to be addressed:

Is it manageable, at all, either in present meaning or as proposed by RevelationDirect? Practically every building has owner(s), practically none are categorized.
Should it list current owners (tenants?), or historical too, i.e. if someone creates Category:Palaces of the House of Habsburg, should it be a subset of "by owner"? I see absolutely no problem to see the Chrysler Building categorized under Category:Chrysler although Chrysler doesn't own the building for quite a while.
The Habsburg example shows that "by company" is only a subset of "by owner" (other owners being private people, families, governments and municipalities etc.). East of Borschov (talk) 11:47, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

response: You're right, renaming the category as I proposed would preclude using it for palaces owned by a royal family since they're not a company. If you look at the current usage though, it's strictly corporate: AT&T, British Telecom, Coca-Cola, GM, IBM, Mayo Clinic, McDonald's, Pepsico and Royal Dutch Shell. There is a Category:Houses in the United States by family that could be expanded to other countries to cover your Hapsburg example.RevelationDirect (talk) 16:05, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note. Category is now tagged. Vegaswikian (talk) 16:36, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ξ ^xplicit 04:44, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- All are in fact named after companies or named after them. Occasional cases may be "formerly owned" or only "occupied". Cases like royal palaces can be categorised elsewhere. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:03, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
rename per nom This will also exclude Government-owned buildings which have a separate category tree and need not be mixed together with these company buildings. Hmains (talk) 18:45, 20 June 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:Provincial capitals of Papua New Guinea[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. — ξ ^xplicit 22:44, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Provincial capitals of Papua New Guinea to Category:Provincial capitals in Papua New Guinea

Nominator's rationale: Merge. "Provincial capitals in X" seems to be the most common form, judging by the contents of Category:Capitals of country subdivisions. htonl (talk) 04:09, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

rename per nom This information is correct: most are 'in' Hmains (talk) 18:47, 20 June 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.

Ukrainian Greek Catholics[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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 08:45, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming

Nominator's rationale: Rename. These names are generally confusing as they stand now. If we start piling three and sometimes four adjectives on top of one another ("Canadian Ukrainian Greek Catholic bishops"—what?), many users will be unsure what exactly is being referred to. These proposals are meant to clarify and are patterned after some of those names selected for Category:Eastern Orthodox Christians by nationality. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:25, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments – I am not surprised to find that User:Pastorwayne, a master of unwieldy and verbose ambiguity, created some of these. I fully support the drift of the renames and will reflect on the precise names ... eg what is wrong with 'Canadian XXX' rather than 'XXX from Canada'? Might Category:Bishops of Edmonton (Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church) be an option? Occuli (talk) 12:14, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Category:Canadian members of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church would be fine with me. The Category:Bishops of Edmonton (Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church) option would also be a good one I could accept. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 20:36, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - "Membership" in this type of church a is specific status that implies paying tithes and being in good "moral" standing in the community. A better word might be "adherent". "From Canada" is awkward but perhaps doable. If this goes ahead I prefer the bracketed proposal for distinguishing bishops. --Kevlar (talk • contribs) 22:05, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Category:Canadian members of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church and Category:Bishops of Edmonton (Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church) and cognates. This seems a good solution to this mouthful of adjectives. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:52, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ξ ^xplicit 04:07, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No change in view -- WE seem to have no opposing view, so that should be been closed as rename. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:05, 20 June 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:Swedish Formula One World Championship drivers[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; categories have remained empty. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:37, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: This category is a complete duplication of Category:Swedish Formula One drivers and associated categories for second and third listed. Falcadore (talk) 03:00, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and also expand this nomination to delete Category:Spanish Formula One World Championship drivers and Category:Formula One World Championship drivers by nationality. This appears to be an attempt at a rename. Formula One#Distinction between Formula One and World Championship races shows that the two terms are not exactly interchangeable, but are so close to interchangeable that it is impossible to see a difference for our purposes. So the only question is whether the entire Category:Formula One drivers tree should be made Category:Formula One World Championship drivers. I say that's overspecification, and therefore suggest we remove these before we have the entire tree populated thusly.--Mike Selinker (talk) 11:35, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Response - at the very least those which do match precisely should be redirects, rather than a completely separate populated category. --Falcadore (talk) 12:14, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Care to add the two other categories I mentioned to this nomination?--Mike Selinker (talk) 12:35, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete etc per Selinker. If someone wishes to rename Category:Formula One drivers it should be brought to cfd, with the rationale. My own view is that the distinction is too subtle to be made via categories. Occuli (talk) 12:05, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not necessary. It's close enough in its scope to be replaceable with the already existing Category:Swedish Formula One drivers. Same goes for the other nationalities too. John Anderson (talk) 09:17, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per other arguments. Note that this category, and the others under question here, were created by a known sockpuppeteer, under an ongoing SPI. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:10, 23 June 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.