Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 March 14

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< March 13 March 15 >

March 14[edit]

Category:Inhabited localities in Russia[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: NOT RENAMED. postdlf (talk) 05:29, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Inhabited localities in Russia to Category:Settlements in Russia
Nominator's rationale: Rename, per convention of Category:Settlements by country. See also the large group nomination below, of 150 superfluous sub-categories of other countries to be merged. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:54, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination withdrawn. Per the discussion below under Cities, towns and villages, it's clear that that there are problems with using "Settlements" as the top-level category, and that a wider discussion is needed to try to reach a consensus on what term can be acceptably used. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:09, 15 March 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:SNK versus-series video games[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:  Relisted here, due to the nominator's failure to tag the category with a notice of this discussion. postdlf (talk) 05:36, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:SNK versus-series video games to Category:Capcom Vs. Series
Nominator's rationale: Aside from SNK vs. Capcom: Card Fighters Clash, SNK vs. Capcom: The Match of the Millennium, and SNK vs. Capcom: SVC Chaos, none of the games in this category were developed or published by SNK; however, all of these were developed by Capcom, published by Capcom, or feature Capcom characters, so it makes more sense to include their name in the title instead. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 21:23, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This was all discussed at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2010_March_4#Category:Vs._.28series.29, which closed only 28 hours ago by merging various categories to Category:SNK versus-series video games. One of the old categories was Category:VS. Capcom series, which is now the rename target ... so we are being asked to go around in a circle. AFAICS this all relates to SNK vs. Capcom (series) and Template:SNK vs. Capcom_series, which looks like the logical title for any further refinement of the names. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:49, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • But why would they be given the "SNK" title when SNK only developed three of them while Capcom did all the rest? That makes no sense. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 23:44, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Because according to SNK vs. Capcom (series), the distinguishing characteristic of these games is that they include characters from both SNK and Capcom games. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:52, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    But SNK characters are only in the ones with SNK in the title whereas all of them have Capcom characters. So why do games like Marvel vs. Capcom and Tatsunoko vs Capcom get forced into the category when SNK had nothing to do with them? -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 11:40, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    It appears that the scope of the category is broader than that of the template. The best solution is probably to just delete the category, since there seem to be too many permutations involved to make a neat category, and the template already provides navigation between one of the many possible groupings in this area. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:18, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per discussion above. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:18, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per discussion above: this is too esoteric for a category. I have read this and the previous cfd and am scarcely the wiser, especially as there is no article SNK. ('Capcom Vs. Series' is one of the least accessible category names ever seen at cfd.) Occuli (talk) 12:55, 15 March 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:Metro Toronto[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:  Relisted at 2010 APR 1 CFD. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:15, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Metro Toronto to Category:Metropolitan Toronto (former municipality)
Nominator's rationale: for greater clarity, especially for those not familiar with Toronto. Mayumashu (talk) 19:00, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But people who aren't familiar with Toronto may not realize that Metro Toronto isn't the same thing as the GTA. Bearcat (talk) 04:31, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You could say the same thing for Metropolitan Toronto... so Category:Metro Toronto (former administrative region) or somesuch would preserve the common name... 70.29.210.242 (talk) 05:38, 20 March 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.

CAT:CSD image subcats[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:56, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming:

Reason: Followup to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 March 4#CAT:CSD subcats - rename these to match the others. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 18:24, 14 March 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:SONICFLOOd 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: Rename. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 20:53, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:SONICFLOOd albums to Category:Sonicflood albums
Nominator's rationale: Per main article, Sonicflood. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:08, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 17:43, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. Occuli (talk) 18:00, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Rename to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 18:33, 14 March 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.

Cities, towns and villages[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: Nomination withdrawn. See the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Categorization/Categorising human settlements. htonl (talk) 00:55, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination withdrawn. The discussion below has demonstrated that the problems with this part of the category tree are much wider than I had thought, and that this proposal could cause serious problems which I had not foreseen. There is consensus that we have a problem here, but not yet a consensus on the solution, and there is therefore an urgent need for a centralised discussion to resolve a number of related issues, which cannot be accommodated within one CD discussion.
The decisions made about the nomenclature used in this field will affect thousands of categories and many tends of thousands of articles on human settlements. After a huge series of out-of-process moves, it is important that a wide consensus is achieved on any solution, so that any solution will be a stable solution.
I will now open a centralised discussion, to explore options for the way forward, and will post the link here. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:58, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Centralised discussion is at Wikipedia talk:Categorization/Categorising human settlements. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:25, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging

All instances of "Category:Cities, towns and villages in COUNTRYNAME" to "Category:Settlements in COUNTRYNAME"
List of 151150 categories
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge all to remove a superfluous layer of categorisation
The convention of the 217 national sub-categories of Category:Settlements by country is that the national sub-categories follow the format "Settlements in countryname". (There are 5 exceptions, which I will nominate separately). In 152 of those cases, there is a sub-category named in the format "Cities, towns and villages in countryname". This layer is superfluous, because in the vast majority of cases "Cities, towns and villages" is a verbose way of saying "settlements". Of course, there are other types of settlements, such as hamlets, and these may be categorised separately. Similarly, "Cities, towns and villages" may be sub-categorised is several different ways (e.g. by sub-national region, or by separating cities into their own sub-categories) ... but none of that requires that "Cities, towns and villages" be an extra layer under settlements.
Notes:
  1. the "cities, towns and villages" format is also used for about 1,200 sub-national regions. If there is consensus to perform this renaming, I propose that those categories should be renamed in further group nominations
  2. This category-renaming is not intended to change the different sub-groupings of "Cities, towns and villages". For example, Category:Settlements in Northern Ireland has separate sub-categories for cities, towns and villages, whereas Category:Settlements in the Republic of Ireland groups towns and villages together. Other countries group incorporated municipalities separately, and many countries have a category of coastal settlements. All that is unaffected by this merger.
  3. This nomination affects a lot of national WikiProjects, and I do not think it is feasible to separately notify all of them. I will notify WikiProject Geography and WikiProject Cities, but other editors may wish to notify other projects. Please respect WP:CANVASS, and keep such notifications neutral.
  4. See separate discussion below on Category:Cities, towns and villages in Slovenia, and at yesterday's CFD on Category:Cities, towns and villages in South Africa
--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:00, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge all per BHG, and my rationale at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 March 13#Category:Cities, towns and villages in South Africa. There is no sensible reason to distinguish between "cities, towns and villages" and other types of settlements, and "settlements" is a more inclusive term for such things as hamlets, suburbs, squatter camps, etc. This also allows various countries to have their settlements subcategorized in whatever way is appropriate for that country. - htonl (talk) 18:42, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge all per BHG, unless someone can justify the addition of this extra layer of complexity. Occuli (talk) 19:38, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge all The hard part has already ben done in organizing settlements. I see no harm in a bot simplifying the category names, although I think these categories should be watched at a later date to prevent unwanted forks. ‡ Himalayan ‡ ΨMonastery 20:07, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge all these duplicate categories. Bravo to the nominator for doing this thankless work! Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:07, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge all as proposed. "Settlements" is more inclusive and avoids national legal or usage associations. Folks at 137 (talk) 23:04, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge all per the above. sephia karta | dimmi 23:19, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure - not too long ago, separate categories for "towns" and "cities" were merged into "Cities, towns and villages". This is a long and complicated name, but still easy to understand. Does everybody understand "settlement" to be the category for all cities and towns? Both the German and Swedish Wikipedia have the word "Ort" (comprising cities, towns and villages) but this word is easily understood and commonly used in a way that I think "settlement" is not. Are we following the "principle of least astonishment" here? --LA2 (talk) 23:40, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - ah so easy to look like a snow job - until you go into the deep and meaningful challenges to assumptions built into the word 'settlement' - and what it means in places like Australia, Indonesia and the like - I think that LA2's comment puts a good example of where the issue is not as simple as we would like - one reason why I find global categories anathema to a good understanding of global variation. I for one would never use the term settlement for small towns or communities in Australia. SatuSuro 02:31, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The word "settlement" in this context is not widely used outside geek circles and "cities" and "towns" and "villages" in many parts of the world have a common and easily understood meaning. (Agreed with LA2 in this respect.) In Australia, for example, "settlement" refers exclusively to colonial-era stuff and has no modern meaning at all. Many of the countries included in this wouldn't even have a word for "settlement" in their language. This is one case where the eternal quest for worldwide standardisation produces results which are incomprehensible to local readers/audiences. Also raises the question what happens to all the subcats for which settlement is completely incorrect (eg the successful DRV on the, I have to say, unique construction "port settlements"), hence adding a confusing layer of complexity. Also agree with a comment in another nom that a mass nom here is entirely inappropriate and it should be done for those that actually need changing rather than assuming all countries have identical needs. Orderinchaos 02:47, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Additional comment It's come to my attention that User:Himalayan Explorer had been out-of-process creating the CTV categories seen above. This seems like a grossly improper move to establish a set of affairs by fait accompli, as he was one of the key movers in the original failed attempt to get the "settlements" proposal through a year or so ago. Orderinchaos 02:56, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    "Grossly improper"? You have no idea how much work I've put into sorting out inconsistencies and helping organize them. Once again I'm disgusted with your attitude and lack of good faith. This is the final straw. Do not expect me to come running back here in a week. The community atmosphere on this site sucks. ‡ Himalayan ‡ ΨMonastery 10:04, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec) Reply to orderinchaos. I too deplore the out-of-process category moves and merges by User:Himalayan Explorer. AFAICS I was the first person to raise an objection to that, at User talk:Himalayan_Explorer#Consensus_for_these_category_moves.3F (page blanked after I started writing, so here's a permalink), and I would support sanctions if there is any recurrence. I suggest that any further discussion on those out-of-process issues takes places elsewhere.
    However, we now need to look for a way out of the mess created by those out-of-process moves, and that's what this nomination tries to do. AFAICS, there are two issues to resolve:
    1. What to call the top-level, all-inclusive category of "settlements"/"inhabited places" for each country.
      I have no particular preference for any name, other than that it should be a) inclusive of all inhabited places, and b) as neutral as possible, to allow its usage in as many countries as possible. The current convention is that "settlements" is the top-level category in all but 5 of the ~215 countries listed in Category:Settlements by country, and this nomination does not try to change that; however, I have an open mind on alternatives, and can see that the word "settlements" has been wisely rejected for Israel and Palestine, where it has a "settlements" specific politicised meaning. (It also doesn't work in Croatia, where the term settlements is has a specific meaning (see Naselje and Category:Settlements in Croatia, a categ of villages and smaller units). At this point, I wonder if "inhabited places" (per Category:Inhabited localities in Russia) might be a more inclusive solution. I do not think that "cities, town and villages" is workable as a global top-level category, because in many countries (e.g. Ireland) there are numerous places smaller than villages.
    2. How to sub-divide that all-inclusive top-level category. As noted in the nomination, this renaming is neutral on that question. Regardless of how it is resolved in any country, I do not see how a having a catch-all "Cities, towns and villages" category immediately below the top-level category is any use.
    Whether this merger is completed or not, there will still need to be a lot of work sub-dividing the existing "Cities, towns and villages" categories for many countries, at least to separate out the cities. I suggest that discussion of those possibilities need not be a part of this discussion, because the results of this discussion do not prejudice those decisions.
    Finally, unless there is agreement that the top-level by-country category should continue to be called "settlements", I think that this nomination should be withdrawn and another route sought towards a solution. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:09, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with the points you have made for the most part - each should, unless there is ambiguity in the definition, be separated out, and then all of them put under some sort of heading category which is both correct and not unduly wordy. (CTV definitely fits "unduly wordy" - people shouldn't have to read an essay at the bottom of each article.) I personally do not agree that that category should be called "settlements" as it is either ambiguous or factually incorrect for many of the instances. I also think that once such a top level category is established, not all countries will necessarily have the same nomenclature underneath, but their existence in the parent category will be sufficient to establish a system of meaning. Orderinchaos 13:04, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose A settlement is defined as: a colony that is newly established; a place or region newly settled; a colony, esp. in its early stages; a small community, village, or group of houses in a thinly populated area; a small group of dwellings or small community and so on. The common point in all of these definitions is that a settlement is small. Less common is that "settling" refers to something new. By these definitions, cities and most towns don't fit the definition of "settlement". Including such communities in a category called "Settlements in <foo>" would be wildly inappropriate. If anything, the correct name for an umbrella category would be [[Category:Cities, towns, villages and settlements in <foo>]]. --AussieLegend (talk) 10:14, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Human settlement gives a completely different definition. I must say that I personally have never thought that a settlement need be either recent or small. Occuli (talk) 10:31, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • You need to put this in context. Human settlement relies on only two references, one of which is a UK Year 7 teachers reference, the other refers specifically to UK "medieval rural settlement and landscape". Both present a UK view, which is not necessarily a world view, of what a settlement is. The article is not really a good reference at all. --AussieLegend (talk) 11:23, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose settlement s not the term used for these kinds of items in Australia, so as a whole group, it is not appropriate to change every one. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:25, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Australia already has Category:Settlements in Australia (which includes a variety of 'inhabited localities' of varying sizes) and is not even listed in the nom, so why all these australia-centric remarks? Occuli (talk) 12:29, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • That was kind of forced on us by this self-selected group some time ago. We didn't choose that, and we know there's no hope of changing it when the group here knows what it wants to do and will do it no matter what - witness the outrageous closes on some recent CfDs to get a real insight into the problems we face in participating and being heard. Orderinchaos 12:58, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Also, isn't Wikipedia for everyone no matter what country they live in?, I didn't know I had to be not Australian to have my say! So far we are speaking out after the huge stuff-ups created by this type of renaming, we had a working category system only to be stuffed-up by those who do not know how Australia (and other countries who have a similar set-up) works. Bidgee (talk) 13:17, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Indeed, if it's a problem here, in an almost exclusively English speaking country with close ties to Britain and the US, imagine what problems exist elsewhere. Am just talking on MSN with a South African who thinks "settlement" has offensive, illegal connotations as the use of the word there tends to refer to "informal settlements" at roadsides. Orderinchaos 13:24, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I agree with the comments made by LA2, Orderinchaos and AussieLegend. A settlement isn't a village, town, city, suburb, metropolitan or capital city, therefore it could be incorrect to define villages, towns and cities. Bidgee (talk) 11:39, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, that's a bit of a misrepresentation of the picture. One use of the word "settlement" is as an all-inclusive term, which is why over 200 countries already have their cities, villages and town categorised under "settlements" ... and this nomination will not change that.
    However, another use of the word "settlement" is to refer to a particular type of settlement, sometimes a colonial one, so a more neutral catch-all term may be better. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:24, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, ~200 countries have that because this group has been working at that exact goal in an almost single-minded fashion for well over a year. There are many people who do not agree with that agenda, and simply to state "it is so" ignores how it became so. Orderinchaos 12:59, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Only "misrepresentation" here is, BrownHairedGirl twisting on what is being said here. I know the meaning of "settlements" which is why I have had my say on this and I'll continue to stand by it. Bidgee (talk) 13:17, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think BHG was misrepresenting - if you look at her response to me she's already said that she'd be willing to consider alternate terms to "settlement" while having basically the same category structure, which I could live with. Orderinchaos 13:24, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec) 'Reply to Orderinchaos's comment above. Look, as noted above, I was the person who challenged the way that this was achieved, and I have already stated that I don't support any particular outcome, and am not promoting any "agenda" other than standardising category names and removing a superfluous layer. But please please please please please please please can we leave aside how we got into this mess, and focus on how to get out of the mess.
    It makes no sense for ~150 countries to have a catch-all Category:Settlements in foo parenting a catch-all Category:Cities, towns and villages on foo. This nomination proposes one solution, but discussion has identified problems with it. What alternative do you suggest? We all agree that the status quo is unsatisfactory, and now we need a solution. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:28, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec) Lack of sleep over the past week or so and misread on what was written, so I've struck out the leading part of my comment. Bidgee (talk) 13:33, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think, from what I'm reading, we broadly have the same end objective in mind. i.e. The category system, if drawn as a map, would probably look very similar in that you'd have say Geography, then X, then X by country, then the cities / towns / whatever categories underneath. The issue is essentially just the nomenclature. Inhabited places certainly seems reasonable as a starting point. Once the basic category system is set up, each country can use local nomenclature to define its subcategories, with a reasonable/safe default being assumed for those which don't. Orderinchaos 13:33, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Great, we're both looking in the same direction. This nomination was based on the assumption that the "settlements" layer of categories had consensus, but that the "cities, towns & villages" layer was problematic after the out-of-process renamings ... but I think we now agree that both layers are flawed.
    How's this for a way forward?
    1. Withdraw this nomination, and suggest that other similar nominations (Slovenia & S. Africa) be closed
    2. Have further discussion at a centralised location (e.g.. WT:GEOGRAPHY) on a new name for the top-level category of "Inhabited places" (or whatever term we eventually use).
    3. Return to CFD with a big group nomination to rename all Category:Settlements in foo categories (except Croatia) to the new name
    4. Then reconsider whether to upmerge all the "cities, villages and towns in foo" categories
    After the biggest exercise in out-of-process renaming I have ever seen in 4 years of participation in CFD, that seems to me to be the only way to unravel this and ensure that that there is proper consensus for the solution, but maybe you have another suggestion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:06, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    If you decide to officialy withdraw this nomination, I will do the same with my South African nomination, since the rationale and arguments are the same. - htonl (talk) 14:23, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Seems entirely reasonable to me. Orderinchaos 15:43, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support upmerge ("cities, towns, and villages" is simply horrible), although I, too, have my reservations about "settlement" being a good catch-all term. We already have to use different terms for Russia and Israel (because "settlements" there are not the same as "settlements" in the sense used in these cat names); and some above complain about the applicability of the term to Australia and Indonesia. Alternatives I can suggest include "inhabited localities" and "populated places", although those, too, may mean something different in some countries. More research/discussion is certainly in order if we don't want to repeat this CfD all over again in future!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); March 15, 2010; 14:08 (UTC)
    As above, I agree that more research/discussion is needed. I note that your edit summary mentioned an edit conflict (which I assume was with my suggestion of withdrawing the nom). Would you like to consider withdrawing your support for this nomination? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:16, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose settlement has too many alterative meanings to be used as a catchall for population/economic centres Gnangarra 09:34, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge all, except Australia, which seems to be main source of objection. in some countries, e.g. UK city has a distict meaning for a settlement with a particular legal status, but that does not affect the question here, which is about having an omnibus term for all kinds of inhabited place. This does not prevent particular countries having subcategories for differnet kinds of settlement. I agree that "cities, towns, and villages" is a horrid mouthful (and an unnecessary one). For Austrialia and any other contentious cases, the closing admin should renominate it separately, so that a consensus can be reached on that - perhaps a consenus for the present format. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:18, 20 March 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:Organizations by country[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Don't rename, but {{category redirect}}s should be created. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 20:58, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Inconsistency in the naming of "organizations" and "organisations" of the sub cats. This has caught me out on numerous occasions when I've tried to categorize an article and had to change the z to a s Given that parent is "Organizations" I propose renaming on the "Organisations in " to "Organizations in" to make them all consistent. ‡ Himalayan ‡ ΨMonastery 13:20, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strangely I'm British but I spell Organization as Organization... ‡ Himalayan ‡ ΨMonastery 14:17, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
See Oxford spelling. Johnbod (talk) 14:57, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but BHG's idea of redirects is a good one. (Oxford spelling is very interesting as I recall from the 60s that either s or z was then OK in the UK. Did countries such as Australia and Canada ever use 'organization'?) Occuli (talk) 15:54, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but make redirects where appropriate. (In most contexts, Canada pretty much uses "organization" now. It's more the American influence than anything, though Canada has kept other aspects of UK English more thoroughly, as with the "ou" spelling in "colour", "valour", etc.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:09, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per WP:ENGVAR and long established precedent. Most of them should be "s" anyway outside the US, Canada, East Asia and the Philippines, and related. (-ise is correct usage in both Australia and New Zealand; the national dictionaries for each note "-ize" as a secondary or alternate spelling, but having worked in both the media and education, the ABC's style guide and numerous primary school primers would actually mark it incorrect Aus/NZ English.) Orderinchaos 02:48, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per WP:ENGVAR, next we would be renaming articles on organisations that use the "ise" spelling in their name to "ize" and the last time I looked this is a world-wide encyclopaedia and not a US ENG only encyclopaedia. Bidgee (talk) 13:24, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose a rename, as this is an international encyclopedia supporting all spellings, particularly local usage, but you are welcome to add redirects with the -zations suffix, and hotcat should fix them up. I am assuming that the above keeps also mean no rename. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:49, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose systemic bias to US-eng, WP:ENGVAR Gnangarra 16:08, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as last few; support BHG's suggestion of category redirects. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:21, 20 March 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:Alumni of the Almo collegio Capranica[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Rename per nominator. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:10, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Alumni of the Almo collegio Capranica to Category:Alumni of the Almo Collegio Capranica
Nominator's rationale: Rename. As per the article name. The official website uses capitalisation. Ian Cairns (talk) 11:26, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As the creator of the category, I have no objection. Bonifacius 14:27, 14 March 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:Rock Band series[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: NOT RENAMED. postdlf (talk) 05:40, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Rock Band series to Category:Rock Band
Nominator's rationale: Per main article. cf. Category:Guitar Hero. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:36, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose This would be too confusing with category:Rock bands which redirects to Category:Rock music groups. And Rock Band would seem to be a very natural thing to put on something that should have said rock bands. I think you will get a massive number of miscategorisations. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:52, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose per Graeme Bartlett. The rename would create a fatal ambiguity by excessive similarity to a very widely-used primary meaning. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:20, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename I'm not particularly swayed by Graeme's opposition; the similarity between "Rock Band" (the name of the game) and "rock band" (the concept that the game is named after) is intentional, but not sufficient reason for us to avoid our regular naming scheme. The fact that Category:Rock bands redirects to Category:Rock music groups strikes me as evidence that this is a non-issue, rather than a strike against properly naming the category. EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:14, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose to prevent rampant miscategorizations. Perhaps Category:Rock Band (video game)? Gobonobo T C 06:03, 18 March 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:Man-Raze members[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: RENAME. postdlf (talk) 05:40, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Man-Raze members to Category:Man Raze members
Nominator's rationale: Per parent cat. and actual name (article is up for WP:RM). —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:48, 14 March 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:Irish scholars and academics[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 keep. Nomination withdrawn. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:27, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Irish scholars and academics to Category:Irish scholars and Irish academics
Nominator's rationale: I found this because a template transcludes this into the disambiguation category Category:Scholars and academics. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:19, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose. This seems like a very poor reason to make a category name longer by introducing redundancy into it. I can see that there may be a case for not using {{fooian fooers}} on Category:Irish scholars and academics (I added it here), but I don't think that's actually a good solution.
The fundamental problem here is that the existence of the disambiguation page reflects the fact that in most (but not all) countries we have a split between Category:scholars and Category:academics, a split which I have never found wise. However, regardless of any wider review of that split, even Category:scholars and academics probably should not be a disambiguation page, because Category:Irish scholars and academics is not the only such category: this search shows that we also have Category:Scholars and academics by subject, Category:Chilean scholars and academics, Category:Scottish scholars and academics, Category:Welsh scholars and academics, Category:Swedish scholars and academics.
I suggest that the short-term solution is to make Category:Scholars and academics an ordinary category which serves as the parent of Category:Scholars and Category:Academics, as well as the categories I listed above. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:32, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Merging the "academics" and "scholars" categories is probably the best solution. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:08, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -Uneccesary. This isn't the convention. ‡ Himalayan ‡ ΨMonastery 14:32, 14 March 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:Military and religion[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. postdlf (talk) 05:38, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Military and religion (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. It seems overly broad. Right now it contains everything from war deities to individual organizations PeRshGo (talk) 07:18, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I haven't yet thought this through fully, but I am leaning towards "delete". My initial inclination is that this is not a workable category, since it could include so many things: religious wars, military chaplaincies, war gods, the religion of soldiers, war-time attacks on churches, and religious stances on war. It may have a role as a {tl|container category}} for existing categories, but even so I don't see any way of avoiding it becoming an unholy sprawl. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:00, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment leaning to Keep. I removed National Socialism and Occultism but everything else seems to fit. I agree it could get out of hand, but not much sign of that yet. The sub-cat for "religious-based wars" is perhaps more dubious. Johnbod (talk) 14:55, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Far too broad of an intersection to be manageable. Gobonobo T C 06:10, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete too broad to be useful. Several of the articles are (or should be) in Category:Military orders or some other categor dealing with medieval soldier-monks and their successors. When they are removed, we are left with an utter hotchpotch. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:26, 20 March 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:Sick Wid It Records 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:  Relisted here. postdlf (talk) 05:49, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Sick Wid It Records albums to Category:Sick wid It Records albums
Nominator's rationale: WP:CAPS and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (trademarks) (I also moved Sick wid It Records.) —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:22, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose All mentions I've found of this record label capitalize their name as Sick Wid It Records, including their MySpace page. Gobonobo T C 06:20, 18 March 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.

Rock films[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. postdlf (talk) 05:47, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:American rock films to Category:American rock music films
Propose renaming Category:Rock films to Category:Rock music films
Nominator's rationale: To clarify and match main article, rock music. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:50, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Improves clarity. Mind you, a film on rocks (American or otherwise) could be quite interesting. Orderinchaos 16:52, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename both per nom. Category:Heavy metal films might deserve the same fate as these two, though I'd be surprised to find a film about molybdenum. Gobonobo T C 06:29, 18 March 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:Arena Rock Recording Co. artists[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. postdlf (talk) 05:46, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Arena Rock Recording Co. artists to Category:Arena Rock Recording Company artists
Nominator's rationale: Cf. Arena Rock Recording Company and Category:Arena Rock Recording Company albums. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:11, 14 March 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:Cities, towns and villages in Slovenia[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: Take no action until Wikipedia talk:Categorization/Categorising human settlements is resolved. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 21:02, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:Cities, towns and villages in Slovenia to Category:Settlements in Slovenia
Nominator's rationale: Merge. Remove unnecessary level of navigation and to follow accepted naming convention. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:45, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the nomination actually. As a number of them are "hamlets" rather than villages". But I think this oversized category should be split by municipality too.. ‡ Himalayan ‡ ΨMonastery 13:08, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
True, but that's a separate issue. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:07, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing to prevent a split of that category into subcategories, like cities, is prevented by the nomination. The rename would still be required even with subcategories. Feel free to create and recategorize the contents if needed. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:29, 14 March 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:Cities, towns and villages in Xinjiang[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: Take no action until Wikipedia talk:Categorization/Categorising human settlements is resolved. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:27, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Cities, towns and villages in Xinjiang to Category:Settlements in Xinjiang
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Shorter and follows accepted naming conventions. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:37, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I said it is pointless just nominating the odd one like this. If we must move them nominate them ALL in one big proposal and asave everybody's time. ‡ Himalayan ‡ ΨMonastery 11:13, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't save any time if there is no consensus; a test case or 2 is a good idea. Occuli (talk) 15:29, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You misunderstand what I mean. See the top of the page. ‡ Himalayan ‡ ΨMonastery 20:09, 14 March 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:Reportedly haunted places in the United 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: DELETE. postdlf (talk) 05:44, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Reportedly haunted places in the United Kingdom (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Rumors are not defining as a general rule. Maybe a rename could help, but for now, delete. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:33, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note that a list already exists. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:48, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Vegas wikian. Are you stalking me?? VERY strange cooincidence that you;ve nominated three categories I've been involved in in the last few weeks and edited some articles I worked on in close succession...Your deletion of Category:Geography articles needing translation from Vietnamese Wikipedia is VERY sus. This also is not a coincidence that you happened to nominate these around this time. Evidently you looked at my contributions.. ‡ Himalayan ‡ ΨMonastery 11:08, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you have a complaint about stalking, take it to WP:ANI. This is a discussion about a category, not about the conduct of editors. --12:12, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
Not stalking, but given that Vegaswikian rarely ever nominates categories for deletion and suddenly nominates these in one go which were created or used by me recently, all within the space of an hour seems strange... ‡ Himalayan ‡ ΨMonastery 13:01, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What's strange? He probably looked at your contribs list, and saw a few categories he thought should be renamed or whatever. Nothing wrong with that, so please can we get back to discussing the merits or otherwise of the category? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:05, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As to Category:Geography articles needing translation from Vietnamese Wikipedia, it was empty with no indication that I saw of recent use. If you are planning to use this, let me know and I'll restore it. Yes, I did look at your contributions, but as the nominations show, for categories your contributions may have issues. This is not stalking. As to the claim that I don't nominate categories on a regular basis. That is completely false since I frequently makes such nominations. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:39, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – I expect most places have been reported as haunted at some time in the last few centuries. Occuli (talk) 17:04, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I could certainly imagine looking for something like this if I were visiting. However, there might be better places to find that sort of thing than Wikipedia. Svenna (talk) 23:01, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Better suited to a list, which can have refs attached to each item. Orderinchaos 13:29, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Orderinchaos and BrownHairedGirl. Gobonobo T C 06:40, 18 March 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:Cities, towns and villages in the Faroe Islands[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: Take no action until Wikipedia talk:Categorization/Categorising human settlements is resolved. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:28, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:Cities, towns and villages in the Faroe Islands to Category:Settlements in the Faroe Islands
Nominator's rationale: Merge. No reason for this extra level of category since settlements is the accepted form. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:25, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nominator. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:50, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – I don't myself see the point of separate 'settlements' and 'cities, towns and villages' trees (and would favour 'settlements' in most cases) but can we either have either 1 or 2 test cases or a complete nom? (Perhaps there are some countries where 'cities, towns and villages' is preferable. If so, where? Not the UK which also has hamlets - see Category:Hamlets in the United Kingdom, a hamlet being sub-village, a village apparently needing a church.) Occuli (talk) 17:13, 14 March 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:Argentinian psychedelic trance musicians[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: DELETE. postdlf (talk) 05:44, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Argentinian psychedelic trance musicians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Stub list in category space. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:21, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom - rather strange! For transparency I'll note I just upmerged its only entry, Megalopsy, into PT musicians and A musicians. Orderinchaos 16:55, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Gobonobo T C 06:41, 18 March 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:Public 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: delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:02, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Public history (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: This is an eponymous category for the article Public history. It's quite an important concept, and I suspect that in time there will many articles which could fill it, but right now it contains only the head article. I found it in Wikipedia:Database reports/Uncategorized categories (the page had been blanked), and I wonder if was depopulated out-of-process. The options I can see are either to delete it now without prejudice to re-creating it if there are enough articles, or to keep it and tag it with {{popcat}}. I'm not sure which is best. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:05, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete::I depopulated it. My apologies for not following procedure, but sometimes procedure is hard to know.
My reason was simple -- it contained a mishmash of 35 articles, with subjects including people, documents, museums, places on the NRHP, listed buildings, and so forth from at least six countries. If even a small fraction of the articles in it belonged in it, then it should, logically, have tens, maybe hundreds, of thousands of entries.
It was, therefore clear, at least to me, that it was not a useful category -- too big, too general, and too subtle in its difference from Category:History which already has an excellent subcat tree.
Although I wouldn't object strongly to recreating it with geographical or other subcats, I suspect that the difference between Category:Public history of Massachusetts and Category:History of Massachusetts is so subtle that most editors will pick the wrong one and maintenance will be a nightmare. . . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 16:42, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Jim, if you think that a category is a bad idea, please do not just depopulate it; because of the way categories are constructed, it is very hard to reverse a depopulation if other editors disagree with you. If you encounter such a category in future, please nominate it for deletion here at WP:CFD, where a discussion can reach a consensus on what to do about it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:20, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your tolerance -- I acknowledge the rule and won't break it again. However, I take issue with your assertion that it would be hard to undo the depopulation -- any user with AWB permission could take the appropriate section of my list of contributions and undo it in the same time that I did it. I would be happy to do that if you (and others) think it would be constructive. . . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 13:54, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure how to contribute to this talk page yet - sorry if I'm getting it wrong!
Here are my thoughts on the depopulating of "Public history" as a category:
It's upsetting to see the "Public history" category deleted - if you read the recently updated entry for "Public history," you'll see that the entire point of the article is that public history is "a mishmash" (or, as the article states more thoughtfully, "Because it incorporates a wide range of practices and takes place in many different settings, public history has always proven rather resistant to being precisely defined"). It is extremely important to those working in the field to convey the breadth and scope of what can be included as "public history," and one of the very best ways to do that is through example, which is precisely what the category was added to accomplish.
There are definitely subtle but important differences between "history" and "public history," and again, the expanded article was designed explicitly to try to convey those. The examples chosen were sites and projects that do claim the "public history" label, and the reason for adding the category was so that people who do identify themselves and their sites/projects under the rubric of public history could make that connection clear via Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seelouise58 (talk • contribs) 22:47, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(Please note that I have also inserted a comment above). Your comments are fine, but please (a) use the appropriate number of colons in front of each paragraph so that your comments are indented one more than the previous ones (I've done that for you) and (b) sign your comment with four tildes ~~~~ at the end (a bot has done that for you).
You speak of "subtle but important differences between "history" and "public history". "Subtle" is the problem that I see. It was apparent that the category was a mishmash -- if someone was monitoring it and throwing out inappropriate articles, it certainly wasn't obvious. Why, for example, were the Ohio Historical Society and a handful of other state societies included, but not all fifty? Why a smattering of NRHP, NHL, and NHS sites, but not all 80,000? I think the subtlety will be its downfall, but if there's a consensus, I can, as I offered above, easily repopulate it.. . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 13:54, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can you repopulate it now, let the discussion take place. Noting that the nomination was because of an unpopulated category Gnangarra 15:53, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have repopulated it. Before those who are interested decide to keep this, give it some thought. User:Seelouise58 (who created it in the first place) understands the difference between Category:Public history and Category:History, but I think it's too subtle for the general user (Including me) to understand. A few salient items:

  • One lighthouse of about 12,000 in the world. Why this one?
  • A handful of NRHP sites from about 80,000, all of which will eventually have articles
  • A smattering of museums with no apparent difference from many other museums we all could name
  • England, Australia, Canada, Ghana, Cambodia, United States -- does no place else have Public History?
  • History of the west coast of North America, apparently the only coast which has any public history
  • Two state historical societies -- what about the other 48, plus hundreds, maybe thousands, of local ones? Actually they're just overcats, as they are in Category:Historical societies.

It seems to me that building a full subcat tree for Category:Public history will, for almost all readers, just duplicate the existing deep tree for Category:History. When starting new major cats, consider the maintenance burden that will fall on editors who work in its space -- this cat will not be useful unless editors watch it carefully to keep out articles which might belong in History but not in Public history and it will probably make History less useful because, inevitably, some articles will end up in Public history and not in History. . . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 17:50, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because you dont understand the difference between History and Public history doesnt invalidate the category, IMHO you should have sort input before depopulating the category. Without checking the varacity of your figures, 1/12000 only means that the category needs to/can be further populated. 80,000 NRHP sites only indicates that a sub-category tree will be needed(plan ahead build the structres now). England, Australia, Canada, Ghana, Cambodia, United States --- subcategory structure of by country would also be an appropriate structure. History of the East coast of North America // History of the east coast of North America doesnt exist yet, when some writes the correspoding article it can be included in the category. Gnangarra 21:19, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep looking at the article Public history while contents were incomplete and there are potentially many articles that fall within the scope of this I can see that it will need subcats as its developed, Category:Historical societies is one, then there are the many notable groups. Gnangarra 15:55, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think I understand the difference between History and Public History -- although I note there is a great deal of variance in opinion among the latter's practitioners. The problem I have is that this category will be (a) very hard to maintain because it is very subtly different from History and (b) largely duplicative. If Lighthouses or Lighthouses on the National Register of Historic Places belong in the cat, then you should put the parent cat in Public History, and don't put each lighthouse or NRHP site in it.

The point is that if you want this category so badly, then now is the time to create the necessary sub-cats -- Category:Public history should be a meta-cat from the start, otherwise you're dooming future editors to having to change categories on a large scale. AWB makes that easier than manually, but it still takes 10-15 seconds per entry. And, I suggest, deal with lighthouses, NRHP, Historical Societies, and several other groups at the high level -- don't list individual articles.

However, I no longer have much strength for this sort of argument, so I'll bow out. I should note for the record that at the moment you have two votes for delete and one for keep -- User:Seelouise58 doesn't count because she (I presume it's "she") both created and largely populated it. . . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 22:36, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Public history is a field that has been in the process of defining and explaining itself to various publics and cognate fields over the past three or four decades, so a large part of the point here was to add it to Wikipedia under its own name, rather than losing it in the broader category of "History" or fracturing it into its many possible constituent parts (lighthouses etc.). The specific items that populated the category were there because they self-identify as being part of "public history" - in several cases, people at those sites asked to be included in the Wikipedia category, or added themselves. Yes, the distinction may be quite subtle, but it's a reflection of a real set of practices and discourses within the historical profession, so I think its presence here should be influenced by those (like me) with some expertise in the field. If this proves too subtle/vague/un-useful, it can be re-thought at a future time. In the meantime, I and others within the field are committed to updating/weeding/monitoring the category. Seelouise58 (talk) 22:56, 17 March 2010 (UTC)Seelouise58[reply]
Keep - depopulating out of due process in itself is an issue and should be discouraged regardless of the users involved however reliable, and where possible reversions and re-discussion are in order. As for public history vs history it is almost irrelevent in the face of such an action SatuSuro 23:58, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't get it. I read the parent article and came away confused. From there I went to the National Council on Public History's website and discovered that public historians don't even know what public history is. I don't think that categorization by self-identification is particularly useful or encyclopedic. Until a consensus among public historians emerges on a definition of public history that is distinguishable from history in general, I'd support restricting this category to institutions and topics directly related to public history. Gobonobo T C 07:17, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • According to public history, "[s]ome of the most common settings for public history are museums, historic homes and historic sites, parks, battlefields, archives, film and television companies, and all levels of government." So this category would seem to me best used as a parent for categories only. As noted above, I don't see any basis for including some articles on individual history museums, rather than all history museums as a category, likewise national archives, etc. That seems completely arbitrary, as I don't know how one history museum open to the public is more an exemplar of public history than another (unless it's just a matter of public relations word choice; see second para. below). And I'm completely at a loss to see why any articles on certain subjects of history, in contrast to institutions, would ever belong in this category. So Category:History organizations and Category:Historic preservation would belong in there, and maybe Category:Commemoration, Category:Archives, and Category:History resources. Which really wouldn't provide any added value to Category:History, and would just arbitrarily hide some of the categories you'd most expect to find directly in there.
  • And to the extent that public history is not synonymous with history made accessible to the public, it seems like it's just a concept that has provided a buzz word for institutional goals or mission statements. Which makes it suitable for an article, but not for a category, if there are no underlying facts corresponding to its use that would otherwise differentiate those using it from those not using it. So delete for lack of usefulness as a category above and beyond what is already provided for in the Category:History category structure, and/or for lack of any clear or substantive inclusion criteria. It could be restricted to only those articles that are expressly and exclusively about public history, but I don't see any apart from National Council on Public History (which is already in the much clearer Category:History organizations), and such a minimal sorting benefit would not outweigh the problems of this category just being plain confusing and vague. postdlf (talk) 17:19, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- Public history is a US-term, not (I think) used elsewhere. It appears to refer to non-academic history, but the content seems to be "visitor attractions of historic interest", which will be better classified as a class of visitor attraction. Since it is a US-term, it should certainly not be applied to sites elsewhere, such as Ironbridge Gorge Museum Trust. In any event, many museums are academic institutions; and archives are a resource for academics. The definition is thus too sweeping to make a useful category. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:36, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per postdlf and Peterkingiron. There might be a case for a category of articles relating directly to the concept of public history (rather than histotiacl buildings or organisations whose work could be described in part as public history), but as other editors have noted, that distinction seems to be too subtle to make for a viable category. Ultimately, this is a WP:OC#SUBJECTIVE fork of Category:History. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:50, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. After looking at the contents and reading the main article, I believe that the inclusion criteria are rather subjective and nebulous. Having said that, if at a later date someone can create an objective set of inclusion criteria that is clearly notable for the members, recreation should be allowed. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:36, 21 March 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:Seldom Scene 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: Rename. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:04, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Seldom Scene albums to Category:The Seldom Scene albums
Nominator's rationale: Per main article, The Seldom Scene. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:45, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom and convention. Gobonobo T C 07:20, 18 March 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2010_March_14&oldid=1140114804"