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. -- Black Falcon(talk) 22:09, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Either this is a category about the nationality of the artist or the language on an album. If the former, then these subcategories should be upmerged to Category:Albums by artist nationality (note that several already are) and the individual articles put into subcategories of that. If it's the latter, this should simply be deleted in favor of Category:Arabic-language albums and the nationality categories should be taken out (e.g. Iraqi artists could cut albums in Kurdish or even English for that matter.) I don't think that these sort of trasnational (in terms of political borders) categories are a wise decision. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:45, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Concur with the nomination completely. We have better named and defined places to redistribute all of these albums. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 09:31, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I've gone through the contents and done a bit of a clean up and checking, and I can confirm that now all of the contents that are Arabic-language albums are in Category:Arabic-language albums, so a straight delete should be OK to do. Good Ol’factory(talk) 21:06, 1 April 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:Companies based in New Albany, Ohio[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: This category is overcategorisation per per WP:OC#SMALL (small with no prospect of expansion). New Albany, Ohio is a village with a population of only about 6 or 7,000, and is unlikely to many more notable companies. Either merge to the state category, or renaming it to serve as a by-county category. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 22:45, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Prefer a county category of the two. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:54, 25 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.
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.
Per the discussion below, I support a reverse merge. Since only one Christian denomination has an Archbishop of Changanassery, there is no need for a verbose version of the title. And per Occuli 'Archbishops of the Archdiocese of Foo' is redundant: an archbishops see is always an archdiocese, so 'Archbishops of Foo' is fine. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 00:40, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Reverse Merge Such disambiguation is only necessary when two particular churches share a Bishopric, for example the co-located Dioceses of Spokane. Without that being the case, the shorter one works better. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 09:39, 25 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.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: Keeping in line with the article move; the subject was almost always (if not universally) credited as David "Fathead" Newman. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 22:15, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rename to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 04:44, 25 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.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: Apparently, this is an intersection of Category:Video albums and Category:Live albums (I have categorized it as such myself). The problem is that by calling them "DVDs" you are excluding other home video formats for video albums—Betamax, Laserdisc, VHS— and unnecessarily making this a category about a format rather than its contents. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:13, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename – this is in line with previous cfds such as this one renaming 'Music videos and DVDs' to 'video albums'. Occuli (talk) 21:35, 25 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.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:no consensus to delete or to rename to one particular title. -- Black Falcon(talk) 22:17, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Delete as OCAT. The articles don't mention these being green. If we were to populate by extension of the contents, all stone age tools would need to be included. Somehow that seems to be overly broad for a category. Note that green as used here probably means new wood that has not yet had much processing or is unseasoned. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:12, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose deletion, Oppose rename. There is an accepted practice on WP of categories for specific trades, for tools in general, and for a category representing the cross-section of tools used particularly by specific trades. This is that category, for tools used in the practice of green woodworking. Green woodworking is well defined (the working of timber in the "green" or unseasoned state). Although green woorkers are often a bit beardy, there's no scope for confusion with "stone age" tools. Nor is there any implication that green tools are "green" (in the ecowashing sense) or hand-powered. Even though they are traditional, there's no implication that traditional tools are only used for green woodworking, and so the rename would be wrong. The category also has content, description, and relevant cross-linkage with Commons. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:42, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Tools for green woodworking since the current name clearly just confuses people. Not sure the category is needed at all - that would depend on how much the average member is exclusively for green work. Johnbod (talk) 13:44, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Andy Dingley has given a clearly stated justification for the category. The name might need working on; but there is always going to be some confusion as the tools can and are used on both green and seasoned wood. Twiceuponatime (talk) 09:11, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
MediaWiki categorization isn't for defining taxonomy (i.e. defining the overall location of member items). It would need to be rather more sophisticated if it were to be used successfully for that. Instead it's a way of generating navigational structures: category members define categories to produce structures of "common interest" and thus a nav structure amongst them (rather than the taxonomic view, where categories define aspects of their members). So it's just not a problem if Axes appear under both green woodworking tools, firefighting equipment and Tools for serial killers: there's no implication that an Axe is-and-only-is any one of these categories. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:33, 26 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.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: merge (over the present redirect) to the more standardly name page Mayumashu (talk) 16:16, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom to the standard name. Occuli (talk) 21:35, 25 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.
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.
Is there a need for both of these? How much does the prefecture include that the island does not- it's not crystal clear from the articles; which give a higher population for the Island than the Prefecture, which is obviously an effect of one number being from 2009 and the other from 2008. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 08:40, 29 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.
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 all. -- Black Falcon(talk) 18:59, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge all. I'm proposing that each of the "FOOian Canadians" categories be upmerged to its parent, which is invariably the corresponding "Canadian people of FOOian descent". This system is not a duplicate of the American ethnicity set-up that was recently discussed. This system is more intricate and is unique—meaning that the distinction between the two types of categories is not always clear, but it is clear that only the Canadian tree is divided in this way. In most of the nominated categories, there is a definition that says this: "This page lists citizens of Canada of full FOOian ethnicity or national origin. For those of partial descent see Category:Canadian people of FOOian descent." I don't think it's a good idea at all to divide people by a "full" vs. "partial" ethnic or national descent for a number of reasons.
1. First of all, doing so relies heavily on original research. Are sources really making the distinction between full and partial descent? How "full" does one have to be to be "full"? Isn't it easier for users who categorize to just have one category for every nationality/ethnicity combination rather than forcing them to determine if someone is of "full" or "partial" descent?
2. Next, it's overcategorization: the ethnic descent categories for all other nationalities just have one category per nationality/ethnicity combination, not one for "full" and one for "partial". While strictly speaking there might be a difference between the two, as mentioned above I don't think categories are amenable to such fine slicing of ethnic backgrounds. Past consensus supports this point. We have enough troubles emanating from these categories without introducing another sub-issue to have fights over.
3. In the recent discussion in which the "FOOian Americans" categories were changed to "American people of FOO descent", some users suggested that we should have both types of categories in the fashion of "the Canadian tree" (this one), but this approach was not endorsed by most participants and obviously it was not implemented for the American ethnicity categories.
4. As a compromise, it would be fine with me if users wanted to retain category redirects on the nominated categories, as was done with the American tree. — Good Ol’factory(talk) 09:59, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support – yet another sub-issue is that the rubric heading 'Cat:Fooian Canadians' often disagrees with the article 'Fooian Canadian': eg Scottish Canadian makes no mention of full/partial descent. I agree with the nom that categories are not ideal for establishing the origins of a person's DNA. (There may be some of these which would be better left alone: cf Category:African Americans. I will leave such niceties to those better informed on Canadian usage.) Occuli (talk) 11:39, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all per nominator's well-reasoned rationale, but re-create existing titles as {{category redirect}}s. The distinction between "full" and "partial" descent is a very hard one to maintain even with extensive genealogical research, and that research is rarely available in reliable sources. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 12:20, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support mergers. Too fine a distinction to keep and a problematic one given the nature of sources on this matter Mayumashu (talk) 15:47, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- French Canadian usualy refers to French-speaking Canadians, usually of Quebecois extraction. This has been correctly omitted. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:00, 25 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:Editors of New York City newspapers[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.
Different merge -- This was my mistake. I'd suggest "New York City newspaper editors" as more concise. Maurreen (talk) 15:48, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all -- no strong preference on which way. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:01, 25 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.
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. -- Black Falcon(talk) 22:24, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:delete:Local authority trading enterprises (LATEs) was a legislated term in New Zealand until 2003 when it was replaced by council-controlled organisations (CCOs) under the Local Government Act 2002. LATEs no longer exist under that name. The category has only one article in it. Few, if any, other CCOs have articles about them, they being generally non-notable, so it is not proposed to rename the category. Nurg (talk) 09:15, 24 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.
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:do not rename. -- Black Falcon(talk) 18:35, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your message that "it's not blood, it's only faith" (correct me if I interpreted your "oxymoron" incorrectly). But what, precisely, makes Jews incompatible with humanism? NVO (talk) 16:46, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don t know that it is, actually. The other two to me seem rather clearly oxymoronic, but we do have Category:Christian humanists, don t we. Okay, I ll remove this one from the nomination. Mayumashu (talk) 01:56, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Judaism is an ethnicity as well as a religion, so "Jewish atheists" is not an oxymoron. "Converts" is also a weird term to apply to atheism or agnosticism, which prompts me to imagine the ceremony in which someone gives the required answers to affirm their conversion to agnosticism:
"Do you, Shlomo, sincerely declare that you really aren't particularly sure whether or not there is a God?"
"well, I think I do, but it varies. Some days I reckon the idea of God is nonsense, but on on other days I think it's probably an odds-on-explanation".
"And do you, Shlomo, declare sincerely and without mental reservation that while there may some good stuff in the Torah, you are do not to accept it as an immutable authority on the values by which you should live"
"Hmm, that depends which bit of the Torah you are talking of."
I think it's much better to skip these troubling images. Please, can we stick with the existing titles? --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 22:22, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as for BrownHairedGirl, only less amusingly. What's the problem with Category:Jewish atheists anyway? They're Jews, they don't stop being Jews. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:28, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ethnically? They certainly do to a point as ethnicity is a shared a heritage/culture amongst a group. Converting from Judaism is to no longer share in Jewish heritage/culture as a whole. But to a point I d say you are right. Mayumashu (talk) 02:05, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Plenty of Jewish atheists and agnostics are still heavily involved in many aspects of Jewish culture; they just don't do the God bit. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 02:40, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A problem with the suggested rename is that it's not only a wording change, it's also a significant, yet probably unintended, semantic change from "Jewish" to "Judaism". They're not the same, that alone makes this a problematic change. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:54, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - No one can convert to atheism (and especially not to agnosticism), even if there's already a category with that misleading name. Jewish atheism exists as an article. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 04:28, 25 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.
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 above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:delete. -- Black Falcon(talk) 18:28, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with only oner article and limited prospect of any more, it's not an aid to navigation. Alansohn (talk) 04:47, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; no need for it at this time. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 09:43, 25 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.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:NO CONSENSUS. postdlf (talk) 23:09, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. I think it would be clearer to use the noun form of the country in these categories, instead of a demonym that can be ambiguous or confusing. For Luxembourg, for example, it could be either "Luxembourgian", "Luxembourgish" or "Luxembourg architecture". I also think it's more logical for by-country categories to actually spell out the name of the country. Commons does it this way, for example. This is a follow-up to a discussion at WT:CFD about the Luxembourg category. Jafeluv (talk) 00:57, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. This would be a change to the relevant naming conventions, but I think it's a good idea. We don't necessarily need all the socio-cultural topics to be in the "BARian FOO" format. I think the nomination presupposes that all "Swiss architecture" is located in Switzerland. As long as that assumption holds, there's no reason not to make this change. I don't think it would be a good idea to categorize any architecture by a Swiss architect as "Swiss architecture" when the building is outside of Switzerland. I think the categories are essentially being applied as "by country" categories and not "by nationality of architect". Good Ol’factory(talk) 04:34, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm dubious about applying this rigidly, especially for historic architecture. For example several of the articles in "Byzantine architecture" relate to places in north Italy that were only briefly part of the Byzantine Empire, and not always when the building was constructed - it is normally treated as a stylistic not a geographic or political term. In the same way "architecture of Great Britain" is not the same as "British architecture", though I think our categorization mostly behaves as though it is. Also, we already have Category:Architecture of the United Kingdom; it would be unnecessary and non-standard to have the proposed Category:Architecture of Great Britain as well. I suspect similar difficulties lurk in other proposed changes. Johnbod (talk) 14:38, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I agree completely with Johnbod. Same in Serbia, where numerous peaces of Serbian architecture are not in Serbia, then in other parts of Former Yugoslavia, while most of them are regarded as exclusively Serbian Architecture. I oppose. -Tadijataking 21:26, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I have some concerns about this, per Johnbod. I can see three alternative names, with a different set of meanings, and we need to decide which meaning we want to use:
Architecture in Foo. (Fairly straightforward classification by the location of the building)
Fooian architecture (architecture of a Fooian style, wherever it is located. So, for example, the Foster-designed Torre de Collserola in Barcelona is British architecture), but Gehry-designed Maggie's Centre in Dundee is Canadian/American architecture)
Architecture of Foo (a vagie hyrbid of the two, which roughly corresponds to current usage)
People = as all people by occupation. Apart from Italians (who worked all over the world and rarely in Italy itself) it's quite straightforward.
Styles and trends = not so easy. Regional varieties (i.e. French Rococo and Neoclassicism) are quite simple, but larger pan-European styles (Neoclassical architecture) must be clearly excluded from national/ethnic categorization. The gray area between the two may be contentious - is Beaux-Arts architecture a world phenomenon or a French specialty? NVO (talk) 22:52, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. We also have the "buildings and structures in ..." tree, mostly organized by building function, which is purely based on current political boundaries. That suggests these categories should, where there is a difference, concentrate on architectural style. But I agree with others this can be a very complicated question. I suppose for many of the categories above the proposed new names are no more or less ambiguous. Johnbod (talk) 13:54, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's true only to some extent that it would make sense for the "architecture" categories to focus on styles. For instance, what about categories like Category:Neo-Byzantine architecture in the United Kingdom? This is a sensible subdivision, both of the neo-Byzantine style category and a category for architecture inside the UK, even though it mostly contains information on specific buildings (although with some style bits too e.g. Bristol Byzantine). This is an example where "architecture in the UK" rather than "British architecture" (which might include British-built neo-Byzantine buildings overseas) would make sense. Similarly it shows that an "architecture in ..." category is not redundant to the "buildings and structures" categories, even if it mostly contains individual buildings in practice. As for buildings of the former British Empire, such as Chhatrapati Shivaji Terminus (formerly Victoria Terminus, Mumbai), that could be filed under "Category:Gothic Revival architecture in India" (even though it is clearly not natively "Indian" architecture), as well as a subcategory of something like "Category:Architecture of the British Empire", which might distinguish "British" architecture not built within the UK itself. For the "Serbian" architecture outside the modern state, I'm sure that could be dealt with to some extent by historical period too e.g. "Category:Architecture of the Serbian Empire". TheGrappler (talk) 16:11, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I do not rule out the proposal altogether, but you have to make distinction between architecture = dead buildings, in which case is situ approach holds true, and architecture = national culture and heritage, which may be scattered all around the world as in the Byzantine example above. I have no idea how both these approaches may be incorporated in a single naming scheme. Right now national/ethnic categorization of architecture is quite liberal and irrational ... Second Empire (architecture) is not related to Category:French architecture (for a reason), it is a third-level sub of Category:British architecture and Category:Architecture of the United Kingdom. However, a dozen or two other nationalities and/or nations can claim it their own too. Are you ready for a Slovak-Hungarian brawl over Gothic Revival? NVO (talk) 22:34, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps such broad architectural movements that occurred in multiple countries, shouldn't be subcategories of national categories at all. "Gothic Revival architecture in Hungary/Slovakia" though, would give two quite reasonable categories. TheGrappler (talk) 18:24, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support for either the "in" or "of" solution, and use of complementary categories for historic architecture - e.g. for "Serbian architecture" that is now found in a neighbouring country, how about Category:Architecture of the Serbian Empire as well as the category for whichever modern country it is currently in? TheGrappler (talk) 15:44, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename mainly because I find it confusing and illogical that the titles of articles nearly always follow the form Architecture of Foo while the categories to describe them follow a different form. I do however agree that there could be exceptions such as Category:Byzantine architecture which is a concept in its own right and, in my opinion, is not always the same as Architecture of the Byzantine Empire. I prefer the of to the in as it is more general. -- Ipigott (talk) 17:08, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hm, our article states "Byzantine architecture is the architecture of the Byzantine Empire." Where exactly is the distinction you are drawing? I'm tempted to think it might just be a linguistic issue (a bit like "Roman architecture" being easier to write than "Architecture of the Roman Republic and Empire") rather than the clear distinction between "architecture of the Goths" (Mausoleum of Theodoric, Palace of Omurtag) and the utterly different "Gothic architecture", but am willing to admit my ignorance! If "Byzantine" - like "Romanesque", "Gothic Revival" or "neo-Byzantine" - is really a style in its own right, then it could be kept as the adjective. But it would then also be valuable (if you're correct that the concept is different) to have a distinct "Architecture of the Byzantine Empire" category too. (Incidentally, having "of" categories would work well for cases like "Architecture of the Goths" where distinguishing them for the adjectival form is important!) TheGrappler (talk) 17:53, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
After further thought, I suppose "Ancient Greek architecture" doesn't work well as "Architecture of Ancient Greece" (in the sense that the important buildings around the Mediterranean would be excluded). And "Architecture of the Ancient Greeks" is something of a mouthful. So "of" is not a cure-all. TheGrappler (talk) 17:57, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Slovenian architecture is not the same as Architecture in Slovenia. Interesting parts of Slovenian architecture are located outside Slovenia now, and Slovenia as a political entity is quite new. The possibility would be to rename the category to Architecture in the Slovene Lands. "It is only since October 29, 1918, when Slovenes declared independence from the Austro-Hungarian Empire and established the State of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs, that Slovenia de facto became a distinctive administrative and political entity. Before that, "Slovene Lands" and not "Slovenia" is the correct term to describe the territory of modern Slovenia and neighbouring areas." --Eleassarmy talk 20:49, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose. As above, Serbian architecture for example covers whole Western Balkans; the countries of Bosnia, Croatia, Macedonia and Montenegro. Some articles can have both: Architecture in X meaning all architecture in the place/state/region, while X architecture meaning a specific national/ethnic architecture. As the case of Luxembourg, it can only be Architecture of Luxembourg as specific luxembourgian architecture doesnt exist, only French and German architecture. Renaming would not fix your "problem" --Ajdebre (talk·contribs)
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 April 5#Category:Companies based in New Albany, Ohio. -- Black Falcon (talk) 22:13, 5 April 2010 (UTC)