Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 May 3

< May 2	May 4 >

May 3[edit]

Category:Lists of communities in Canada[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: rename. — ξ ^xplicit 19:42, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Lists of communities in Canada to Category:Lists of populated places in Canada

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Rename per many previous discussions. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:13, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Lists of settlements in Canada. I do not see why we need "populated places" at all and do not recall any precedents. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:06, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename as nominated. I think Peterkingiron has ?missed some recent discussion on this—most notably this one. The suggested change is in line with the other recently made changes. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:49, 11 May 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.

Ren and Stimpy[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) 05:50, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming:

Nominator's rationale: To match parent article, The Ren & Stimpy Show. — ξ ^xplicit 22:27, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to match parent article. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 22:46, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. -- doorautomatica (talk) 14:22, 10 May 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:Hybrid 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: withdrawn by nominator and renominated at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 May 8#Category:Hybrid albums. — ξ ^xplicit 20:02, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Hybrid albums to Category:Hybrid (producers) albums

Nominator's rationale: To dab from Category:Hybrid (metal band) albums. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:16, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I hate to bring a suggestion to rename the parent article during a CfD, but shouldn't Hybrid (producers) be named Hybrid (Welsh band), while Hybrid (metal band) be named Hybrid (Spanish band) to conform with WP:MUSTARD#Disambiguation? — ξ ^xplicit 23:12, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response I will happily withdraw this and you can rename the other two if you want, at which time you or I can resubmit these two for CfD. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:27, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've now moved both. Perhaps amending the nomination would suffice. — ξ ^xplicit 04:31, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn And renominated: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2010_May_8#Category:Hybrid_albums. Thanks. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:41, 8 May 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:Settlements in Canada[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: rename. — ξ ^xplicit 19:42, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Settlements in Canada to Category:Populated places in Canada

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Per long list of previous discussions. Note that I don't believe that a blanket rename can be done for the lower level categories since settlements may be the official name for some places in Canada from what little I have read. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:42, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. For lower level categories, this would be my suggestion: (1) Do create the appropriate "Populated places in (Province/Territory) categories. (2) Move the subcategories (cities in, towns in, etc.) of each "Settlements in (Province/Territory)" over to the new category, but leave articles that are sitting directly in the "settlements" category where they are — some need to be moved to "cities" or "towns" or "villages" categories anyway. (3) Allow individual users to determine when "settlements" categories need to be kept as another subcategory of "populated places" (because you're right, they do need to be kept in some cases) and when they just need to be cleaned up and deleted instead (because they don't need to be kept in all cases). Bearcat (talk) 06:42, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For (2), when the categories are moved, the articles will follow. Recreation of the settlements categories can be done where needed. Alberta is safe since the settlement one there is a sub category further down the chain that probably need to change its parent after the rename. Otherwise we will have a huge manual effort since the bots can not do what you want. I say let the bots do the heavy lifting and then cleanup the small stuff manually. I have nominated these and requested no bots for the three provinces that I think need to keep a settlement category after the renames. I'll process those manually if the proposal passes. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:07, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose -- settlements is a perfectly satsifactory global term without introducing "populated places" (for which I recall no precedent). Peterkingiron (talk) 22:08, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename as nominated. I think Peterkingiron has ?missed some recent discussion on this—most notably this one. The suggested change is in line with the other recently made changes. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:56, 11 May 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:Baptists from the United States[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: keep. — ξ ^xplicit 19:42, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Baptists from the United States to Category:American Baptists

Nominator's rationale: Rename. "Fooian people" is standard, see Category:Baptists by nationality. Karppinen (talk) 18:37, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Members and churches of the American Baptist Churches USA are known as "American Baptists." This should stay unchanged— or if it must be renamed, move to Category:Baptists of American nationality, or such. ^{şṗøʀĸɕäɾłäů∂ɛ:τᴀʟĸ} 19:14, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- And the same is true for American Baptist Association members. Are we to say that these are the only American Baptists? Vegaswikian (talk) 21:09, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. This seems like a logical way of making sure that we are not confusing a "by nationality" category with a specific religious groups called the "American Baptists". Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:26, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As several have stated, "American Baptists" are members of the ABC USA. Mangoe (talk) 02:51, 4 May 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:Baptist ministers from the United States[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: keep. — ξ ^xplicit 19:42, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Baptist ministers from the United States to Category:American Baptist ministers

Nominator's rationale: Rename. "Fooian people" is standard, see Category:Baptist clergy by nationality. Karppinen (talk) 18:37, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Ministers of the American Baptist Churches USA are known as "American Baptists ministers." This should stay unchanged— or if it must be renamed, move to Category:Baptist American ministers, or such. ^{şṗøʀĸɕäɾłäů∂ɛ:τᴀʟĸ} 19:14, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. This seems like a logical way of making sure that we are not confusing a "by nationality" category with a specific religious groups called the "American Baptists". Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:26, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: see previous discussion where this name was selected here. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:27, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As several have stated, "American Baptists" are members of the ABC USA. Mangoe (talk) 02:51, 4 May 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:AMW Dirty Dozen[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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:41, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Only three of these twelve fugitives are notable enough to have articles of their own. This list is trivial, unlike FBI Ten Most Wanted Fugitives, for example. Karppinen (talk) 18:07, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is not at all as important as the FBI's list. It's a gimmick for a TV show. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:21, 11 May 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:Bytches With Problems 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 to Category:BWP (group) albums. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 20:26, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Bytches With Problems albums to Category:BWP albums

Nominator's rationale: Possibly BWP (group) albums per main article, BWP (group). —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:48, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:BWP (group) albums to disambiguate. — ξ ^xplicit 19:42, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:BWP (group) albums per Explicit to disambiguate and for consistency. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:22, 11 May 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:Former member of district council in Hong Kong[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 Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 May 16#Category:Former member of district council in Hong Kong. — ξ ^xplicit 22:43, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Former member of district council in Hong Kong to Category:Former members of district councils of Hong Kong

Nominator's rationale: At 11:13, 3 May 2010 User:119.237.153.52 listed this move as an article-type move, and it got in Wikipedia:Requested moves/current. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 15:30, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge to Category:District councillors of Hong Kong. We do not distinguish present and former members in categories (per long precedent). However this is a parent only category with a lot of ill-populated subcats. If these subcats are retained the contents of this cat really ought to be distributed inot the appropriate subcats. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:14, 10 May 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: Austria–Hungary[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: procedural close. None of the categories were tagged for renaming. However, they all meet the speedy renaming criteria C2A, and will all be nominated and tagged shortly. — ξ ^xplicit 22:43, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Austria-Hungary[edit]

Propose renaming Category:Austria–Hungary to Category:Austria-Hungary and similarly some subcategories (see what links here).

Nominator's rationale: Rename all categories with "–" (dash). "–" (dash) is misused instead of "-" (hyphen). ŠJů (talk) 11:09, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The right writing is Austria-Hungary and Austro-Hungarian with "-" (hyphen). While the mutual relation between Austria and Hungary should be expressed by dash (train Austria–Hungary can go from Vienna to Budapest, Austro–Hungarian treaty is a treaty between Austria and Hungary etc., a compound name of a conurbation or a compound state it should use hyphen which expresses joining (just like in Brandýs nad Labem-Stará Boleslav or Czecho-Slovakia, see also Hyphen War). Austro-Hungarian border is the outer broder of Austria-Hungary while Austro–Hungarian border is the border between Austria and Hungary etc. --ŠJů (talk) 12:15, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of concerned categories in Austria-Hungary discussion

List of concerned categories:

Do not change unless/until article name changes. Right now these match Austria–Hungary. I would wholeheartedly agree with changing the categories if the article were moved by consensus to Austria-Hungary. This is a debate that is probably best held on the article talk page when an article move is proposed. (I do think that the nominator is essentially correct, however, and support moving the article, and then in turn the categories can follow.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:23, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: rename templates appear to have been placed on the talk pages of the categories in question. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:28, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Austria–Hungary which affects this change. Please participate on that page. --ŠJů (talk) 05:18, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I just closed the requested move at Talk:Austria–Hungary as "rename", so this category move can now also go ahead. Ucucha 15:57, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. Now that the article has moved, I support renaming the categories to follow. There is now no reason to not proceed. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:50, 11 May 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:FC Fakel-Voronezh Voronezh players[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 Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 May 16#Category:FC Fakel-Voronezh Voronezh players. — ξ ^xplicit 22:43, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:FC Fakel-Voronezh Voronezh players to Category:FC Fakel Voronezh players

Propose renaming Category:FC Fakel-Voronezh Voronezh managers to Category:FC Fakel Voronezh managers

Propose renaming Category:FC Fakel-Voronezh Voronezh templates to Category:FC Fakel Voronezh templates

Nominator's rationale: The club has been renamed from FC Fakel-Voronezh Voronezh back to FC Fakel Voronezh: http://www.fakelfc.ru/. WildCherry06 10:52, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

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.

Years in the European Economic Community[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 all. — ξ ^xplicit 22:43, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:1979 in the European Union to Category:1979 in the European Economic Community

Propose renaming Category:1980 in the European Union to Category:1980 in the European Economic Community

Propose renaming Category:1981 in the European Union to Category:1981 in the European Economic Community

Propose renaming Category:1984 in the European Union to Category:1984 in the European Economic Community

Propose renaming Category:1987 in the European Union to Category:1987 in the European Economic Community

Propose renaming Category:1989 in the European Union to Category:1989 in the European Economic Community

Propose renaming Category:1991 in the European Union to Category:1991 in the European Economic Community

Propose renaming Category:1992 in the European Union to Category:1992 in the European Economic Community

Nominator's rationale: Rename. The European Union was not established until 1993. Tim! (talk) 08:45, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rename all per nom. Always best to avoid anachronisms. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:26, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Object to renaming as for many countries the “Years in” extends back before the creation of the country, but includes events within the present boundaries of that country. Before 1901 Australia was a number of separate colonies, but individual “Years in Australia” goes back to 1788. Similarly South Africa (from 1910, but years back to 1795) and Canada (years back to 1700, but formed 1867; and Newfoundland did not join till 1949). And should 1776 to 1789 in the USA be “Years in/of the Continental Congress”? Similarly for countries formed by breakup or secession eg Pakistan (1947), Bangladesh (1971) or Timor Leste (2002). While the Soviet Union/Russia is a special case, the “Years in” for say Estonia and Moldova can go back before their formal independence in 1991. In addition having to transfer between “Years in the European Economic Community” and “Years in the European Union” introduces complications in using them. Hugo999 (talk) 11:13, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This objection is not logical and contrary to several examples in existence. Categories for England/Great Britain/United Kingdom exist with the correctly named state for the time e.g. Category:1666 in England, Category:1766 in Great Britain, Category:1866 in the United Kingdom and it would be extremely bizarre to create 1666 in the United Kingdom for some misguided sense of consistency. A further example, as you have mentioned the United States, is Category:1724 in the Thirteen Colonies, a category created by you, whereas if you followed the logic of your opposition here would be called 1724 in the United States. Tim! (talk) 17:24, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Is Romania supposed to be covered by Cat:1984 in the European Union? And what about the UK? Is it supposed to be covered by Cat:1971 in the EU? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.237.153.52 (talk) 18:01, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support per nom. A category's name that includes should match the name of the political body at the time. "Estonia" "Moldova" etc., they were still...SSRs?...at the time, and had a polticial existiance. Not so for the EU. - The Bushranger (talk) 18:03, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Opposes are missing the point. Johnbod (talk) 10:53, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Object again~~ Re renaming “Years by” country categories to the name at the time, what are years in South Africa before 1910 and back to 1795 to be called – perhaps “Years in the colonies that became South Africa” There were four: Cape Colony, Natal, Transvaal and the Orange Free State. And the corollary; that events in Newfoundland (say) should not be included as events in Canada until 1949. Where do they go? Hugo999 (talk) 13:36, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the latter case, to Events in Newfoundland or Events in Newfoundland and Labrador. As they were, in fact, an entirely seperate dominion/colony. The South Africa case is a case where logic says to use just "South Africa". But referring to the European Union, when there is a logical and accurate alternative (the EEC), is unencyclopedic and, IMHO, misleading. - The Bushranger (talk) 16:57, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Do not Rename:~~ The “Years in” in the EU categories before 1993? could be renamed with some work and inconvenience, though other articles like Elections in the European Union which refer to elections back to 1979 will also have to be modified. But re splitting of Years in Canada, Newfoundland and Labrador currently does not have have a “Years in”, now so there would be a lot of work in setting up “Years in Newfoundland” to 1949 only. Particularly when the proposal above is to retain the “Years in Canada” before 1867 ie to have a notional but nonexistent Canada before Confederation anyway. Hugo999 (talk) 12:58, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support rename. 'Years in' cats for places that did not exist, such as the modern country of Australia in the 1700s etc. need to be changed too (over time), simply, to make sense Mayumashu (talk) 13:54, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
See for my further comments Category talk:Years of the 20th century in the European Union Hugo999 (talk) 04:39, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support rename but do not alter parent category. It is perfectly logical to refer to EEC when that is what it was called. Peterkingiron (talk)

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:Settlements in Syria[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 and merge as nominated. — ξ ^xplicit 19:42, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Settlements in Syria to Category:Populated places in Syria

Propose merging Category:Cities, towns and villages in Syria to Category:Populated places in Syria

Propose renaming Category:Former settlements in Syria to Category:Former populated places in Syria

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Per Wikipedia talk:Categorization/Categorising human settlements and Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 April 17#Category:Settlements. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:36, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support per categorization discussion. ^{şṗøʀĸɕäɾłäů∂ɛ:τᴀʟĸ} 17:41, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Added Category:Former settlements in Syria to the nomination. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:07, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose "Settlements" is a perfectly satsifactory term. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:18, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename as nominated. I think Peterkingiron has ?missed some recent discussion on this—most notably this one. The suggested change is in line with the other recently made changes. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:57, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename in agreement with broad consensus on a naming scheme for places where people live. Ucucha 16:00, 11 May 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 Israel[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 and merge as nominated. — ξ ^xplicit 19:42, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Cities, towns and villages in Israel to Category:Populated places in Israel

Propose merging Category:Cities, towns and villages in the Holy Land to Category:Populated places in Israel

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Per Wikipedia talk:Categorization/Categorising human settlements and Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 April 17#Category:Settlements. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:24, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support per categorization discussion. Category:Cities, towns and villages in the Holy Land has very little added content. Any difference is unclear. ^{şṗøʀĸɕäɾłäů∂ɛ:τᴀʟĸ} 17:38, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose "Settlements" is a perfectly satsifactory term. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:18, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename as nominated. The suggested change is in line with the other recently made changes. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:57, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename in agreement with broad consensus on a naming scheme for places where people live. Ucucha 16:01, 11 May 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:Volcanic settlements[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: listify. — ξ ^xplicit 22:43, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Volcanic settlements to Category:Populated volcanic places

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Per Wikipedia talk:Categorization/Categorising human settlements and Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 April 17#Category:Settlements. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:18, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comment:~~ ...what exactly is the purpose of this category? Both "Volcanic settlements" and "Populated volcanic places" sound distinctly awkward (although, admittedly, the latter less so than the former). "Populated places on volcanoes" would be more like it, I'd think...except then exactly how do you define "on" the volcano? Ones close by but not "on" are at as much risk. And it seems a number of the pages in the category (Mount Pinatubo, for instance) are for the volcanoes themselves. I guess this sleep-deprived rambling can be summed up with its tl;dr version as: ~~Oppose, and Delete category~~ as too nebulous and/or WP:OC. - The Bushranger (talk) 07:39, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is a special notability of settlements located in a volcanic area where there is a realistic chance of a volcanic vent erupting underneath the settlement. The risk factor is higher than for places located a considerable distance away that are merely at risk from pyroclastics, lava flows or lahars. For example, the Hawai'i Volcano Observatory has a risk map for the Big Island, with volcanic risk zones from 1 to 9. All zones are threatened to some degree by volcanic activity, though lessening with higher number. But risk 1 areas have a reasonably high chance of seeing volcanic vents open right there. These include settlements like Leilani Estates, which is directly on Kilauea's east rift zone. This is similarly true for places like Rabaul (in the caldera of an active pyroclastic shield), or Auckland (build on top of a monogenetic volcanic field where new vents happen in random new locations), etc. Because while volcanic threats apply to both the source and the vicinity, settlements built at the source are of particular fascination. Also, Mount Pinatubo actually was a settlement—not just on its flanks, but a significant population of indigenous tribes lived on the mountain itself, rather than just nestled on its edge. They were evacuated en masse, and the very ground their villages were built on no longer exists. So yes, Pinatubo literally was a settlement. The fact that the ground the settlement was on no longer exists does not mean it was never directly settled. - Gilgamesh (talk) 09:57, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thanks for clarifying that. In that case might as well Support to go along with the "populated places" naming scheme that all the cool kids are using. - The Bushranger (talk) 13:37, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indifferent. Name it whatever is most appropriate. But keep; do not delete. - Gilgamesh (talk) 09:52, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Listify after the last explanation. The conditions for inclusion seem to be be overly complicated at this point making it difficult to determine what should be in the category. If a clear and concise inclusion criteria is provided I'll be happy to reconsider. Terms like 'realistic' and apparently choosing only one of the 'volcanic risk zones from 1 to 9' this represents a subjective inclusion criteria. That also seems to indicate the need to identify the risk so a list article would be more appropriate then categories. Also killing the city by pyroclastic surges would seem to be just as devastating to the populace. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:15, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Listify. Useful info for volcano tourists, but not usually a defining feature of the settlements. I think arguments based on volcanic hazards are a red herring, because risk is not that closely related to whether or not a city happens to be built directly on a volcano. For instance, Auckland is built on the recently active (in geological terms) Auckland volcanic field, but is at greater risk from volcanoes hundreds of miles away. --Avenue (talk) 01:04, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Listify, as explained by Vegaswikian and Avenue, and if not, find some less awkward name—neither the current nor proposed one is appropriate. Ucucha 16:03, 11 May 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.

Jónsi[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: no consensus to rename. — ξ ^xplicit 22:43, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Jónsi albums to Category:Jón Þór Birgisson albums

Propose renaming Category:Jónsi EPs to Category:Jón Þór Birgisson EPs

Nominator's rationale: Per main article, Jón Þór Birgisson —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:15, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rename Per nom. Lugnuts (talk) 07:27, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: We should use the WP:COMMONNAME - as should Jón Þór Birgisson, but that's another matter. We wouldn't think to rename Category:Elvis Costello albums to Category:Declan MacManus albums despite that being his real name. We should leave the categories under the name by with Jónsi is best known, and that would be where the categories currently are. --JD554 (talk) 17:14, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the music categories should use the band name. In this case, it is a single member band called "Jónsi" (or stagename, if you prefer). 70.29.208.247 (talk) 08:57, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename categories in accordance with main article, or rename main article in accordance with WP:COMMONNAME (assuming "Jónsi" is the common name). Ucucha 16:05, 11 May 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:Carpenter[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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:24, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. This is kind of acting like an incomplete version of the disambiguation page Carpenter (disambiguation) which lists all the varieties of uses and meanings of the name/word. As such, for a category it is a simple example of overcategorization by shared name. We have article disambiguation pages for these purposes, not categories. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:42, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. - The Bushranger (talk) 01:53, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete trivial intersection of shared name; the disambiguation page serves the job much better. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 22:48, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per cat requestor to list items recently deleted from Carpenter (disambiguation) to avoid edit war onto a List of Carpenter named articles which is now pending deletion review. This attempt was to list Carpenter name related articles - regardless of occupation or surname for wiki users. Many of the partial items will be lost including Carpenter names mentioned in articles which at this time are not notable enough for a full article. Most are hard to find without a good search effort. Any suggestions or comments appreciated at: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Carpenter named articles. Ideally I would like a merge there, going back to the way it was before. Jrcrin001 (talk) 03:02, 4 May 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.