Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 October 23

< October 22	October 24 >

October 23

Portal article categories without the word "portal"

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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:27, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Adding "portal" to these portal categories, and making other logical adjustments to match similar categories. The word "past" seems particularly unneeded, since when else would those items have been selected? (FYI, I made the R&B categories before I decided to try standardizing these.)--Mike Selinker (talk) 23:06, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

• Support rename proposal as per nom's rationale. It should be clear what these items have been selected for. PC78 (talk) 03:24, 30 October 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.

Category:Spanish Civil War media

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 October 31. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:22, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Propose merging Category:Spanish Civil War media to Category:Spanish Civil War by medium

Nominator's rationale: If there is supposed to be a difference between those two, I don't see it. The parent categories, Category:Wars by medium and Category:Media by war, also appear to be duplicates. No problem with merging in the other direction. Ucucha 20:39, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually, reverse merge; "Spanish Civil War media" is a more intuitive wording. Ucucha 21:10, 25 October 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.

Category:2026 FIFA World Cup

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. Dana boomer (talk) 22:47, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Category:2026 FIFA World Cup (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Category has only one artcile (presently discussed at AfD), and is unlikely to have any more articles before 2026. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:37, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

• Comment. Apparently I was wrong about unlikely to have any more articles before 2026; Category:2022 FIFA World Cup has separate article for all the bids, for no apparent reason. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:48, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
• Upmerge to Category:FIFA World Cup tournaments. It will be some years before official bids are made, so the article is sufficient at present. The category can be created when there are official bids whenever that is. Cjc13 (talk) 12:29, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
• Delete as premature WP:CRYSTAL, assuming the AFD ends in delete. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:12, 29 October 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.

Category:Songs of the Spanish Civil War

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 in opposite direction of nom statement. Dana boomer (talk) 22:47, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Propose merging Category:Songs of the Spanish Civil War to Category:Spanish Civil War songs

Nominator's rationale: For consistency with the other subcategories of Category:Spanish Civil War by medium. On the other hand, the main article is Songs of the Spanish Civil War; I would also be fine with a merge in the other direction. Ucucha 20:32, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

• Comment Either works for me too.  Roger ^talk 20:38, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
• Merge them, but for preference Reverse merge in view of the name of the main article. We do not need both. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:14, 29 October 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.

Organized Labour portal

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. Courcelles 19:28, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

---

Propose renaming Category:Organized Labour Portal AOTD to Category:Organized Labour portal article of the day

Propose renaming Category:Organized Labour Portal Featured Union to Category:Organized Labour portal featured unions

Propose renaming Category:Organized Labour Portal Labour in the Media to Category:Organized Labour portal labour in the media articles

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Lowercasing "portal" as per many other recent changes, and spelling out and decapitalizing some other parts. Other variations welcome.--Mike Selinker (talk) 19:40, 23 October 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.

Category:MTV Europe Music Awards winners

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. Dana boomer (talk) 22:51, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Category:MTV Europe Music Awards winners (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Removal per Wikipedia:OC#Award recipients, winners already in appropriate lists, compare discussion for Category:MTV Video Music Awards winners. Hekerui (talk) 18:28, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

So what's the criteria which awards are notable? MTV Europe Music Awards is much more notable than World Music Awards and the same notable as BRIT Award and Grammy Award (or even more notable than Brit Award).--Spacejam2 (talk) 07:46, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

This is not about whether the award is notable, but whether it should have a category. The guideline states that awards winners should generally be collected in lists, which makes sense because that way more information about when and why an award was given can be imparted. The guideline also states that "with a few exceptions" award categories shouldn't be created because they can lead to overcategorization, which means cluttering the bottom of a page at the expense of categories more significant for the person/better suited for the reader. Hekerui (talk) 09:06, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

• Delete. Normal treatment for awards categories is to delete them and produce lists instead. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 10:05, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
• Plain Delete -- If we do not need to listify. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:15, 29 October 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.

Category:MTV Video Vanguard Award winners

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. Dana boomer (talk) 22:51, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Category:MTV Video Vanguard Award winners (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Removal per Wikipedia:OC#Award recipients, winners already in appropriate lists, similar discussions here and here Hekerui (talk) 16:49, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

• Delete. Normal treatment for awards categories is to delete them and produce lists instead, which in this case already exists. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 10:06, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
• Plain Delete -- If we do not need to listify. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:16, 29 October 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.

Category:Yiddish

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: Split into Category:Yiddish language and Category:Yiddish culture and place those cats in the appropriate category trees.. Dana boomer (talk) 17:18, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Propose renaming Category:Yiddish to Category:Yiddish language

Nominator's rationale: Per main article and several other "X language" categories (e.g. see parent Category:Languages of Israel.) —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:50, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose because: (1) if it ain't broke, don't fix it. (2) There is already an article about the Yiddish language purely as a language but that is only part of the total picture relating to Yiddish culture and way of life both religious and secular. (3) There is no "law" or policy on WP that every word in every category has "to match" for aesthetic reasons. (4) The word "Yiddish" is not just about a language it is also about a vast culture and way of life that has existed for over 1,000 years or more. (5) This category has withstood the test of time since 2004 [1] and all editors were happy with its name till now. (6) Yiddish is not "just" a "language" of modern Israel, and (7) as proof of this, see for example sub-category Category:Yiddish folklore or Category:Yiddish theatre, now is that also going to be renamed to "Yiddish language folklore" and "Yiddish language theatre" that would be absurd and sound so cumbersome, since that folklore and the theater encapsulates the cultural and historical world of the Ashkenazi Jews of Eastern Europe from the Early Middle Ages until Modern Times for whom Yiddish was more than a mere language, it was also a symbol of their way life. (8) Therefore, this move is short-sighted and is reminiscent of the attempts to rename "Jews" to the redundant "Jewish people", see top of Category talk:Jews, and should be turned down for the same reasons. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 02:06, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. IZAK (talk) 02:11, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

*Oppose As IZAK suggests, this category is a catch-all for Yiddish language and culture. If Category:Yiddish language is absolutely necessary, it should be created as a subcat of Category:Yiddish, with the appropriate articles moved into the new category. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:07, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

• Subcategorize into Category:Yiddish language and Category:Yiddish culture, and resort. There are language and culture hierarchies. 76.66.200.95 (talk) 04:17, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

---

• Comment If this category is about a Yiddish culture, then it should be renamed to Category:Yiddish culture to keep from the confusion of simply being named "Yiddish." That word either is an adjective (in which case, this should be renamed) or refers to the language (in which case, it is appropriate to follow the form of "Category:X language" per other such categories and the main article at Yiddish language.) I'm completely fine with the split and sort strategy proposed above. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:43, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

---

• Comment Latin language redirects to Latin, while Yiddish redirects to Yiddish language, as does Hebrew to Hebrew language, while some other languages redirect to disambig pages. This seems all over the place to me. Some sort of rule needs to be formulated about this, and then we can decide what to call the relevant cats too. Yehoishophot Oliver (talk) 05:18, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
• Manually split into Category:Yiddish language and Category:Yiddish culture. French is a language and a culture too but that doesn't mean Category:French would make sense or be a good idea. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 20:47, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Hi Good Ol: (1) You are overlooking the fact that Category:French culture and Category:French language are both sub-categories of Category:France, (2) unlike the Jews of Eastern Europe who created a culture-within-a-culture/state-within-a-state especially when forced to live in Ghettos and Pale of Settlement by the Christian state authorities and had no "state" of their own, so that: (3) the word "Yiddish" meant to them not just a mere language but also, as it translates: "Yiddish" = "way of being a Yid (Jew)" or; (4) even literally it's an adverb or adjective describing the Yidden (German: Jude) the Jews of first Western and then Central and Eastern Europe who made Yiddish into the vehicle for studying Torah, living a Torah-observant life, speaking a unique language, and therefore (5) acting "Jewish" which in fact is another translation of the word "Yiddish" that a Jew must be "Yiddish" in behavior and culturally. (6) This harps back to the connection and divide between Jews being BOTH an ethnicity (i.e. Jews) AND members of a religion (i.e. Judaism) so that both words (Jews and Judaism=Yidden and Yiddishkeit=Yiddish culture and language) are the English versions of the "Yid" in Yiddish, so that's why your comparison misses the mark by a long shot. IZAK (talk) 09:34, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
    • Actually, I didn't overlook that, I just felt it was not an apt comparison. Still think it's probably a good idea to separate it out, though. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 10:43, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
      • Hi Good Ol: I was commenting in general terms to put the subject in a greater context. But as I state below, it would probably be best to create a new inclusive parent category of Category:Yiddish culture and language that would then have two sub-categories of Category:Yiddish culture (the Yiddish equivalent of the English-language Category:Jewish culture as well as even of the broader Category:Judaism) and Category:Yiddish language. Otherwise the original Category:Yiddish, June 2004, that denotes both the Yiddish language and Yiddish culture, has worked just fine all these years. IZAK (talk) 07:38, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
        • I don't agree that it's necessary to have a Category:Yiddish culture and language; it would be a bit of overkill, IMO Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:45, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

---

• Comment' If this is deleted and split (which seems likely), then I will split these manually after closure and before deletion. Cf. Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2010_September_28#Category:Hindu_and_Buddhist_heritage_of_Afghanistan —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:14, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Hi Koav: Probably the best solution now would be to create a parent category called Category:Yiddish culture and language, redirect Category:Yiddish to it after it's emptied, and then place the correct sub-categories into Category:Yiddish culture and Category:Yiddish language accordingly. IZAK (talk) 09:34, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
    • Response If no one else has any other take on this, then I guess I can separate language-specific articles into Category:Yiddish language and others into Category:Yiddish culture and then put them into a parent, but it really makes more sense to me for the latter to be the parent of the former. Surely, everything about the language is a subset of the broader culture, so there's no real need for a catch-all category. Is there something I'm missing here? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:20, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
      • Hi Koav: Your "solution" is not a solution because you would be making a culture a "sub-category" of a language since they are different phenomena and notions. In this case facts show that that neither language nor culture supersede each other, so that having a co-equal parent category of Category:Yiddish culture and language. Otherwise it can just as well be left alone as the "generic" original long-standing category of Category:Yiddish, June 2004, that denotes both the Yiddish language and Yiddish culture, and that actually translates, often as an abbreviation for Yiddishkeit, as Secular Jewish culture and/or Judaism in English. IZAK (talk) 07:38, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
        • Not quite I am proposing the opposite: that language is a part of culture. Anything related to the Yiddish language is necessarily related to its culture, but not vice versa. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:12, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
        • Also Your link doesn't work. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:21, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
          • Here's the link to the history of Category:Yiddish again. It should work now. By the way, have you taken the chance to look at the Yiddishkeit article? it should shed some light on what I have trying to convey. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 11:18, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

---

relist

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dana boomer (talk) 15:41, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

• Commment - I am relisting this because while there seems to be consensus for a split, there is no consensus for the parent cat or actual naming. Please discuss. Dana boomer (talk) 15:41, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
• Support splitting the category into Category:Yiddish language and Category:Yiddish culture. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 15:52, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
• Rename parent to Category:Yiddish culture and create Category:Yiddish language as subcat. Agree with Koavf as to this solution, and with IZAK as to reasoning (they're so intertwined, and the historical factors are such, that they can't possibly be sister categories). Roscelese (talk) 22:26, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
• After all the discussions I have three preferences, in descending order: My first choice is to keep the original Category:Yiddish (because it can encompass everything, as it has till now). My second choice is to create a new parent called Category:Yiddish culture and language that would have two main sub-categories Category:Yiddish culture and Category:Yiddish language. My third choice would be to create Category:Yiddish culture as the main parent category, with Category:Yiddish language as a sub-category, and there may even be a need of another new sub-category such as Category:Yiddish and Judaism. IZAK (talk) 06:10, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
• Suggested solution -- Keep as a parent only category, with subcategories Category:Yiddish culture, Category:Yiddish language, and possibly others such as Category:Yiddish literature. Those contributors who know about the subject (and I do not) should recategorse articles appropriately to empty the category of most articles. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:22, 29 October 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.

Category:KeepLocal

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. Dana boomer (talk) 22:47, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Propose merging Category:KeepLocal to Category:Wikipedia files on Wikimedia Commons for which a local copy has been requested to be kept

Nominator's rationale: Merge. Redundant category. It appears that 729 of the 732 current members of the category are added by transclusion of {{KeepLocal}}. Anomie⚔ 23:22, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

• Are they on commons, all of them? Is there a bot that would regularly check that a commons copy still exist? East of Borschov 02:43, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dana boomer (talk) 15:37, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

• Merge per nom. East of Borschov makes a valid point, but I take this category to mean that at the time they were on commons a copy here was requested. If they later are removed from commons, that would not affect being a member of this category. Given the confusing nature of this, one wonders if simply using a template would be the better choice. But that can be considered after these are merged. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:54, 30 October 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.

Irish regiments of the British Army

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: Relist, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 November 2. Dana boomer (talk) 17:10, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

• Category:Irish regiments of the British Army

Only one link MFIreland (talk) 13:01, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

• Comment Move Category:Defunct Irish regiments of the British Army to Category:Irish regiments of the British Army. Hekerui (talk) 18:31, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
• Comment Move Category:Defunct Irish regiments of the British Army to Category:Regiments of the British Army. MFIreland (talk) 12:57, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
• Comment. I have restored changes by the proposer who had blanked this page. Otherwise a proper discussion is not possible. Cjc13 (talk) 13:27, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
• Support. This is a difficult category because it combines former regiments from Ireland when it was linked to the UK and current regiments associated with Ulster which is still part of the UK. It is probably easiest to delete this category. Cjc13 (talk) 13:27, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
• Comment There are far to many Categories for the British army, a major clean up of them is need. MFIreland (talk) 13:46, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
• Keep -- We do not normally like defunct or former categories, but I think it is in this case appropriate since they mostly became defunct by being disbanded or such like on the creation of the Irish Republic in about 1921. Alternatively, it might be renamed and repurposed as Category:Irish regiments of the British army disbanded before 1925. Some of the contents would need to be recategorised inot the parent e.g. Ulster Defence Regiment. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:30, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
• Keep and support proposed move of Hekerui: Category:Defunct Irish regiments of the British Army to Category:Irish regiments of the British Army. The British Army had and still has regiments that have been specifically given an Irish identity. See Irish Guards for an example. Kernel Saunters (talk) 15:13, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

• The current regiments relate to Northern Ireland rather than the Republic of Ireland. There are no similar categories for Welsh and Scottish regiments so this category does not seem necessary. Cjc13 (talk) 12:47, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Technically the regiments represent Ireland as an island - the Irish Guards recruit from all Ireland as does the RIR - at the Queen Mothers funeral in 2002, 8 guardsmen including 2 from the Republic of Ireland carried her coffin see also Ian Malone. Looking at why the category was created it would appear that this category was created as a sub-category of Category:Irish regiments to distinguish those regiments in service with the British Army as opposed to the current Southern Irish Army and other non-British Army regiments. All of Wales and Scotland are part of the UK hence such a distinction is not as important IMHO Kernel Saunters (talk) 13:15, 2 November 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.

Municipally owned companies

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. Dana boomer (talk) 17:09, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

• Category:Municipal owned companies of Norway → Category:Municipally owned companies of Norway
• Category:Former municipal owned companies of Norway → Category:Formerly municipally owned companies of Norway
• Category:Municipal owned companies of the United Kingdom → Category:Municipally owned companies of the United Kingdom
• Category:Municipal owned companies of England → Category:Municipally owned companies of England
• Category:Municipal owned companies of Scotland → Category:Municipally owned companies of Scotland
• Category:Municipal owned companies of Wales → Category:Municipally owned companies of Wales

Nominator's nationale: Rename With reference to discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Category names with hyphens misused after "ly" and the recent renaming of Category:Municipally-owned companies to Category:Municipally owned companies and Category:Municipally-owned companies of Canada to Category:Municipally owned companies in Canada I nominate these categories for renaming. I'm not enough of an expert in English to be sure that what I am proposing is the correct solution, so I'm hoping for corrections if warranted. __meco (talk) 08:02, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

• Rename all – to harmonise with Category:Municipally owned companies etc. Occuli (talk) 08:56, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Note. I have modified the proposed name of one of the categories to counter an ambiguity which I just realized. Instead of its new name being Category:Former municipally owned companies of Norway I have proposed Category:Formerly municipally owned companies of Norway (i.e. changed "former" to formerly") to avoid confusion with defunct companies. This category should classify companies that have now been privatized. If they are also defunct that should thus be categorized independently. __meco (talk) 10:31, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

• Comment – this is part of a wider problem as there is Category:Former government-owned companies which I agree is ambiguous. I'm not sure about 'Formerly municipally owned' as it appears to be overly adverbed. Ex-municipal? Occuli (talk) 12:26, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

• "Ex-municipal" sounds bad is my immediate reaction. Other possibilities are Category:Formerly municipality-owned companies of Norway or Category:Companies of Norway formerly owned by municipalities. __meco (talk) 12:39, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

• How about considering an approach that might address both problems? Would Category:Companies owned by municipalities of England and Category:Companies formerly owned by municipalities of England be an acceptable approach? Vegaswikian (talk) 18:47, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
  • It doesn't have a wonderful sound to it, but it is very straightforward. I'm wondering though whether of or in would be the best preposition. __meco (talk) 18:56, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
    • I did consider in v of and was unsure. If the basic approach is accepted, others can decide which is the better choice. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:38, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dana boomer (talk) 00:37, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dana boomer (talk) 15:31, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

• Comment - I'm relisting this again. The consensus appears to be to move; however, as far as I can see, there is no consensus on which name to move it to. Dana boomer (talk) 15:31, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
  • I think there is consensus for Category:Companies owned by municipalities of Norway and Category:Companies formerly owned by municipalities of Norway as the basic form for the renames. There was some discussion for using 'in' and not 'by', but I consider that minor and will accept a choice by the closing admin if there is no additional discussion. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:03, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
    • Concur. --Bsherr (talk) 22:02, 1 November 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.

Category:Saint Martin (France)

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. Dana boomer (talk) 22:47, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Propose renaming Category:Saint Martin (France) to Category:Collectivity of Saint Martin

Nominator's rationale: Per main article. If this has consensus, the subcat.s would need to be (speedily?) renamed. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:45, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

• Rename. This would reflect the recent move of the article to Collectivity of Saint Martin. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:46, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
• Support Rename to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 22:21, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
• Rename to match parent article.--Lenticel ^(talk) 01:50, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
• Rename per above. Beagel (talk) 18:12, 29 October 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.

Category:Bertha Runkle

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. Dana boomer (talk) 22:47, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Category:Bertha Runkle (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Eponymous category for a writer, serving only to link her article, a category of novels that are already linked within the article and a couple of images that are already in the article. Delete as WP:OCAT. Bearcat (talk) 05:56, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

• Delete overcategorization, two articles and three images (subcats taken into account). Hekerui (talk) 10:44, 31 October 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.

Category:Midway Islands

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 10:22, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Propose renaming Category:Midway Islands to Category:Midway Atoll

Nominator's rationale: Per main article —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:25, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

• Support Rename to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 22:33, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
• Rename to match parent article.--Lenticel ^(talk) 01:51, 28 October 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.

Category:Elections in Taiwan (Republic of China)

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: Relisting, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 November 2. Dana boomer (talk) 17:05, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Propose renaming Category:Elections in Taiwan (Republic of China) to Category:Elections in the Republic of China

Nominator's rationale: Per main article and other such articles. If this passes, the by year subcats should be renamed as well (speedily?) —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:49, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

• comment Since this category only includes elections since the ROC moved to Taiwan and not during its years on the mainland, something in the name needs to specify this or the name should remain as is. The main article here is also badly and misleadingly misnamed. Hmains (talk) 17:49, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
• Comment there is one election for the whole of China, before the evacuation to Taiwan, in the category. 76.66.196.13 (talk) 08:00, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
• comment And that one election for the whole of China (or however much was under Nationalist control at that point) was the only election held during its mainland history. Hmains (talk) 02:26, 26 October 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.