Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 June 24

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< June 23 June 25 >

June 24[edit]

Category:People from Echo Park, California[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 23:31, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renamed Category:People from Echo Park, California to Category:People from Echo Park, Los Angeles
Nominator's rationale: Echo Park is a district of Los Angeles, not a separate city. As such, it should be a subcategory of Category:People by Los Angeles, California district or neighborhood. And as the article associated with it is now ntitled Echo Park, Los Angeles, the category should be renamed to reflect that. Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 23:44, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
SupportHmm. I'm not against that at all and it makes pretty good sense. This is the first category I've ever created, so not at all familiar with the process of moving/renaming categories, though. Would all the attached pages get updated in the process, or is that work I would have to go back & do over? Also, I looked over the proposed parent category and it occurs to me that this might be a good time/reason to create links on that page (even if redlinks) to all the borroughs/sections that are formally named, so that future editors on a search for existing categories can find them there on that parent category & get them right the first time. Is that even possible, given that it's a Category page that updates links in the way that it does (what's that way called, by the way)? duff 00:09, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Usually when a category is renamed, a bot or the closing editor changes all the pages in the old category to the new category. Listing all neighborhoods in Los Angeles on the category page might be a tad excessive, but I agree that there should be a link to List of neighborhoods of Los Angeles or a similar category Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 05:37, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I just found this also List of districts and neighborhoods of Los Angeles, which is perversely both more than and less than a list, though I see how its organization is helpful. duff 00:16, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support rename for reason given. I suspect there are similarly misnamed categories for a few cities, Toronto being one. Mayumashu (talk) 15:48, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. GcSwRhIc (talk) 22:08, 1 July 2011 (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:Museums of London history[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Merge per amended nom. Timrollpickering (talk) 23:30, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:Museums of London history to Category:Local museums in London
Nominator's rationale: Merge to match with the conventions of other subcategories of Category:History museums. Tim! (talk) 17:33, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – 'Museum of London history' is a stronger condition than 'History museum in London', reflected in the first being a subcat of the second. Moreover another parent of the first is Category:Local museums in England. Occuli (talk) 18:36, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are no other Museums of foo history categories are there? The first is not currently a subcategory of the second although it could be. Tim! (talk) 06:29, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That might be better as I suppose local really means local history. I amend the original nomination.Tim! (talk) 11:36, 25 June 2011 (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:Types of universities and colleges[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 02:10, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Types of universities and colleges to Category:Types of university and college
Nominator's rationale: Same rationale: it's an incorrectly formed plural: one type of university, two types of university. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 00:51, 24 June 2011 (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:Types of companies[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 02:11, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Types of companies to Category:Types of company
Nominator's rationale: Same rationale: it's an incorrectly formed plural: one type of company, two types of company. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 00:51, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The category includes entities which are "companies" in U.S. usage but not in UK usage - see the lead of Company and Talk:Types of business entity. A better title would be Category:Types of business or Category:Types of business entity. --Mhockey (talk) 23:02, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That'd be 100% OK with me. My only objection to the current title is on grammatical grounds. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:21, 29 June 2011 (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:Types of horses[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 02:11, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Types of horses to Category:Types of horse
Nominator's rationale: It's an incorrectly formed plural: one type of horse, two types of horse. Cf one can of beans, two cans of beans. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 00:51, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Logical, grammatical. Montanabw(talk) 04:52, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

*Rename I believe spelling errors can be WP:BOLD. You can try speeding if that doesn't work.Curb Chain (talk) 05:31, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2011_June_24&oldid=1089087487"