Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 March 15

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< March 14 March 16 >

March 15[edit]

Category:PESA[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. Revisit if the articles are renamed. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:39, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:PESA to Category:PESA SA
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Opposed speedy nomination. PESA is ambiguous. The main article is at PESA SA. Since the opposition was stated (copied below), no move has been made to propose moving the article. Don't know what else to say. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:44, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
copy of speedy nomination
  • Category:PESA to Category:PESA SA – C2D per PESA SA Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:39, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Why? The main article is PESA, and titling guidelines say to avoid using SA, Ltd. Inc. etc in titles. Oppose - I'm also sure this is the primary use for the name PESA, and that the other things named in PESA are unlikely to ever have categories..Oranjblud (talk) 21:51, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The main article for the company is at PESA SA, and the category is a category for the company. PESA is a disambiguation page. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:55, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry my mistake - corrected above - however this think the rename is wrong - and am suggesting that primary use is of PESA is PESA SA (most common) - ie 'bad title' for main article.Oranjblud (talk) 21:57, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    If you wanted to immediately start a requested move using WP:RM for the article, I would be willing to suspend this nomination. But as long as the article remains where it is, I think the category should match. I'm not sure it's a clear-cut issue—we also have a river called Pesa, so it gets complicated. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:59, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As I noted in the discussion - my thoughts are that PESA SA is in fact the primary topic of PESA and the disambiguation page should be renamed accordingly, and the relavent page renames made - as such Category:PESA would remain the correct title. Oranjblud (talk) 01:37, 16 March 2012 (UTC) It's not clear if I should make a competing page move request, or what..??Oranjblud (talk) 01:39, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I mentioned in the speedy discussion above that if you want to immediately start a requested move using WP:RM for the article, I will be willing to suspend this nomination until the close of that discussion. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:54, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
See the section on requesting a single page move or, if you prefer, provide a detailed rationale and I'll be happy to start the move discussion at Talk:PESA. -- Black Falcon (talk) 03:34, 16 March 2012 (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:Iranian women biologists[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: Upmerge to all parents. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:31, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Iranian women biologists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary triple intersection. I don't think we should be categorizing scientists by all combinations of field, gender, and nationality. LeSnail (talk) 20:44, 15 March 2012 (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:Commenting available on articles online[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:33, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Commenting available on articles online (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Not part of any discernable scheme. Only parent category is Category:Newspapers. I can see it being useful somehow, even expanded to subordinate hierarchies, but I don't think the initiative should be done like this. meco (talk) 20:29, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This is a general comment about the process of removing categories that some of us try to build:
  • Why is there no mechanism to draw the attention of others to these discussions such as the one that exists on Articles for Deletion discussions?
  • The only arguments I have seen (I only come here to participate in discussions about categories that I started myself) is not defining which is a term that has been coined by a small Group of "category insiders", I think?
  • Categories at Wikipedia are in such a mess, attacking the few that try to help fix the problem will ensure they stay a mess.
  • Why not concentrate instead on increasing the number of Wikipedia readers who use categories? Ottawahitech (talk)
  • There are various mechanisms in place, both manual and automated. For instance the notification templates such as {{cfd-notify}} and other that can be placed on related article talk pages or on WikiProject talk pages. If the category is added to a WikiProject on its talk page that project will be automatically notified on its Alerts page.
  • The "not defining" argument is problematic, I believe. There is so much that is readily being categorized that clearly isn't defining, such as year of birth...
  • Maintaining and developing the categories on Wikipedia is a huge and ongoing endeavor. There are a number of Wikipedia namespace pages that discuss this and where input is being welcomed. __meco (talk) 16:14, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why are wikipedians who start new categories not consistently notified when their cagtegories are proposed for deletions? Ottawahitech (talk) 18:46, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This does not categorize based on a defining characteristic of these newspapers. (Also the name is very strange.) LeSnail (talk) 20:55, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I don't like the name myself, can you suggest a better one? Ottawahitech (talk) 14:55, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - It took me a minute to understand what was being categorized: newspapers with online versions that allow readers to comment on articles. This is primarily a technical feature of websites and, as noted above, not defining for any newspaper. Information of this type may be suitable in an article about the topic of Online commenting but a directory of websites which allow it is not suitable for inclusion. -- Black Falcon (talk) 16:59, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete So common now as to not be defining. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:02, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I only wish it was common... Online commenting on news stories is only available on some publications, and only in developed countries, and now exceedingly, only through companies such as Facebook. Yes it is not defining because it is so new, there is precious little written about it (I hope someone can prove me wrong on this), and because things move so fast companies are taking advantage of the chaos and gaining a monopoly.Ottawahitech (talk) 14:43, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think an article on the subject as Black Falcon suggests would be a good start for this topic. __meco (talk) 16:14, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • We can talk about doing it, or we can go ahead and do it. I, Unfortunately, cannot do both. Ottawahitech (talk) 18:51, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ottawa, My experience is based on American and British newspapers which almost universally have this feature so maybe there is a geographic bias in my experience. Nontheless, just the publications I read from those 2 countries would overflow a category. RevelationDirect (talk) 03:48, 22 March 2012 (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:Sports in the Las Vegas Valley[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) 12:30, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Sports in the Las Vegas Valley to Category:Sports in Las Vegas
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Rename to match the main article. This wound up at this title as the result of a problematic move of the parent category from metropolitan area to valley. This move changed the scope of this entire series of categories from about 8,000 sq mi or so to 600 sq mi. The move was based on a redirect from the metro area to the the valley article that is there only because a manual cleanup of around 4,000 links is still needed, not because in the long run that the redirect is correct. Most of the links should go to the valley, but a good number are really for the metro area. So it is a manual review and not a bot task. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:23, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Rock albums by British−American artists[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Delete. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:30, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Rock albums by British−American artists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: This was created just to take Category:King Crimson albums out of Category:Rock albums by British artists... We don't categorize band's albums by artist nationality for every member's ethnic background. Since the origin of this band is in the UK, the band are British, even if individual members might come from the States. (Also note the use of an ndash rather than a hyphen--at the very least rename per WP:DASH.) —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:47, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The UK's state media, the BBC produced the documentary "From New York to Wimbourne" discussing the American sojourn of Fripp, and in particular the influence of the happenings in New York and West Virginia. Bruford left in the 1990s, with comments about "Americans" in his autobiography. All the other new band-members of King Crimson are Americans. (The "angel of categorical death" originally placed King Crimson in the category Category:Rock albums by British artists, reflecting its Wessex origins.) There are obviously other British–American bands, e.g. The Monkeys or the Akron–London band The Pretenders. In contrast, a British-American artist would be an American artist with British parents, or a British-raised artist who lives in and identifies with America (e.g. by becoming a U.S. citizen), etc.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:47, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
On the other hand, since rock music is an American art form, it is redundant to mention "American", one could argue. Perhaps then all rock music should be put in the category "American music"?  ;)  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:31, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response First off, I think that it's fair to say that Brits are important in the formation of rock--it is ultimately American, but they can't claim a monopoly on it. Furthermore, as pointed out below, the simple solution is to place the artist's album category in both Category:Rock albums by Yian artists and Category:Rock albums by Zian artists--this will preserve the structure we already have. Finally, I don't understand why you inserted both The Pretenders' individual albums and the artists' album category here--what is the purpose of that...? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:23, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This awkward category only serves to isolate albums in a category that readers won't even realize exists. It also fails to serve a need. While one can argue that there may be a few points in common between albums recorded by British artists, I just can't see how to make the argument that there's something distinct about albums recorded by bands whose membership was not 100% British. Besides, where would one set the bar? Should we have separate categories for albums by British bands who have a drummer born in Ireland or Denmark? Some bands are generally considered binational and the obvious solution is to simply categorize those in both national categories. Pichpich (talk) 21:04, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I would suggest deleting American rock and British rock as being too large and non-informative. Categories of other nations' rockers may be of interest.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 12:25, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    A griffin is neither a lion nor an eagle; a hermaphrodite is neither a male nor a female. The British--American band King Crimson is neither a British band nor an American band.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:52, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    At the category level, a couple of good approximations are much preferable to breaking down everything into tiny categories that nobody knows about. From a purely practical standpoint, the odds of finding Category:King Crimson albums are much better with the dual categorization. Pichpich (talk) 22:56, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I understand the intent, but I agree with Pichpich that it's difficult to argue that there is anything distinct about albums recorded by bands who were not 100% British. I agree it's easily solved by just categorizing them in both nationality trees. Categorization does not always work best if one tries to make it precision perfect; sometimes it provides a "rough guide" to organization, with the articles sorting out the messy details. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:56, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete we have no article British-American artists, so a cat is premature and ambiguous. it could mean that the "artists" are an amalgam of some people from each side of the pond (Pretenders, Fleetwood Mac, etc. come to mind), but there is no cat for them as a bunch, why for their music? it could mean an artist (or artists), since we use pluralized categories to categorize individuals (otherwise the category Category:Presidents of the United States would only have Grover Cleveland as no other article in the category was a multiple "presidents"), with British American ancestry (Mick Fleetwood being an obvious example). But again, we don't seem to have that category either. So alas, there seems to be no logical undepinnings for this "genre" or "triple intersection". Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:05, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - put it in both 'British' and 'American' (or delete the lot of them except for individual artists - a band doesn't have a nationality). Oculi (talk) 23:03, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Pichpich and Ol’factory. Just put it in both 'British' and 'American', as Occuli suggests. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:28, 17 March 2012 (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:Electricians by nationality[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/repurpose. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:37, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Electricians by nationality (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:American electricians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Canadian electricians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:English electricians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Icelandic electricians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Polish electricians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Listify and delete, following CFD March 1 (Israeli electricians). None of these people achieved notability as electricians. In some cases the career was a contributing factor e.g. becoming a union activist or (less happily) an amputee, but the reason for notability was something else in every case, and they are categorised accordingly. I have already created the page List of electricians to provide a replacement way to navigate notable people who have shared this occupation.
Category:Electricians - repurpose: listify and remove individual biographies, and add a category page explanation to use the list rather than the category for such pages in future. – Fayenatic L (talk) 18:39, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment if you repurpose cat:electricians, then shouldn't be singularlized, since it is no longer about electricans, but about the occupation of electrician? (several other categories exist as singular and plural, with plural categorizing examples, and singular categorizing articles about it) 70.24.251.224 (talk) 04:15, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-defining. Tim! (talk) 07:49, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and create electrician union cats when needed by enough articles.RevelationDirect (talk) 08:32, 17 March 2012 (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:Empty categories[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:22, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Empty categories (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. This has been nominated before on 9 January 2011 and 19 February 2011, both times resulting in Keep. A year later, I still find it a completely useless and redundant. First, NO empty categories (in or out of process) end up in here unless the category that was emptied uses either the template {{albums category}} or {{album label category}} (which numbers less than 2000 possible categories). Second, editors who patrol empty categories do so by going to Wikipedia:Database reports/Empty categories not this category. Basically, this has become a parent to one and only other category: Category:Empty categories awaiting deletion. Because of the noted lag, a category may not show up in here for days, by which time it has already been seen and nominated for {{db-c1}} by patrollers of the database report page. The point is that the supposed purpose of this category is already being served. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 17:42, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Running this stuff of database reports is s sticking plaster, until category lag problems are sorted out. Also the fact that you don't find something useful is not a compelling deletion argument. Rich Farmbrough, 17:57, 15 March 2012 (UTC).[reply]
I'm not sure what "is s sticking plaster" means or what category lag problems you're referring to. Bugzilla links are always helpful and welcome.
The fact that someone finds something to not be useful (or to be useless) is a compelling deletion argument to me. The onus is on those who wish to see the category stay around, surely. Categories exist to serve users. If this particular category isn't serving any users, I see no reason to keep it around. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:07, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Mostly redundant to pre-existing category and report. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:57, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I don't see any real valid use for this category. Empty categories should be marked for deletion or populated, not categorized in this category. There may be a use-case for a "Category:Intentionally empty categories" or something of that nature, but that's a different matter for a different forum. I'm certainly willing to revisit my vote in light of reasonable arguments that this category is needed, but as of now, I don't see any need to keep it around. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:07, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The only purpose for this category would be to identify them for deletion. Categorising it as empty is pointless. I am not sure what the purpose of an intentionally empty category would be, except briefly between creation and population. Anyway where a new category is needed, a simple way to create it is to categorise an article to it and then create it using the resultant redlink. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:27, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I think MZMcBride was referring to categories that are tagged with Template:Empty category – i.e., not intentionally empty but intentionally kept despite being empty at times. -- Black Falcon (talk) 16:26, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - It may have been useful at one time but it is not anymore. This category is, compared to the database report, a less useful maintenance tool since it provides an incomplete directory of empty categories. Thus, I can conceive of no purpose for this category that is not already served by Category:Empty categories awaiting deletion. -- Black Falcon (talk) 16:26, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hmmmm, though ideally MediaWiki would auto-populate this category when a category goes empty... eliminate the need for a database report (which was really just a replacement for the horribly inefficient Special:UnusedCategories). It's turtles all the way down.... --MZMcBride (talk) 17:23, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Tim! (talk) 07:49, 17 March 2012 (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:House of Vojislavljević[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Speedy rename C2C/C2D. Timrollpickering (talk) 00:34, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:House of Vojislavljević to Category:Vojislavljević dynasty
Nominator's rationale: Rename. As per Vojislavljević dynasty (article name) and Category:Nemanjić dynasty. Zoupan (talk) 16:38, 15 March 2012 (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:English idioms with chinese equivalent[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:23, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Category:English idioms with chinese equivalent (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. I would say most idioms in any one language have some equivalent idiom in most other languages, and setting up a scheme of language-to-language correspondences would result in massive overcategorization. This category is a singleton; after all, WP is not a phrasebook. - choster (talk) 16:29, 15 March 2012 (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:Women's field hockey at the 2008 Summer Olympics[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:24, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:Women's field hockey at the 2008 Summer Olympics to Category:Field hockey at the 2008 Summer Olympics
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge. No reason for women's field hockey to have special categories, especially considering the number of articles in the categories. HandsomeFella (talk) 15:09, 15 March 2012 (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:Romanian historical regions[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:24, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Romanian historical regions (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. I am proposing this for deletion because it is copy of existing category named Historical regions in Romania. Furthermore, term "Romanian" could have double meaning and could be related not only to Romania, but also to ethnic Romanians and the category have very clear nationalistic implication, i.e. it imply that these regions are "belonging to ethnic Romanians", which is very controversial due to the fact that these regions are also located in the countries that neighboring Romania and that they are largely populated by non-Romanian populations. I do not see any valid logical or scientific reason for existence of such category and Wikipedia should respect and follow scientific approach to the subject and should not tolerate dubious nationalistic approach that glorify "eternal ethnic property" of certain ethnic groups. PANONIAN 11:46, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The other cat provides consistence with the other European countries (per other subcats in uber cat) and is much more neutral.Anonimu (talk) 23:19, 15 March 2012 (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:Judaism in Oklahoma[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: speedy rename. – Fayenatic L (talk) 18:47, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Judaism in Oklahoma to Category:Jews and Judaism in Oklahoma
Nominator's rationale: Change to include both ethnic Jews and religious Judaism, per the naming convention for the category Category:Jews and Judaism in the United States by state. Vis-a-visconti (talk) 08:14, 15 March 2012 (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:American Dad! Christmas episodes[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: Upmerge. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:25, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Category:American Dad! Christmas episodes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Overcategorization. Upmerge. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:00, 15 March 2012 (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:South Park Christmas episodes[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: Upmerge. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:26, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Category:South Park Christmas episodes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Overcategorization. Upmerge. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:00, 15 March 2012 (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:International cooking tools[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Speedy rename C2C. Timrollpickering (talk) 13:49, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:International cooking tools to Category:Cooking tools by country
Nominator's rationale: LeSnail (talk) 06:48, 15 March 2012 (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:Trade shows[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. There's a clash between WP:RETAIN and the principle that a category name should match the main article. The general feeling is the main article takes precedence. Timrollpickering (talk) 11:31, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Trade shows to Category:Trade fairs
Nominator's rationale: To match the main article (Trade fair) and parent category (Category:Fairs), and to avoid the type of confusion between a 'fair' and a 'trade show' that resulted in the long-titled Category:Hong Kong fairs and trade shows. If there is consensus to rename, I will rename the country-level subcategories through WP:CFD/S. -- Black Falcon (talk) 06:00, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. This is probably another case of US/UK English and there is no reason to change. Sub categories can be changed to reflect local usage. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:40, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't really have a preference for either 'trade fair' or 'trade show', but I think that the article and category titles should match. The name of the Hong Kong category, for instance, seems as if it arose from a lack of clarity that 'trade fair' and 'trade show' are the same thing. -- Black Falcon (talk) 20:57, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Well I just did a quick Google search for these. "Trade fair" returned almost 20,000,000 hits, but "trade show" returns almost 44,000,000 hits. So clearly this is the more common, at least based on Google hits. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:31, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Google hits are too variable for my taste, but I've no objection to renaming the article if there is consensus for such a change. -- Black Falcon (talk) 21:47, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom, as long as the article remains where it is. The top-level category should match the article name. It is at country-specific categories that differences due to WP:ENGVAR should come into it. Discussions on the appropriateness of the article name can be had at the article page. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:32, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom and Good Ol'factory. The main article is Trade fair. Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 14:28, 16 March 2012 (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:Drina[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Speedy rename C2C/inverse C2D. Timrollpickering (talk) 13:50, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Drina to Category:Drina (genus)
Nominator's rationale: Rename. This category is for the genus Drina (no article); it is not about the Drina. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:08, 15 March 2012 (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:Amathusia[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Speedy rename C2C/inverse C2D. Timrollpickering (talk) 13:51, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Amathusia to Category:Amathusia (genus)
Nominator's rationale: Rename. This is about the genus Amathusia (no article); it is not about Amathusia. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:49, 15 March 2012 (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:Pacific War battlefields[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:27, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:Pacific War battlefields to Category:World War II battlefields
Nominator's rationale: Merge. Current name is ambiguous and adds an extra level of navigation and was brought to us by TfT. I would not object if someone thinks this should also be upmerged to Category:Pacific Ocean theater of World War II. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:25, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge per nom. Both Midway and the Coral Sea are already well categorized as in the Pacific theater of the war.RevelationDirect (talk) 09:23, 17 March 2012 (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:Cold War units of the United States Air Force[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: Upmerge. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:28, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:Cold War units of the United States Air Force to both parents
Nominator's rationale: Merge. I see no reason for this extra level of navigation added by TfT. I'm not sure about one of the parents, but for now, upmerge to both parents. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:19, 15 March 2012 (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:NGC objects[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:NGC astronomical objects. I don't see the support I would have expected for expanding the acronym, but the case for expanding the word "objects" is compelling to many of the commenters. There's not a clear majority for any one term, but "astronomical" seems to be the best choice. There are several other categories in Category:Astronomical objects that would occasion a similar treatment.--Mike Selinker (talk) 19:12, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:NGC objects to Category:New General Catalogue objects
Nominator's rationale: Rename. NGC is ambiguous and can mean a variety of things. (This is not about art objects in the National Gallery of Canada, for instance.) I suggest using the name New General Catalogue, as is used in the relevant article. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:18, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I assumed that the "New General Catalogue" was some sort of mail order catalogue, and had to open up the head article New General Catalogue to learn that it is actually about objects in astronomy. I prefer categories which do exactly what it says on the tin, but even with the abbreviation expanded, this one is still opaque.
    The nominator is right about the need to expand the abbreviation, but that's not enough. Please can we have something in the category name which identifies this as being about objects in astronomy? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:47, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment While I respect the need for clear naming, anyone who sees the category will be on an astronomical page. So I don't think there's an argument that people will be confused that it's object from <insert random backronym here>. On the other hand the term NGC is commonly used for these objects similar to NATO, SI, AIDS - it is explained once then the acronym is used for ever after. Rich Farmbrough, 18:04, 15 March 2012 (UTC).[reply]
    I'll drop anything from the new JC Penney's catalog into that category using HotCat without a 2nd thought. RevelationDirect (talk) 09:11, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Meh I don't really mind the proposed renaming but I don't think it's really necessary. As BHG points out, the name will remain mysterious with or without expanding the acronym. If the issue is avoiding confusion for readers, switching to Category:NGC astronomical objects might be more efficient. Then again, Rich is correct in pointing out that ultimately, readers who chance upon the category will already be in an astronomy context. Pichpich (talk) 21:21, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Aren't the objects generally titled NGCxxxx etc., not spelled out? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:12, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment the objects are almost never spelt out. It would be unusual for them to be spelt out. If they don't use "NGC" (or 'N.G.C.' / "N. G. C."), then they are called "Dreyer objects" in really old references (Dreyer built this catalogue atop the General Catalogues of the Herschels) 70.24.251.224 (talk) 04:18, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – I pretty much agree with the opinions above. It might be more descriptive to say "NGC deep sky objects", or use the full catalogue name: "New General Catalogue of Nebulae and Clusters of Stars". But I don't really see a rename as necessary. Regards, RJH (talk) 04:32, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to something which explains the category's purpose. Any of Category:NGC astronomical objects, Category:NGC deep sky objects would be fine by me, but I'll support anything which offers more clarity than the status quo. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:13, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose to conditional oppose – Renaming sounds meh-ish, as long as it doesn't lead to all pages in that category becoming renamed. Its contents are pretty the way they are. Also, the parent category (Category:Astronomical_catalogues) is rife with acronyms. Should they all be spelled out? Sounds like this needs to be a larger discussion topic (which would almost certainly result in a 'no'). Tom.Reding (talk) 02:12, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I was planning on nominating those afterwards if there was consensus for change with this one. I suppose you could call this a "test nomination" or a testing of the waters on the broader issue. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:01, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Some of the others do need expansion, I think - this isn't one of them though. - The Bushranger One ping only 20:20, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I upgrade to full Oppose then! -- Tom.Reding (talk) 23:16, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, those are universally known as NGC objects, much like Category:2MASS objects are known as "2MASS objects", and not "2MASS astronomical objects", or "Two Micron All-Sky Survey objects". Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 14:23, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I'm not overly concerned by the fact that the scope of 'New General Catalogue' is not readily apparent to most readers. It is, at least, a better starting point for searches than just 'NGC'. However, the fact that all of the objects are known as 'NGC####' and the following text from the article lead me to hesitate in my support: "The New General Catalogue of Nebulae and Clusters of Stars (NGC) is a well-known catalogue of deep sky objects in astronomy. It contains 7,840 objects, known as the NGC objects." -- Black Falcon (talk) 17:22, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Many readers who know "NGC" have no clue that it expands to "New General Catalog". The proposed rename makes it more opaque, not less, despite the technical ambiguity. TJRC (talk) 21:16, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename. Knowing what NGC is, I was willing to leave it alone. However the National Gallery of Canada has objects in its collection, so that leaves me thinking this is clearly ambiguous. I think part of the problem here is that if you know this is about astronomy, then you know which definition applies. I'll also agree with the comment above that many readers may, in this context, know what NGC is and not know New General Catalogue. Conversely more users probably don't know either making both specialist terms. So I guess the question is which is clearer for the readers? I think the proposed name is. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:35, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've checked, and can't find any indication of the use of "NGC object" to refer to an item in the National Gallery of Canada collection. In contrast, "NGC object" is the common name for objects cataloged in the New General Catalog. Is there something you've seen that indicates there's more than a theoretical ambiguity? TJRC (talk) 17:20, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - "NGC object" is the WP:COMMONNAME for the items this category contains. Expanding to Category:New General Catalogue objects would be dodging the commonname and wouldn't be less ambiguous, while tacking on additional descriptors starts to edge too close to WP:OR/WP:SYNTH/'making up a name for Wikipedia useage only' for my taste. - The Bushranger One ping only 20:20, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:NGC astronomical objects or Category:NGC deep sky objects, per BHG above. (I prefer the first, but whatever would be most appropriate per references is fine with me.) "New General Catalogue" and "NGC" are both pretty vague. No need to expand the acronym in this case if some decent adjective(s) is/are added. Regardless, some sort of rename should happen, as NGC objects is just too vague as it stands. - jc37 01:03, 28 March 2012 (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:Battle of Central Europe[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 to Category:Western European Campaign (1944-1945). Timrollpickering (talk) 12:38, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Battle of Central Europe to Category:Western Allied invasion of Germany
Nominator's rationale: Rename as proposed or merge to Category:Western European Campaign (1944-1945). I fail to be convinced that Central Europe is clear and unambiguous in this use. We already have at least one category that probably adequately covers this. Both of the options provided have articles as opposed to the redirect that supports the current category. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:12, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- either option. The presnet title is ambiguous, as the extnet of "central Europe" is uncertain. The term lost its meaning during the cold war, when Eprope was split inot East and West. Arguably Poland and Czech Republic are in Central Europe, but they were conquered by USSR and thus do not fit the stated scope of the category.
  • Support merge to Category:Western European Campaign (1944-1945). No opposed to rename as better than status quo. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:15, 20 March 2012 (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:Airfields of the United States Army Air Forces in Occupied Germany[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:29, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:Airfields of the United States Army Air Forces in Occupied Germany to Category:Airfields of the United States Army Air Forces in Germany
Nominator's rationale: Merge. Given the contents of these two categories, I see no reason to retain the extra level of navigation. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:00, 15 March 2012 (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.

Some constellation renames that were opposed in the speedy section[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: All individually renamed. Timrollpickering (talk) 13:35, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • General explanation. Each one of the nominations in this section involves a category that was part of a group of opposed nominations in the speedy rename section: see here for more information. The rationale for renaming was originally based on relevant naming convention, which states: "Names of topic categories should be singular, normally corresponding to the name of a Wikipedia article." The only real issue here is if we need to depart from that due to possible ambiguities. Though the rationale for the nomination of each is basically the same, due to varying issues that could arise with the ambiguity of each name, I propose that each should be discussed individually. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:21, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment if these are renamed, then the current versions should be retained as category redirects. 70.24.245.141 (talk) 04:35, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment if all categories were renamed to "X (constellation)" atleast that would be consistent with each-other. Though it would still be longer by two characters. 70.24.245.141 (talk) 04:35, 15 March 2012 (UTC) — 70.24.245.141 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    Shortening the category name as much as possible is not generally the goal. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:13, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    They should be consistently named with each other, otherwise categorizing articles into them would become an extreme chore, since you'd have to remember how each of the categories are named. 70.24.251.224 (talk) 04:43, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment My IP has been rolling over lately. 70.24.251.224 (talk) 04:46, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The argument that "[t]here is no superior benefit in the proposed rename" is disputable but more importantly, I think, not especially relevant. In a case such as this, where extant guidelines and past consensus clearly favor renaming, the burden of argument must be to demonstrate why a change should not occur – i.e., why a local consensus should, in this case, override previous community consensus. I view 70.24...'s comments above and below as a commendable attempt to demonstrate just that and continue to support the rename only because I can see no reason for this argument to apply to constellations when it does not apply to almost any other topic. Still, it convinces me that category redirects would be a good idea if these categories are renamed. -- Black Falcon (talk) 17:31, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per Black Falcon's analysis.RevelationDirect (talk) 09:07, 17 March 2012 (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:Equuleus constellation[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) 12:41, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Equuleus constellation to Category:Equuleus
Nominator's rationale: Rename. I suggest matching the category to the article name Equuleus. The name is Latin for "Little (or Young) Horse", but I don't think there is any chance for confusion with anything else. If disambiguation is thought necessary for some reason, Category:Equuleus (constellation) would make more sense since the name of the thing is "Equuleus" and it is a constellation; its name is not "Equuleus constellation". Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:29, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment if these are renamed, then the current versions should be retained as category redirects. 70.24.245.141 (talk) 04:35, 15 March 2012 (UTC)— 70.24.245.141 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Oppose the constellations should have a consistent naming method "X constellation" would be good to make all constellation categories consistent with one-another. This eases using constellation categories, which unlike articles, are not redirected. You don't need to memorize what each and every article is named by what method to get the category. Natural disambiguation is also "X constellation", per how things are commonly written or heard in speech. 70.24.245.141 (talk) 04:35, 15 March 2012 (UTC) — 70.24.245.141 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    Comment My IP has been rolling over lately. 70.24.251.224 (talk) 04:43, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – The current name is clear in purpose and meaning. There is no superior benefit in the proposed rename. Regards, RJH (talk) 15:16, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support rename to either Category:Equuleus (constellation) or Category:Equuleus, following either the article name or a dabbed version thereof. I agree entirely with the nom: it is bizarre just to add the word 'constellation' to the article name. Same for all the others below. Oculi (talk) 20:44, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to match the main article, Equuleus. It is a well-established standard that the title of a topic category should match the title of its main article in almost all cases (see Wikipedia:Category names#General conventions and speedy renaming criterion C2D), and I'm not convinced that this category should be an exception as the proposed title is no less precise than the current title. -- Black Falcon (talk) 17:23, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to match main article. RevelationDirect (talk) 09:04, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to match main article. Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 13:33, 20 March 2012 (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:Piscis Austrinus constellation[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) 13:31, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Piscis Austrinus constellation to Category:Piscis Austrinus
Nominator's rationale: Rename. I suggest matching the category to the article name Piscis Austrinus. The name is Latin for "the Southern Fish", but I don't think there is any chance for confusion with anything else. If disambiguation is thought necessary for some reason, Category:Piscis Austrinus (constellation) would make more sense since the name of the thing is "Piscis Austrinus" and it is a constellation; its name is not "Piscis Austrinus constellation". Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:27, 15 March 2012 (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:Leo Minor constellation[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) 13:34, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Leo Minor constellation to Category:Leo Minor
Nominator's rationale: Rename. I suggest matching the category to the article name Leo Minor. The name is Latin for "the Smaller Lion", but I don't think there is any chance for confusion with anything else. If disambiguation is thought necessary for some reason, Category:Leo Minor (constellation) would make more sense since the name of the thing is "Leo Minor" and it is a constellation; its name is not "Leo Minor constellation". Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:27, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment if these are renamed, then the current versions should be retained as category redirects. 70.24.245.141 (talk) 04:35, 15 March 2012 (UTC)— 70.24.245.141 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Oppose the constellations should have a consistent naming method "X constellation" would be good to make all constellation categories consistent with one-another. This eases using constellation categories, which unlike articles, are not redirected. You don't need to memorize what each and every article is named by what method to get the category. Natural disambiguation is also "X constellation", per how things are commonly written or heard in speech. 70.24.245.141 (talk) 04:35, 15 March 2012 (UTC)— 70.24.245.141 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    Comment My IP has been rolling over lately. 70.24.251.224 (talk) 04:43, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – The current name is clear in purpose and meaning. There is no superior benefit in the proposed rename. Regards, RJH (talk) 15:16, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Except that it matches the article, which would be helpful in many contexts. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:59, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to match the main article, Leo Minor. It is a well-established standard that the title of a topic category should match the title of its main article in almost all cases (see Wikipedia:Category names#General conventions and speedy renaming criterion C2D), and I'm not convinced that this category should be an exception as the proposed title is no less precise than the current title. -- Black Falcon (talk) 17:23, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to match main article. RevelationDirect (talk) 09:03, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to match main article. Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 13:33, 20 March 2012 (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:Corona Australis constellation[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) 13:34, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Corona Australis constellation to Category:Corona Australis
Nominator's rationale: Rename. I suggest matching the category to the article name Corona Australis. The name is Latin for "Southern Crown", but I don't think there is any chance for confusion with anything else. If disambiguation is thought necessary for some reason, Category:Corona Australis (constellation) would make more sense since the name of the thing is "Corona Australis" and it is a constellation; its name is not "Corona Australis constellation". Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:27, 15 March 2012 (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:Triangulum Australe constellation[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) 13:33, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Triangulum Australe constellation to Category:Triangulum Australe
Nominator's rationale: Rename. I suggest matching the category to the article name Triangulum Australe. The name is Latin for "Southern Triangle", but I don't think there is any chance for confusion with anything else. If disambiguation is thought necessary for some reason, Category:Triangulum Australe (constellation) would make more sense since the name of the thing is "Triangulum Australe" and it is a constellation; its name is not "Triangulum Australe constellation". Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:27, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – The current name is clear in purpose and meaning. There is no superior benefit in the proposed rename. Regards, RJH (talk) 15:16, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Except that it matches the article, which would be helpful in many contexts. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:00, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I really come at it from the other direction: the category should match unless there is a superior benefit to something different.RevelationDirect (talk) 08:58, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment if these are renamed, then the current versions should be retained as category redirects. 70.24.251.224 (talk) 04:43, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose the constellations should have a consistent naming method "X constellation" would be good to make all constellation categories consistent with one-another. This eases using constellation categories, which unlike articles, are not redirected. You don't need to memorize what each and every article is named by what method to get the category. Natural disambiguation is also "X constellation", per how things are commonly written or heard in speech. 70.24.251.224 (talk) 04:43, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to match the main article, Triangulum Australe. It is a well-established standard that the title of a topic category should match the title of its main article in almost all cases (see Wikipedia:Category names#General conventions and speedy renaming criterion C2D), and I'm not convinced that this category should be an exception as the proposed title is no less precise than the current title. -- Black Falcon (talk) 17:23, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to match lead article. RevelationDirect (talk) 08:58, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to match main article. Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 13:33, 20 March 2012 (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:Canis Minor constellation[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) 12:43, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Canis Minor constellation to Category:Canis Minor
Nominator's rationale: Rename. I suggest matching the category to the article name Canis Minor. The name is Latin for "the Smaller Dog", but I don't think there is any chance for confusion with anything else. If disambiguation is thought necessary for some reason, Category:Canis Minor (constellation) would make more sense since the name of the thing is "Canis Minor" and it is a constellation; its name is not "Canis Minor constellation". Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:27, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment if these are renamed, then the current versions should be retained as category redirects. 70.24.245.141 (talk) 04:35, 15 March 2012 (UTC)— 70.24.245.141 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Oppose the constellations should have a consistent naming method "X constellation" would be good to make all constellation categories consistent with one-another. This eases using constellation categories, which unlike articles, are not redirected. You don't need to memorize what each and every article is named by what method to get the category. Natural disambiguation is also "X constellation", per how things are commonly written or heard in speech. 70.24.245.141 (talk) 04:35, 15 March 2012 (UTC)— 70.24.245.141 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    Comment My IP has been rolling over lately. 70.24.251.224 (talk) 04:43, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – The current name is clear in purpose and meaning. There is no superior benefit in the proposed rename. Regards, RJH (talk) 15:16, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Except that it matches the article, which would be helpful in many contexts. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:00, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename agree that "constellation" is redundant, and support using (constellation) only if the majority of other constellations require a disambiguator. Otherwise make the parenthesized disambiguator a category redirect. Rich Farmbrough, 18:10, 15 March 2012 (UTC).[reply]
  • Rename to match the main article, Canis Minor. It is a well-established standard that the title of a topic category should match the title of its main article in almost all cases (see Wikipedia:Category names#General conventions and speedy renaming criterion C2D), and I'm not convinced that this category should be an exception as the proposed title is no less precise than the current title. -- Black Falcon (talk) 17:23, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Expand Nom 70... is right, there is a very consistent naming convention in Category:Constellations where the categories end in constellation even though the lead articles do not. Open to nominating that whole tree for renaming or explicitly using this nomination as a trial with plans to nominate the rest later. RevelationDirect (talk) 08:52, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename Sorry, was going from bottom of page and didn't see other noms. Category should match lead article unless there is a compelling reason not to. Don't see any compelling reason not to. RevelationDirect (talk) 08:55, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to match main article. Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 13:33, 20 March 2012 (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/2012_March_15&oldid=1138396748"