Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 September 27

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< September 26 September 28 >

September 27[edit]

Category:Holders of the Frantz Fanon Prize[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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 20:54, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete, possibly listify. Per WP:OC#AWARD, "In general (though there are a few exceptions to this), recipients of an award should be grouped in a list rather than a category"; the exceptions are for highly notable prizes such as the Nobel Prizes. This prize named for Frantz Fanon gets no hits on Google News and only 20 hits on Google Books, most of them passing mentions. The prize might just about be notable enough for an article, but it would probably be better to just expand a little on its mention in Caribbean Philosophical Association. However it is way too obscure to justify its own category. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:06, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not a sufficiently prestigious prize to be a defining characteristic of its recipients. Pichpich (talk) 03:44, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • LIstify if necessary and then delete -- as we almost invariably do with award categories. A list dies the job much better than a category, in that it puts the winners in chronological (rather than alphabetic) order. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:40, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete we generally avoid categorizing by winning an award.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:38, 2 October 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 School in Japan[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. The Bushranger One ping only 05:24, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete per WP:SMALLCAT. Pointless category which contains only the head article American School in Japan and the alumni sub-category. There is no reasonable possibility of expansion. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:53, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, the sub-cat has now been populated and given a "cat main" link to the school page. – Fayenatic London 19:17, 28 September 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:WikiProject Awake[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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 20:55, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Merge as duplicates. I would be happy with a merge in either direction, and it's unclear whether this refers to a project or a task force. Wikipedia:WikiProject Television/Awake task force redirects to Wikipedia:WikiProject Awake, but it's a member of Category:WikiProject Television descendant projects. Its talk page is blank apart from banners, and there is no other edit history. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:39, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WikiProject Television has been notified. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:45, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to "task force" as that is the way others are going. – Fayenatic London 19:18, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • This comment is from a highly-involved editor in the field; he's unable to comment directly due to a brief and ill-administered block. GRAPPLE X 01:25, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all into "WikiProject Awake" per the above comment. TBrandley 13:46, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:31, 26 October 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:Environmental Movement[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. The Bushranger One ping only 05:24, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Duplicate. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:32, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete rather than merge. The three entries are not movements per se but simply organisations or umbrella organisations. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 00:34, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete rather than merge, as the three current members are already in more specific sub-categories of the target. – Fayenatic London 19:22, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Delete and not merge. --Turn685 (talk) 19:42, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per the comments above, I agree that deletion would be a better solution. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:45, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and the Category:Environmental movements should be cleaned up. It's not meant to hold individual organizations but rather articles on, well, movements. In that respect Category:Social movements is the example to follow. Pichpich (talk) 02:47, 1 October 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:Old provinces of Japan[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:Fomer provinces of Japan per C2C. The Bushranger One ping only 23:25, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There's no need for "old"—although they are defunct, we don't need to name them as such. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:23, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WikiProject Japan has been notified. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:48, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment a category redirect should exist at the plain title if it is moved to "former" or kept at "old" -- 70.24.249.80 (talk) 23:49, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename Per BHG. The distinction needs to be kept between current provinces and former provinces. Benkenobi18 (talk) 06:40, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per BHG as "former". The template:Japan Old Province has displayed the heading "Former provinces of Japan" consistently since 2005. No objection to having a redirect at Category:Provinces of Japan. – Fayenatic London 18:37, 28 September 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:Reviewed images of people replacing placeholders[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: discussion merged with discussion of parent category at CfD Sept 23. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:28, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: per Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_September_23#Category:Images_of_people_replacing_placeholders -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 19:12, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • This nomination should be merged to the previously opened discussion on the parent category. There is no pint in having two simultaneous discussions on categories which raise the same issue. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:41, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I had trouble figuring how to do it. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 00:31, 28 September 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.

LGBT neo-Nazis[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. The Bushranger One ping only 05:26, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete both, or upmerge to both parents. These are an intersection of two unrelated attributes (LGBT and Neo-Nazi) BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:18, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WikiProject LGBT studies has been notified. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:50, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WikiProject Politics/Fascism has been notified. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:53, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both: No more relevant or useful than "LGBT redheads" or "LGBT German redheads". Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 22:21, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: per LOL, oops, I mean per NOM, but it's awfully difficult to take this absurd intersection seriously. Fat&Happy (talk) 22:24, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    (Note, upmerge seems unnecessary since all three articles in the parent (two of which are the only content of the child) are currently included in other LGBT and neo-Nazi categories.) Fat&Happy (talk) 22:30, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; we don't at present cross-categorize LGBT people by their political views. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:16, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. While there's no question that a number of LGBT neo-Nazis happen to have existed in history, there's no properly sourced evidence that the intersection constitutes a meaningfully encyclopedic topic in its own right, rather than just "people who happened to be both X and Y" -- and as per WP:CATGRS, the encyclopedic relevance of the intersection, not the mere fact that there happen to be a handful of people whom you could categorize that way, is what determines whether such a category is allowed to exist or not. And furthermore, one of the three entries in the category was a film, not a person, and thus didn't belong in it -- meaning that "LGBT neo-Nazis" now has just two entries, and "LGBT German neo-Nazis" has only one (and he's already in the non-specific category anyway, making the German one just an extra layer of unnecessary duplication.) Bearcat (talk) 17:51, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete while it is surprising to find anyone in this intersection, it's very trivial-ish. In any case, the two articles are already linked through a "see also" section and I don't think a category would bring anything more. Pichpich (talk) 03:37, 30 September 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:United States Education Program[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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 21:02, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename all to clarify that this is a project category, and not encyclopedic content. (When I saw it, I presumed that it was a US govt program). BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:44, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I dropped Frank and Sage a note requesting their input.  :) Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 07:59, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The proposed rename looks fine to me. It is important to keep separate categories for each academic term. We used Q1, Q2, Q3, Q4 so that it would be neutral enough terminology to apply anywhere, but the as long it's easy to go back and find the set of classes that were in a cohort together, it doesn't matter much how that's labeled.--Sage Ross (WMF) (talk) 11:20, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. I prefer to write out as much as possible, in general this is what is encoraged by wikipedia. We have Category:United States Military Academy alumni not Category:U.S. Military Academy alumni.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:33, 26 October 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:Jollibee[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 (C2D). The Bushranger One ping only 23:26, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename to match head article Jollibee Foods Corporation. Alternatively, delete. articles are already interlinked by Template:Jollibee. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:11, 27 September 2012 (UTC) BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:11, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom but I don't think it would be reasonable to delete since it certainly appears to be a significant conglomerate. Pichpich (talk) 03:40, 30 September 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:39th Brigade Combat Team[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. All contents were PD-U.S. Army images and have been moved to Commons, leaving the category empty. The Bushranger One ping only 23:45, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: to match head article 39th Infantry Brigade Combat Team (United States) and clarify its scope as an image category BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:27, 27 September 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:Television series that changed networks[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 to List of television series that changed networks. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:20, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. "Generally a bad idea," to quote the Preliminary Steps. Very much a POV situation, except in a vanishingly small number of cases where consensus does exist that a show changed a network; not really necessary even in those cases; and not really sourced or referenced on any of the articles. Seemingly created entirely by a single user. rdfox 76 (talk) 12:55, 27 September 2012 (UTC) Listify per Jc37. (See my comments below for the change.) rdfox 76 (talk) 12:32, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify - This will allow for explaining things like which networks were involved. - jc37 16:09, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I'm afraid I just don't understand the rationale. "Very much a POV situation"? Either a series changed network or it didn't there's not much room for different points of view to come into play. Sourcing and referencing may be an issue but that's fixable, and the fact the category is mainly the work of a single editor doesn't make it incorrect. Certainly the collection of articles in the category seems quite US-centric at present but again, that's easily fixed. WaggersTALK 08:21, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I think I completely misread this situation. I think there might be a little too much ambiguity in the name, as I misread "changed networks" as meaning "caused a significant change to a network" rather than "started on one network and then later moved to another," hence my POV comment--whether a network was changed by a show is certainly something that can be seen as POV. Thus, I'm changing my !vote to Listify (preferably under a different name like List of television series that moved between networks or something along those lines, to disambiguate the meaning). rdfox 76 (talk) 12:32, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify and delete. This is certainly a topic of interest to enough people to warrant a properly referenced list, which can delve into greater detail (such as which networks were involved, etc.) -- but it's not a defining characteristic of the shows in the sense that's necessary to justify a category. Bearcat (talk) 18:03, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify This is actually more complex than it first seems. There are some cases where shows on one channel were built around and named after particular stars who then defected to another channel where their series had the same name such as The Morecambe and Wise Show - you can get disputes over whether these are the "same" series or not. There's also the problem with countries where television isn't based around "networks" - here in the UK many shows have moved between the BBC channels but were produced/commissioned by the same company and there's the reverse situation with ITV set-up where the regional companies were the key players and a lot of shows were produced by multiple ones, either because they carried on during a franchise change or because one company picked up from another. And then there are hordes of shows with long afterlifes on different channels from the ones they were originally commissioned for. Timrollpickering (talk) 01:17, 5 October 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:Districts of Manchester[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:Areas of Manchester.--Mike Selinker (talk) 17:26, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The City of Manchester is a local government district, so it is confusing to also call it's neighbourhoods "Districts" as well. Green Giant (talk) 11:00, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – it doesn't seem confusing to me: the word 'district' has a more specific meaning when qualified with 'local government'. "Burnage is a district of Manchester" sounds perfectly colloquial to me, whereas "Burnage is a neighbourhood of Manchester" suggests the Manchester in Connecticut. Oculi (talk) 00:00, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As per the rationale from Oculi. Neighbourhoods isn't a term that's used (much) in the UK. If it is, it's certainly less-frequent than districts. Lugnuts And the horse 07:02, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - although if "neighbourhoods" doesn't sound quite right perhaps "areas" should be used insteaad. "District" certainly implies something more formal. WaggersTALK 08:11, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Rename to Category:Areas of Manchester. "Neighbourhoods" is not commonly used in the UK - it's generally associated with North America. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:28, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Areas of Manchester. I am not entirely persuaded that Necrothesp is right about the narrow usage of "neighbourhood", because usage is changing, but he does have a point. "Areas" avoids the scope problems, and also avoids conflict with the specialised meaning of "districts". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)
  • REname to "areas" as Necrothesp & BHG. For same reasons as in London and Basingstoke discussions. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:36, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - all these words are used in multiple ways. Manchester is part of the the European Economic Area, and the North West England Region. Greater Manchester is considered a region for the purposes of the ERDF. Manchester contains a bunch of postal districts. No purpose is served by moving, certainly not to "neighbourhood" which may not apply to all the districts involved. Rich Farmbrough, 21:40, 19 October 2012 (UTC).[reply]
  • Rename per BHG. The form of the title makes it clear that these are areas that Manchester is divided into.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:35, 26 October 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:British anesthesiologists[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. The Bushranger One ping only 05:29, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Anaesthetists are never referred to as "anesthesiologists" in Britain. Per WP:COMMONALITY and WP:CONSISTENCY, consistency within an article should be maintained. (There's no similar guideline stating that category spellings have to be uniform) WaggersTALK 09:27, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In New Zealand they are called "Anaesthetic Technicians". Beeswaxcandle (talk) 08:29, 1 October 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:Newark Ironbound Express players[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge (C2D). The Bushranger One ping only 23:47, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Name was changed to Jersey Express S.C. in 2011. – Michael (talk) 05:15, 27 September 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.

Atlanta Silverbacks[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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 15:53, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The team began as the Atlanta Ruckus in 1995 before they changed their name to the Silverbacks in 98'. Then there are these rediculous categories from the A-League, the First Division, and NASL (the new one that is). They all share the same history and should be merged. – Michael (talk) 05:02, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all per nominator. They all relate to the same head article Atlanta Silverbacks and the sane set of players, many of whom are currently in several of these categories. This clutter is pointless. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:58, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all. I can see the argument for keeping as part of the "Foo-league players" trees, but I'm not 100% sure that categorisation by league is defining enough, especially as (as seen here) teams change leagues at the drop of a hat. Categorisation by team, however, is defining, and should be at the most recent name of the team in cases where a team merely changed names, not cities. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:49, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support mergers as per above arguments. All the categories refer to the same team, one player category will do. Malpass93! (what I've been up to/drop me a ___) 10:45, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom, otherwise we will be overcating players who stayed past the rename.John Pack Lambert (talk)
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Seattle Wolves players[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge (C2D). The Bushranger One ping only 23:50, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Merge. The Seattle Wolves changed their name to the Washington Crossfire in 2010. – Michael (talk) 04:35, 27 September 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:Lamplighter[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. The Bushranger One ping only 05:30, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT, only one item in the category and unlikely to be any others. France3470 (talk) 02:22, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator. Even if we pluralised the title and turned it into a set category, I can't see much likelihood of of there being many articles on notable lamplighters. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:23, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to all parents. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:30, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no reason to have this one entry cat.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:44, 2 October 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:Districts of London[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:Areas of London. The Bushranger One ping only 05:31, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The 32 boroughs of Greater London are local government districts. It is confusing to also categorise neighbourhoods within those boroughs as "districts". Additionally ig should be "Greater London" to match the correct definition of London. Green Giant (talk) 00:47, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support In England 'district' indicates an administrative unit, these are not such units. S a g a C i t y (talk) 09:01, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Rename to Category:Areas of London. "Neighbourhoods" is not commonly used in the UK - it's generally associated with North America. Yes, we use the term "neighbourhood", but it is generally an informal term meaning a few streets rather than the more formal meaning for a larger area in the USA. The common name for the whole area is London, as in our article. And, confusingly or not, "districts" is frequently used in the UK for these sorts of more informal areas. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:37, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Areas of London. I am not entirely persuaded that Necrothesp is right about the narrow usage of "neighbourhood", because usage is changing, but he does have a point. "Areas" avoids the scope problems, and also avoids conflict with the specialised meaning of "districts". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)
  • Support "areas". Neighbourhood is a less common term in UK. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:25, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Areas of London per above comments about the confused nature of "neighbourhoods" and "districts". Regarding "London" and "Greater London" these terms are a hideous mess of usage with no clear "correct" definition, as best demonstrated by the governmental body being the "Greater London Authority" that consists of the "Mayor of London" and "London Assembly", but "London" commonly means the whole area and is the convention of the London category tree. Timrollpickering (talk) 23:49, 1 October 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:Districts of Basingstoke[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename all to "Areas."--Mike Selinker (talk) 17:16, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
added later:
Nominator's rationale: This category is really about neighbourhoods in the town of Basingstoke, which itself is part of the local government district of Basingstoke and Deane. It is confusing to call the neighbourhoods "districts", so it would be better to rename this and several similar subcategories from "Category:Districts of Foo" to "Category:Neighbourhoods of Foo" to match Category:Neighbourhoods in England. Equally, I don't see any problem with renaming them to "Category:Areas of Foo", "Category:Suburbs of Foo" (especially for some of the larger settlements) or even "Category:Places in Foo". Green Giant (talk) 00:38, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am also proposing the following for renaming in the same style. The only one I am not nominating is the London category, which really needs to be "Category:Neighbourhoods in Greater London" to match the correct definition of London:

Umbrella nominees
Category:Districts of Bath, Somerset
Category:Districts of Bournemouth
Category:Districts of Bradford
Category:Districts of Brighton and Hove
Category:Districts of Bristol
Category:Districts of Cheltenham
Category:Districts of Derby
Category:Districts of Eastbourne
Category:Districts of Gloucester
Category:Districts of Halifax, West Yorkshire
Category:Districts of Liverpool
Category:Districts of Greater Manchester
Category:Districts of Northampton
Category:Districts of Norwich
Category:Districts of Nottingham
Category:Districts of Oxford
Category:Districts of Poole
Category:Districts of Portsmouth
Category:Districts of Sheffield
Category:Districts of Southampton
Support In England 'district' indicates an administrative unit, these are not such units. S a g a C i t y (talk) 09:01, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support but with a caveat. "Neighbourhoods" is one of those words that is spelt differently in North America to the rest of the world, and there are already a variety of both "Neighbourhoods of..." and "Neighborhoods of..." categories, dependent on the geography concerned. This is the way it should be, and my caveat is that the "u" is kept for these articles. I raise this because there are some horribly jarring cases where this hasn't happened - such as Category:British anesthesiologists‎, Category:English anesthesiologists, Category:Scottish anesthesiologists instead of "anaesthetists". There's a clear conflict between the requirement to have consistent category names and the requirement to respect different variations of English. I think the latter should trump the former when a category is geographically specific, but that doesn't seem to be Wikipedia policy (yet). So if we can't keep "neighbourhoods" with that spelling I would suggest renaming to "Localities of..." instead. "Districts..." is of course incorrect for the reasons already mentioned. WaggersTALK 09:03, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(Actually, I think I'll do something about that...) WaggersTALK 09:22, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note. I have listed all the rest of the categories at the top, so that editors can see the full scope of what is proposed. Having them in a hidden list obscures the scope of the proposed change. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:31, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for doing that. I only hid them because I thought it might flood the nomination. Green Giant (talk) 16:32, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all. As the nominator points out, Districts of England are a local govt area, and using the term for other purposes causes confusion. per WP:ENGVAR, the spelling should follow the usage in England. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:40, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – in the UK "neighbourhood" is not used in this sense at all. I have never heard of a suburb being called a 'neighbourhood'. As Category:Suburbs by city is a parent, 'suburbs' is the obvious word to use. Oculi (talk) 10:55, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Not sure if this is the right talk page. However, i have just noticed on Liverpool's districts page that it is up for change to neighbourhoods. As the previous user says, neighbourhood is not used over her. It is very much "districts" or areas of a city and certainly my city Liverpool. I'd say it is also an old term. Babydoll9799 (talk) 12:30, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec) Occuli's proposal would narrow the scope of the category.
    The problem with "suburb" is that it is a specific type of neighbourhood. In UK usage, it means an area which is contiguous with the city, but away from the city centre. For example, Allerton is a suburb of Bradford; a residential area on the periphery. OTOH Little Germany is also an area in Bradford, but it is a thoroughly urban business district located and right beside the city centre, so it is not a suburb.
    There may be a case for an alternative to "neighbourhood", but "suburb" is not a solution. I also think that Occuli is mistaken to dismiss "neighbourhood" as a non-UK term. A UK search of Google News shows widespread use of the term. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:38, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree! They are districts. This isn't America, this might be the appropriate category for America but not here. Babydoll9799 (talk) 13:01, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Rename to Category:Areas of Basingstoke etc. "Neighbourhoods" is not commonly used in the UK - it's generally associated with North America. Yes, we use the term "neighbourhood", but it is generally an informal term meaning a few streets ("in the neighbourhood") rather than the more formal meaning for a larger area in the USA. In Britain it generally keeps its literal meaning derived from "neighbours" (as in "neighbourhood watch"). Yes, the British police have started using the term "safer neighbourhoods", but that's really just a term coined for its snappy title rather than a reflection of common British usage. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:34, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would be happy with "area". It avoids the specialised meanings conveyed by "district" or "suburb". I think that Necrothesp may be right that while "neighbourhood" is increasingly used in Enngland, it defines smaller territories than captured by this category. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:55, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Same here. Some residents think that 'suburb' is pejorative so it should be avoided; 'district' is ruled out for reasons discussed. While I have no problem with 'neighbourhood' at least 'area' is easier to type. S a g a C i t y (talk) 12:53, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also support "area". While "neighbourhood" has some (and increasing) British usage, it does not sound right for the quite large informal districts in my city. Rwendland (talk) 10:51, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree "neighbourhood" is not right at all, wrong size/concept. But "area" is quite appropriate. Cebderby (talk) 15:49, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • REname all to "area of". This is a much more satisfactory general term in England. Furthermore, recent planning legislation provides for "Neighbourhood Plans", to be prepared by committees of the public, with the Local Planning Authority (usually the district council) overseeing the determination of what is a neighbourhood. This means that that term may take on a formal sigbnificance. The districts of the cats will not necessarily be neighbourhoods in these terms. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:29, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to "areas of" in all cases.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:03, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose This is the UK, "District" is the term commonly used. "Neighbourhood" is an unheard of Americanism, you might just as well place Gloucestershire in the "States of the United Kingdoms of England" Andy Dingley (talk) 08:46, 19 October 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_September_27&oldid=1136102860"