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) 04:31, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Split to new sub-cat Category:Accidental deaths by country. Sure, this could probably go ahead without prior discussion, but I figure that approval here will allow an administrator to use a bot to move the national sub-cats down into the target, instead of doing it by hand. – FayenaticLondon 23:19, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per my second sentence in the road accident victims CFD. Nyttend (talk) 04:21, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. --Marco (talk) 20:53, 9 January 2013 (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.
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) 04:31, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename, to match the contents. This is part of a tidy-up after Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 December 3#Category:Deaths by location. The parent is Category:Road accident victims which holds other "victims" categories, although its parent is Category:Accidental deaths. I don't mind if people prefer to keep "victims", as it's mainly "location" that I want to change to "country". Having said that, "deaths" is a more WP:NPOV choice of word, as it carries no connotation as to whether the deceased was a victim or in any way at fault, and all the country sub-cats use "deaths". [Explanation revised – edit conflict with the next comment] – FayenaticLondon 23:19, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rename; I suppose that someone who commits suicide by jumping in front of a car wouldn't be a victim, and we shouldn't try to distinguish between people by the reasons that they were in front of the vehicles that killed them. Going from "location" to "country" is good, because the current name would allow us to mingle country and city and subnational region categories, which wouldn't be good. Nyttend (talk) 04:20, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per Nyttend. --Qetuth (talk) 06:54, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Also, we should make this clearly a deaths category. The current name does not make it clear that these are deaths categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:53, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. --Marco (talk) 20:53, 9 January 2013 (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.
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) 04:31, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Note two changes: "Historical" to "Historic" and "Site" to "site". First off, "site" isn't a proper noun; we shouldn't capitalise it here. Secondly, the article is historic site within Category:Historic sites, and the subcategories almost always use "historic site[s]" or a completely different name; the only appearances of "historical" that I can find are a few for historical religious sanctuaries, Category:Historical sites in Taiwan, and Category:Kurdish historical sites. Nyttend (talk) 19:32, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. --Marco (talk) 20:54, 9 January 2013 (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.
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.
Nominator's rationale: This island is now a neighborhood in san francisco, and should follow the naming convention for such. (i originally created it with this name, but now believe the new name is more appropriate). I dont know why its not showing up as having pages. OH i get it, i misspelled the category name! so it at least needs to be changed to Treasure Island, California. wondered if i would ever make a silly mistake like that. ive put pages in this misnamed category, so when its changed, they go with it. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 18:04, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support; it's not just the typo (it's going from ", California" to ", San Francisco"), but it should definitely be moved to accompany the article. Nyttend (talk) 19:24, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support to match title of parent article, which should always be the case, wherever possible. Alansohn (talk) 16:07, 6 January 2013 (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.
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) 04:31, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. Straight forward C2D - renaming to match article title - except, somebody did the reverse trip about 2 years ago. Richhoncho (talk) 12:33, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. We clearly hold that categories should be disambiguated at least as much as the corresponding articles are.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:26, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Context is clear. No need to disambiguate categories. --Marco (talk) 20:55, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Response. Context is NOT clear John O'Neill, which is why we C2D. This nomination was a formality in case somebody thought articles needed moving. --Richhoncho (talk) 16:18, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Rename C2D: should match article name, and with 2 musicians of that name it is clear disambiguation is needed. --Qetuth (talk) 02:37, 12 January 2013 (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.
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.
Nominator's rationale:Rename. C2D, tried via speedy, but was opposed. Child categories should be renamed accordingly. I asked here and here and here and Huon did so for me here but no feedback from the project people. AsianGeographer (talk) 06:08, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Opposed - inadequate discussion at the project page as the renaming is not just for the name of the level of administration but relates to the child and parent categories as well - needs probably even higher level review - perhaps a WP:RFC as it affects the overal structure of the Indonesian category tree. A close examination of the tree will show how complex the issue might become. It requires quite considerable discussion at the project, not just a speedy. SatuSuro 06:13, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry what? This is simply removing the "sub" from "subdistrict" and turning it into "district". It has no effects on parent categories. Of cause it will have on the child categories. What is complex here? Could you please explain why C2D does not apply to Districts of Indonesia? AsianGeographer (talk) 06:18, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The Echols and Shadily Indonesia-English dictionary (the pre-eminent edition of its type) confirms my suspicions that kecamatan translates as "sub-district". Until shown otherwise, all cats and article references should use sub-district. Please do not change - even if for "consistency". --Merbabu (talk) 06:33, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Of course this should all be changed so it is consistent. Article and Category space should use the same nomenclature. AsianGeographer (talk) 07:21, 5 January 2013 (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.
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/rename. If non-navbox content is created, these can be recreated.--Mike Selinker (talk) 04:31, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. All contents of all of these categories from the Category:Germany football templates tree are navboxes. Also interested to hear opinions on the name of the last nom - Usually a 'by state' suffix denotes a parent only cat, but this just holds 5 "Football in Foo" templates. Other than that, and the need to merge not rename the first, I think these could be speedy but wasn't certain. Qetuth (talk) 06:07, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page moves. Qetuth (talk) 06:40, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Question What if someone comes up with a non-navbox template that would belong in one of these categories? Couldn't you just leave the existing categories in place, create new categories with the proposed names as subcategories of the existing ones, and move all of the contents to the new categories? Nyttend (talk) 19:26, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For the first 3, they have hundreds of siblings and cousins in the Category:Association football club navigational boxes tree. There is no such 'templates' equivalent parent, because worldwide there are virtually no non-navbox football club templates - most non-navbox templates are as generic as possible, such as infoboxes, or specific to an external link site. The Fußball-Bayernliga likewise to match all but one of its siblings - that sibling has a timeline and 20 navboxes. The by state one has no comparable siblings or parents, I included because it also was pure navboxes and there has been a trend to rename such categories lately.
Personally, I wouldn't have had a problem with leaving everything at 'templates', but I value consistency and logical naming patterns, and at the moment things have been left half way through what appears to be a mass migration. --Qetuth (talk) 07:25, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To better anwer your question, I suppose the Category:Germany football club templates could be kept for that reason. For individual clubs and leagues it would be creating an unnecessary layer of categorization which in virtually all cases would never get used. --Qetuth (talk) 07:35, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - There is no need to rename these categories just because, at present, the only contents are navboxes. Someone may create a different type of template to go in these categories eventually, and it's not like the current title is misleading. – PeeJay 16:30, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Reply Then would you prefer the existing navigational boxes cats were moved back to templates categories, or just leave things arbitrarily split? --Qetuth (talk) 00:03, 15 January 2013 (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.
