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 rationaile: Per the discussion and closing statement at this CfD, nominating the rest of the contents of Category:Television programming by language for renaming from "series"/"shows" to "programming". As mentioned there, this is a neutral term that avoids ambiguity and confusion both on content grounds and on WP:ENGVAR, provides uniformity throughout the tree, and also matches the scheme of the category tree, Category:Television programming>Category:Television programming by language. (Note that regardless of the result of this discussion, following its close I will likely propose some sort of splitting for the truly massive English-language category.) - The BushrangerOne ping only 22:10, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all per nominator. Looking at the linked CFD Feb 24 discussion, I'd forgotten that I had suggested "programming". Since it seems to have some support, and appears to resolve both the ENGVAR and content type issues, I'm happy to roll it out further. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 23:00, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I am generally in favour of this move per the WP:ENGVAR and content reasons cited. However, for the education categories, it looks like it should be "French-language-education television programming" (programming about learning the French language), not "French-language education television programming" (programming about education made in the French language). I don't really like joining the three words with a hyphen, though, so it might be best to think of other names just for the language-education categories. I thought of "Category:Television programming for French as a second or foreign language" but it's a bit long. — Mr. Stradivarius♪ talk ♪ 12:57, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The head category Category:Television programming is fine because it covers more than series/shows, e.g. genres, seasons, episodes, opening sequences and screenplays. I do not think it is suitable to be used as if it was a synonym of television programs. It's a different part of speech, and its scope is not the same. I now think that "television shows" would be best, as it covers one-offs as well as series, and avoids spelling variations. It would also work better for related categories e.g. Category:Works based on television series could become "works based on television shows" but please not "works based on television programming". – FayenaticLondon 16:56, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to avoid the conflicing uses of show/series/program/programme.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:19, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: shouldn't it be "television programs" instead of "television programming"? --NaBUru38 (talk) 18:07, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, because that has ENGVAR issues, programs/programmes - that's exactly what this proposal aims to avoid. - The BushrangerOne ping only 01:01, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
DO you mean that in some regions 60 Minutes would be called a "television programming"? That's odd, and confusing. --NaBUru38 (talk) 16:47, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It wouldn't be called that, but that is, in fact, what it is. It's a series that is aired as programming. - The BushrangerOne ping only 22:59, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But then, if the category is meant to contain programs, then it should be called programs, not programming. It's like calling a category "electronics industry" when it's supposed to contain companies. --NaBUru38 (talk) 19:06, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Series is perfectly satsifactory in British English. We do not have TV prgramming (or it might mean scheduling). The appropriate spelling - for UK, Europe and most of Commonwealth would be "programmes", but "programs" in the Americas. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:50, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You are ignoring the shows/series issues. Everyone who has TV has TV programming, that is what occurs on TV. There is no Engvar issue with that term, in fact the person who came up with it is not America, so to claim it is American will not work.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:11, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose There is no compelling case of disturbing current names. Shyamsunder (talk) 12:34, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Reply. The current mishmash of "shows", "series", "programs" and "programmes" looks to me like a very compelling case for change. This sort of inconsistency makes it difficult for editors to categorise articles, and it confuses readers. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 15:30, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. I closed the Spanish-language discussion, and so I'm not going to close this one. But I will reiterate that I think "programming" solves all the problems of ENGVAR and frequency, and thus endorse it here.--Mike Selinker (talk) 15:45, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not all TV shos are series, sometimes they are essentially one-shot episodes. So it is not clear that series really can cover everything.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:57, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
rename per nom. Series just doesn't work, and programming is the best idea I've seen.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 05:18, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nomination. Series is obviously inapplicable to one-offs; episodes; and possibly even mini-series. "Programming" is much better. --Lquilter (talk) 15:37, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I still think "shows" would resolve all the problems of WP:ENGVAR and one-off/series, without the awkward results of using "programming". What will become of Category:Works based on television series? What is the case against using the word "shows"? – FayenaticLondon 11:43, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To me, "shows" seems like it is used by different people in different ways. Maybe I'm wrong, but some people seem to use it more formally to mean one-offs, while other people use it to mean "series" ("I'm going to watch my shows now"); but I don't get the sense that it's universally used as a universal noun. "Programming" just seems better to me because it feels a little bit more formal & generic. --Lquilter (talk) 14:44, 9 May 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:keep. There was a consensus here not to rename as needed, and the nomination was procedurally flawed becuase the sub-categories were neither listed in the nomination nor tagged. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 11:21, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There are >150 categories for "(Dis)Establishments in the Thirteen Colonies by (Year/Century/Decade)" ranging from 1607 to 1776. This category name is confusing and anachronistic, both as there weren't thirteen colonies until 1733 and because some establishments (such as Plymouth Colony and Wessagusset Colony) aren't technically in the thirteen. Propose renaming the whole lot of them to "... in the British colonies of North America" for all articles >1707 and " ... in the English colonies of North America" for prior to 1707. Alternatively "British North America" may be used, but that term generally refers to the colonies that would become Canada.
Note, I will put a note on the CfD talk page to add all of the CfD notifications. I can't do 150 of them...JRP (talk) 21:53, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. The current name also anachronistically limits the scope to not include areas of Canada that were under British control in a given year, and also British Florida, both of which were logistically indistinguishable from other British areas at the times invovled. We should have year categories for things reflect how things were then, not impose our vision of things backwards.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:23, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Thirteen (or however many) Colonies, Canada, and British Florida should all be considered seperately here; lumping them together would only confuse things, and be a disservice to the reader. - The BushrangerOne ping only 06:04, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Question. Does this have definitive dates for the start and end of when the category should be used? Does the naming affect that? If renamed do we have guidance for what areas of land are covered and when? Does the time end when independence was declared for the named territory or when Great Britain formally relinquished sovereignty? Does everyone agree that the new name probably means that we are including all of Canada? Vegaswikian (talk) 05:46, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This change wouldn't affect that ambiguity. Currently the period 1776-1783 (independence to recognition) is not included. JRP (talk) 07:20, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Rename While I agree that the current name is not perfect, the proposed title is far more confusing, much more ambiguous and includes many areas that would be vacuumed up by the proposed rename. Per the proposed parent article at British North America, "In 1775 the British Empire included 20 territories north of New Spain. These were Newfoundland, Rupert's Land, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, the Thirteen Colonies (which later united to become the United States after independence from the United Kingdom), East and West Florida, and the Province of Quebec." So the territories of the Thirteen colonies would be included as well as pretty much all of Canada. The WP:COMMONNAME of "Thirteen Colonies" seems rather hard to beat, just as the British discovered 200-plus years ago. Alansohn (talk) 23:22, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- purge if necessary. Florida and the Canadian provinces had a soemwhat differnt history. The overlap between the Conquest of Quebec and US independence is too short to merit them being in the same catregory, but this one and other British possessions in North America could conveniently be placed together in a "British North America" container category. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:57, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE BEFORE CLOSE -- The CfD was not completed successfully: I was unable to get help adding the 180+ CfD notices on the category pages themselves and so many editors that may have weighed in were not contacted. I'm holding out hope someone can poke BOTREQ to make that happen before this closes, but my guess is not... JRP (talk) 21:48, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. While there are several issues, the proposed name would add Canada to these categories. That is a change in scope that is not reasonable. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:50, 24 March 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:no action. The heading says "propose deleting", but the rationale says merge without bothering to naming the target category. Feel free to make a nomination which explains what is proposed and doesn't contradict itself ... but please stop wasting other editors time with incoherent or ill-explained nominations. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 18:39, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Merge to subcat and delete. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:46, 17 March 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:Basilan is a province (and an island), not a town or a city, so it is not headed by mayors. These are mayors in towns and cities in Basilan. –HTD 13:42, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Basilan is a province, but it is managed one level down by municipal mayors (below the governor). So "Mayors of Basilan" (the mayors that Basilan possesses) seems to make sense to me more than "Mayors in Basilan" (they mayors that are geographically located in Basilan). That said, they're both somewhat awkward compromises forced by the naming conventions. I guess the most accurate would be "Mayors of towns of Basilan", but that's silly. I don't think it's worth changing, but I would suggest "Municipal mayors of Basilan" would be a reasonable compromise. 72.235.9.160 (talk) 06:58, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would've been in favor of "Mayors of towns of Basilan", as it's not that silly, considering there's Category:Mayors of places in the Philippines... in fact I'd go with "Mayors of places in Basilan", as a town and a city are quite different, but both are headed by mayors.
"Municipal mayors of Basilan" implies that Basilan is headed a mayor when it isn't. Unless there are a better naming scheme elsewhere, I'd go with "Mayors of places in Basilan". –HTD 19:35, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Added to this CFD: Category:Mayors of Cavite -- this is more problematic, as there is Cavite province and Cavite City, and there's only one article in this one; the other 2 are redirects. Either this is renamed into an identical naming scheme as Basilan's, or is deleted. –HTD 19:39, 19 March 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.
Category:Lakas Kampi – Christian Muslim Democrats politicians[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.
Nominator's rationale: To correspond with the article which is at Lakas–CMD. –HTD 13:38, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I realize there's Category:Lakas – Christian Muslim Democrats politicians (for the original Lakas–CMD). In 2009, the original Lakas-CMD merged with KAMPI to form Lakas Kampi CMD, which renamed itself as "Lakas–CMD" in 2012. There's a big chance that politicians (who were alive when the parties merged) from the original and current Lakas-CMDs are the same, but these are of separate entities. I'm open on what to do here, but categorization for either party must be separate. –HTD 15:20, 17 March 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 to XXX Formula One races. Timrollpickering (talk) 19:59, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename all. These categories are populated with articles about Formula One races, and that is how the categories should be named. The word "report" is form of self-reference; it is a property of the Wikipedia article, not of the topic. We categorise by the properties of the topic. Including the word "reports" in the category title would be appropriate only if these categories contained articles which were about reports of the races, rather than about the races themselves. If that is unclear, consider the how we categorise an article on a person. Those articles are categorised under Category:People, because they are articles about people; they are not categorised as biographies. Category:Biographies leads us to Category:Biographical works, which is for wikipedia articles which about biographies. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 11:20, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
rename all as proposed The category structure here is a little odd because there is a year supercat of the form "YYYY in Formula One", and ordinarily I might ask for an upmerge; but there are also "cars by year" cats which make the division reasonable. In any case all the member articles are titled "YYYY PLACE Grand Prix" (excepting the times when the Indy 500 was an F1 race); besides that the main category also contains Category:Formula One non-Championship races. Obviously these are articles about races and the categories should be given less contrived names. Mangoe (talk) 13:00, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Alternative renameCategory:Formula One race reports to Category:Formula One Grands Prix by year and the subcategories to the format "YYYY Formula One Grands Prix". Note that F1 races are referred to universally as "Grands Prix", and that the parent category for the races is Category:Formula One Grands Prix - the proposed rename to "Formula One races" is highly ambiguous to that, as it implies articles about the Grand Prix itself, not each Grand Prix of each year. This is, I suspect, why the "race reports" format was chosen in the first place; I agree it is somewhat awkward, and my suggestion would both be consistent with real-world useage and other categories in the F1 trees. - The BushrangerOne ping only 22:32, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
English is such a wonderful language that "race" covers both a series of contests as well as each individual contest. I should think that the fact that a year is involved indicates that these are categories for the latter, but perhaps something like "Formula One races run in YYYY" would make that clearer. My sense of the more contrived names is that they smack too much of insider knowledge, though they may work better in the French Wikipedia where it is understood that "Prix" is its own plural. Mangoe (talk) 12:44, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It is important to note that not all Grands Prix are Formula One races and not all Formula One races are Grands Prix. The terminology is not exclusive or universal to either case, or to the Formula One World Championship. There have been national championships and alterations to naming conventions. And some, like the Indoor Championship, are not even races. --Falcadore (talk) 01:32, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nomination, and I support The Bushranger's proposal of renaming the main category to "Category:Formula One Grands Prix by year" (or "Category:Formula One races by year"). But please keep the old categories as soft redirects. --NaBUru38 (talk) 18:11, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- We seem to have one article for each race, which is categorised in a branching tree (1) by year and (2) by place. This nom relates to the year brnach of the tree. Renaming to Grands Prix needs to be the subject of a sepoarate discussion. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:06, 21 March 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: Redundant cat, since we already have Category:Cherry Red Records albums. There was previously one album contained here, which was Orgasm (John's Children album), but I've corrected that. Thanks. — sparklism hey! 08:50, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete It's a simple redundancy error. And thanks for alerting me, Sparklism. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 15:58, 17 March 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:Delete. Category about a Melena del Sur, a little Cuban town, not provincial seat or other, with only 3 articles transcluded and no subcategories. IMHO redundant by now and WP:OVERCAT. Dэя-Бøяg 02:04, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, seemingly too small to deserve its own category, but there shouldn't be any prejudice to recreation if we get several more articles that would belong here. Nyttend (talk) 02:34, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- No need to upmerge, as all aricles are adequately categorised. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:09, 21 March 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.
Category:St. Francis-Xavier X-Men ice hockey 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.
Nominator's rationale: Proper spelling of the University's name Shootmaster 44 (talk) 01:58, 17 March 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.
Relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 May 13. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 16:21, 13 May 2013 (UTC)