< May 7	May 9 >

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. Kbdank71 13:12, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:People from Dublin to Category:People from Dublin (city)

Nominator's rationale: disambiguation with Category:People from County Dublin, as with Category:People from Lagos (city), Category:People from Rome (city), Category:People from Basel (city) Mayumashu (talk) 23:50, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think County Dublin is always called that, so the ambiguitity is removed. Oddly Category:People from Durham seems to be people from County Durham - not much use for comparison. Johnbod (talk) 23:59, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

not if you don t know this, which I and I would assume a lot of other users don t. Adding it in parenthesis keeps the common name intact yet adds that clarity for people not familiar with local informal naming convention. Durham needs disambig. even more than from what you ve said though Mayumashu (talk) 00:11, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you know there is a County Dublin, which I expect most don't, you know that is what it is called. I never knew there was a region (or whatever) called Roma (I thought you went straight to Lazio), so would always have assumed "people from Rome" were from the city. I'm still dubious about the need to rename that one, let along this. Johnbod (talk) 02:47, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. This is the standard means of dealing with cities with the same name as other jurisdictions. If in doubt, use it. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:59, 11 May 2008 (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. Kbdank71 12:50, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:United States National Film Registry to Category:United States National Film Registry films

Nominator's rationale: Rename - to reflect that the category is for the films. Otto4711 (talk) 23:41, 8 May 2008 (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. Kbdank71 12:54, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Pascal, Blaise to Category:Blaise Pascal

Nominator's rationale: Consistency, name of main article. -Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:28, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support. This might even be a speedy. --M @r ē ino 20:34, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom, of course. Good find! Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:47, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unnecessary eponymous overcategorization. Everything within the category is linked through the main article Blaise Pascal and the category is unnecessary as a navigational hub. Otto4711 (talk) 23:19, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree - I looked through the article for a while & found some easily, but others not at all, though I'm sure they are there. A article that long (and dense) is not suitable as a navigational hub in my view. Johnbod (talk) 23:41, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom, but the 2 books should be in a "works by" sub-cat, and the cat is in far too many cats that only the article should be in. Johnbod (talk) 23:36, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom; ~~and all the parent cats seem to be wrong (Category:Gottfried Leibniz is more sensibly parented)~~ [now exemplary, Vegaswikian having intervened]. I would have thought there would be more related to Pascal. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 02:25, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Otto & ample precedent. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:30, 13 May 2008 (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 all. Kbdank71 12:56, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Companies based in Tulsa to Category:Companies based in Tulsa, Oklahoma

Propose renaming Category:Companies based in St. Louis‎ to Category:Companies based in St. Louis‎, Missouri

Propose renaming Category:Companies based in San Francisco‎ to Category:Companies based in San Francisco‎, California

Propose renaming Category:Companies based in Pittsburgh‎ to Category:Companies based in Pittsburgh‎, Pennsylvania

Propose renaming Category:Companies based in Philadelphia to Category:Companies based in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

Propose renaming Category:Companies based in New Orleans‎ to Category:Companies based in New Orleans‎, Louisiana

Propose renaming Category:Companies based in Nashville‎ to Category:Companies based in Nashville‎, Tennessee

Propose renaming Category:Companies based in Louisville‎ to Category:Companies based in Louisville‎, Kentucky

Propose renaming Category:Companies based in Little Rock‎ to Category:Companies based in Little Rock‎, Arkansas

Propose renaming Category:Companies based in Indianapolis‎ to Category:Companies based in Indianapolis‎, Indiana

Propose renaming Category:Companies based in Houston‎ to Category:Companies based in Houston‎, Texas

Propose renaming Category:Companies based in Detroit‎ to Category:Companies based in Detroit‎, Michigan

Propose renaming Category:Companies based in Denver‎ to Category:Companies based in Denver‎, Colorado

Propose renaming Category:Companies based in Cincinnati‎ to Category:Companies based in Cincinnati‎, Ohio

Propose renaming Category:Companies based in Cleveland‎ to Category:Companies based in Cleveland‎, Ohio

Propose renaming Category:Companies based in Chicago‎ to Category:Companies based in Chicago‎, Illinois

Propose renaming Category:Companies based in Akron‎ to Category:Companies based in Akron‎, Ohio

Propose renaming Category:Companies based in Austin‎ to Category:Companies based in Austin‎, Texas

Nominator's rationale: Standardization of category names. - TexasAndroid (talk) 19:30, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename all. Per many recent "city, state" precedents. Here's a perfectly good example where city and region categories should be observed. For example, Sears, Roebuck and Company is in Category:Companies based in Cook County, Illinois, rather than the Chicago category. So the system seems well designed for the kind of separation some people are asking for.--Mike Selinker (talk) 22:58, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- When that split has been done, you are correct. However when it has not been done abd the category has been used for the area, these are still not appropriate renames. Knowing which are good candidate requires research beyond looking at the category name. Vegaswikian (talk) 16:36, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Follow article name for all. --Eliyak T·C 13:08, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename making sure that those outside the city limits are place in the correct county. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:30, 13 May 2008 (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. Kbdank71 12:59, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Companies based in Las Vegas to Category:Companies based in the Las Vegas metropolitan area

Nominator's rationale: Rename. To match parent of Category:Las Vegas metropolitan area and introduction for category as to its scope. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:07, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question A question for you VW, and I may either support or oppose this depending on the answer. What do you plan to do with this next if this goes through? If the answer the "nothing", or close to it, then I will likely oppose. IMHO we do not want to be left with only a metro scoped category and left without a city scoped category for such a major city. If you plan to create an additional city-scope-specific category and then do the work of sorting out the entries between the two, then you will definitely have my support. - TexasAndroid (talk) 19:35, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If splitting out the specific city based companies is a condition for approval, I will gladly do that. This is an easy move since the majority are not in the city. In fact I'll create that category now since I suspect that would not be viewed as doing something to bypass this nomination. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:48, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I think I moved all of these that are actually based in the city. Seems that most are based in Paradise, Nevada. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:38, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To my mind that seems to suggest there should be a category for "companies based in paradise, nevada" and that cat should in turn be under your metro area cat. Maybe I'm a rouge here, but that just seems logical to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DaronDierkes (talk • contribs)

Wait, Paradise? The place that's unincorporated solely so big casinos don't have to pay city taxes? That seems like an exception, given that every casino in Paradise has a Las Vegas address. I'd keep those in "companies based in Las Vegas." Just my opinion, though.--Mike Selinker (talk) 15:24, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are about 10 cities in all of Nevada, the rest of it is unincorporated. The postal service uses Las Vegas zips for almost everyone. Their breakdown even includes addresses in other cities in some Las Vegas zip codes. I have a LV address and I don't live in the city. In fact, there are are more people who don't live in the city with an LV zip then those that do live in the city. Don't assume that people or companies choose to live outside the city solely for tax reasons, the difference is not that large. The laws, zoning and building codes are more likely reasons for choosing locations. As for the strip casinos. As I recall reading somewhere, the reason the strip is not in the city was that the city did not see a reason to annex that much empty desert and decided to not go father south then Sahara. A decision they probably are regretting. Vegaswikian (talk) 16:47, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But seriously, if the category were "Casinos in Las Vegas, Nevada," you would argue that Bellagio doesn't belong there? That's quite bizarre to me, given that nearly everyone perceives Bellagio to be in Las Vegas, including pretty much everybody from Las Vegas. I think anything with an address in a city counts as in that city.--Mike Selinker (talk) 06:24, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the last time I checked, some residents of the city of Henderson, Nevada had Las Vegas addresses so, using the USPS as a reliable source is not responsible. Also, I'll note the comments on this nomination that make it clear that this type of rename is meant to exclude everything not in the city proper. Without a policy to the contrary this change is perceived by some as grounds to remove articles not in the city. I realize that I am a minority in opposing these renames until this exclusion problem is fixed. But as long as everyone is willing to live with the stealth bulk removals of articles from categories then so be it. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:20, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, no problem with that. It just strikes me that Paradise might be a special case.--Mike Selinker (talk) 02:15, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename under the condition that a sibling category be created for Category:Companies based in Las Vegas, Nevada for those inside the city limits. those companies need not be double listed, so long as the cat for Las Vegas, Nevada is under Las Vegas metropolitan area. I think you both know my position. DaronDierkes (talk) 06:21, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support, as I indicated above that I would do. - TexasAndroid (talk) 13:13, 9 May 2008 (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. Kbdank71 12:58, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Companies based in Henderson to Category:Companies based in Henderson, Nevada

Nominator's rationale: Rename. To match parent Category:Henderson, Nevada. Note all of these are within the city and not surrounding areas. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:51, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support - TexasAndroid (talk) 19:36, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom.--Lenticel ^(talk) 22:21, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename.--Mike Selinker (talk) 22:59, 8 May 2008 (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: relisted on Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 May 14. Kbdank71 13:15, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Wikipedia WikiProjects to Category:Wikipedia maintenance WikiProjects

Nominator's rationale: Rename. This category sits at the top level category Category:Wikipedia WikiProjects. The name of this category is confusing. All WikiProjects are in Wikipedia: prefix namespace. That confusion is shown by the subcategories presently under Wikipedia WikiProjects. Since a purpose of this category is to contain Wikipedia WikiProjects defined in terms of a particular Wikipedia maintenance task, that is what this category name should reflect. If there are other WikiProject Wikipedia-specific matters not covered by a subject area (such as architecture) or not covered by Wikipedia maintenance WikiProjects, then another top level category under Category:Wikipedia WikiProjects can be created to cover that situation. GregManninLB (talk) 17:20, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to "something". It actually took me a minute to realise that this was a grouping of WikiProjects that aren't focused towards mainspace topics. But it's such a mixture, I'm not sure as to what we should call it. Perhaps (as a start) if it was split between Project maintenance and "User maintenance" (pardon the phrasing). Whatever the case, I think that the categorisation's a good idea, just that we need some clearer inclusion criteria, and clearer naming. - jc37 22:10, 12 May 2008 (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 all. Kbdank71 13:01, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Metal subgenres to Category:Heavy metal subgenres

Propose renaming Category:Lists of metal bands to Category:Lists of heavy metal bands

Propose renaming Category:Timelines of metal to Category:Timelines of heavy metal

Nominator's rationale: The majority of heavy metal categories (Category:Heavy metal and subcategories) use 'heavy metal' as opposed to 'metal', and I just think some consistency would be nice. J Milburn (talk) 16:07, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename All Consistency is good. - TexasAndroid (talk) 17:24, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename All I created Category:Timelines of metal. Now that I think about it, Timelines of heavy metal makes plenty more sense. Rename it. --NukeMTV (talk) 01:12, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all - As stated above, for the sake of consistency. Mastrchf (^t/_c) 01:37, 9 May 2008 (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 all. Kbdank71 13:01, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Matte Asher Regional Council, Category:Matte Binyamin Regional Council, Category:Matte Yehuda Regional Council to Category:Mateh Asher Regional Council, Category:Mateh Binyamin Regional Council, Category:Mateh Yehuda Regional Council

Nominator's rationale: Rename - per WP:HE, now upgraded to the status of a guideline. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 10:25, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 13:25, 8 May 2008 (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: reverse merge. Kbdank71 13:04, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Philosophy of history to Category:Historiosophy

Nominator's rationale: Merge, "Philosophy of history or historiosophy is an area of philosophy...", from Philosophy of history. The latter category is more established, and seems to be technically correct. Eliyak T·C 09:59, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reverse Merge I think the P of H is better known, and clearer. Johnbod (talk) 15:04, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rverse merge Philosophy is the love of wisdom. Historiosophy would be the wisdom of history, not the history of philosophy. It is thus a misbegotten modern neologism, though at least both elements are Greek. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:54, 10 May 2008 (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. Kbdank71 13:06, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Political philosophies to Category:Political ideologies

Nominator's rationale: Merge, They seem to deal with the same topic. --Eliyak T·C 09:23, 8 May 2008 (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. Wizardman 03:01, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Visitor attractions to Category:UNKNOWN

Nominator's rationale: Rename. The name "visitor attractions" seems to exclude locals who frequent these locations or hold them in regard. I think a better name might be "Category:Places of interest." Any suggestions?

Note: This nomination involves 533 categories. See here. --Eliyak T·C 07:09, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep original - to be so inclusionist for locals, it is taking the category out of what it was created for - identifying locations that might be relevant for visitors or tourists Satu Suro 07:33, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A person can make local visits; I often do. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 10:06, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A local can easily visit something and be attracted to it, or see it as an attraction. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 10:21, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Visitor does not only refer to people from outside. --Appletrees (talk) 10:47, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Useful to categorise & naming "visitor attraction in X" seems appropriate. Places of interest (who defines what is of interest anyway?) to me includes things like listed buildings of which many are not open to the public.— Rod ^talk 10:51, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep "Visitors" does not imply any particular distance travelled. Johnbod (talk) 11:40, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose renaming. I have never been altogether sure that the these categories are a good idea, because they categorise places by one use made of them rather than by some more inherent quality, and I'm not sure that being a "visitor attraction" is really a defining characteristic of a lot of the places so categorised. However, they do serve a useful purpose for tourism, so I am not proposing their deletion. if they are to be kept, I see no problem with the name; as others have pointed out, a visit doesn't have to involve a significant journey. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:10, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. How far does a local have to travel before he becomes a visitor? PC78 (talk) 12:54, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Places of interest is too broad: Mariana Trench and Gobi Desert are places of interest but do not attract many visitors. Tourist attractions would be too narrow as it excludes locals. Visitor attractions is just right! They are things that attract visitors, whether from near or from far.Uncia (talk) 13:22, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, this is part of my problem with the current name. Would all forts, lakes, synagogues, parks, and forests fit that description? --Eliyak T·C 14:48, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - No they would not since all of them may not be attractions. The purpose of the category is not to serve as a travel to do list or a list of local getaway hot spots. The park a block from my house is an attraction by what I think you want this category to be used for. Also the coffee shop a few blocks away since it is a meeting place and you can meet people of power from the area there. A few blocks further is a religious institution that has as members people of power so it to is an attraction for some locals. But would that be a defining characteristic for them to be in the category? For some, maybe yes but not my default for all. Bottom line, there needs to be some bar and the way most everyone is using the current categories with the current name seems to work. I guess in the broadest sense anything that attracts visitors or locals from a distance would be an attraction under your definition. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:58, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Categorising by this criteria it's another one to add, not to substitute, all the others. Joseolgon (talk) 21:22, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it's a very descriptive category name, and certainly doesn't exclude locals from visiting the places. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 03:36, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question What about just calling it attractions? - Marc Averette (talk) 15:53, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Attractions is ambiguous. President Bush is an attraction. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:19, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Visitor attractions" doesn't only refer to tourists from outside the city; it includes locals as well, because the visit is to the attraction itself. Keep. Bearcat (talk) 18:11, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep I don't see how renaming all the categories to "Unknown" is going to be productive (that is what the nom states the rename will be to!). Visitor attractions is a useful category. Not all visitor attractions are musuems, so mass renaming to that wouldn't work. Mjroots (talk) 20:51, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it as it is - unless you live in it you are a visitor, even if you only come 100 metres. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:57, 10 May 2008 (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. Kbdank71 13:07, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Presidents of the Italian Republic to Category:Presidents of Italy

Nominator's rationale: Rename. The official name of the position is "President of the Italian Republic" because the official name for what we call "Italy" is "Italian Republic". But WP uses "Italy". Category was created in 2005, probably before country name conventions had been accepted in WP. Comapre to Category:Presidents of France despite the fact that the official name is "President of the French Republic". Notified creator with ((subst:cfd-notify Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:42, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. Johnbod (talk) 11:41, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Mushroom (Talk) 17:29, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question: Could a present or historical figure have been the President of Italy without being the President of the Italian Republic? I believe the answer is "no", and therefore I would support the renaming, but I want to be sure. --M@rēino 20:37, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm also fairly sure the answer is "no". The Republic was established by referendum to abolish the monarchy after the war in 1946. Prior to that, there were fascist leaders, but Mussolini never used the title "president", as far as I know (he was technically a prime minister under the monarchy, and then later wasn't he just Il Duce, "the leader"?) Apart from that, the head of state was always the monarchy, so there was no president, just prime ministers. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:57, 8 May 2008 (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 consensus. Kbdank71 13:08, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Presidents of the Russian Federation to Category:Presidents of Russia

Nominator's rationale: Rename. The official name of the position is "President of the Russian Federation" because the official name for what we call "Russia" is "Russian Federation". But WP uses "Russia", as in the articles Russia and President of Russia. Category was created in 2004, probably before country name conventions had been accepted in WP. Using the full name is not necessary for any disambiguating purpose, since there has never been any other "presidents" of Russia. Comapre to Category:Presidents of France despite the fact that the official name is "President of the French Republic". Notified creator with ((subst:cfd-notify Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:27, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. Johnbod (talk) 11:38, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question: Was there a President of the Russian SFSR or the late-era Russian Empire? I haven't been able to find any, but if I'm wrong and there was one, then it might make sense to not conflate these historic posts with the current Russian Presidency. --M@rēino 20:41, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- For the Russian SFSR, the position was Chairman of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the Russian SFSR. I've never heard this position referred to as "President of Russia", until Yeltsin held the position and the Congress of Soviets of RSFSR voted to become independent from the Soviet Union. At that point, Yeltsin began to be called the president, and the entity was the "Russian Federation". Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:54, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, 'Russian Federation' is the correct name, and is not that uncommon in English. --Soman (talk) 13:14, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (unlike France and Italy - above), "Russia" was a colloquial term for the USSR. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:00, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Close call, but I'm swayed by Peterkingiron's observation. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:55, 13 May 2008 (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. Kbdank71 13:13, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:American noise rock groups to Category:American noise rock music groups

Nominator's rationale: They cover the same topic, therefore I think one of them should be a redirect. Eastlaw (talk) 04:15, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just a point - categories can't be redirects. It either is moved-merged/deleted or kept. That being said I think merge is the most appropriate action. Orderinchaos 08:01, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What I meant was that one of the old categories should be made a soft redirect using the ((Category redirect)) template. --Eastlaw (talk) 23:59, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reverse merge, keeping with the parent category, Category:Noise rock groups. --Eliyak T·C 10:01, 8 May 2008 (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: delete. Kbdank71 13:10, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: The category contains one article, and the topic does not seem to be one which could be expanded without significant original research. --Eliyak T·C 04:09, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fairly vague & POV term. Johnbod (talk) 15:07, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge to both parents. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:01, 10 May 2008 (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. Kbdank71 13:11, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:People from Chicago to Category:People from Chicago, Illinois

Nominator's rationale: Rename. For consistency, in line with earlier People from cities without states mass rename. --Paul A (talk) 01:47, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, this is a question which relates to all Chicago categories, and we shouldn't deal with it piecemeal. --Eliyak T·C 04:19, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. When all categories of a type convert en masse to "City, state" format through consensus on CfD, the Chicago one should as well.--Mike Selinker (talk) 05:08, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - there is Category:Chicago, Illinois. (I note that it is a subcat of Category:People from Cook County, Illinois despite its inclusion statement, but am not bold enough to remedy this.) -- roundhouse0 (talk) 11:46, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There appears to have been no discussion specifically on the name of Category:Chicago, Illinois. There was discussion on the article name, and it happens to be at Chicago. At any rate, Category:Chicago, Illinois brings nothing more to the table here. --Eliyak T·C 14:59, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - As the nominator of the most recent mass-rename attempt of the Chicago sub-categories (which ended up as a NC), I support this one as well. - TexasAndroid (talk) 17:28, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If discussion on this point recently resulted in a lack of consensus, it really doesn't seem right to now change this one category without further discussion on the entire bunch. --Eliyak T·C 12:51, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. adding the name of the state, county, canton, province, department, etc. should only be added to disambiguate. Oppose having Category:People from Paris, Ile de France, Category:People from London, Greater London and wish to have Category:People from Los Angeles, Category:People from Detroit, Category:People from Indianapolis. (Would support what seems a rather American way of naming if wikipedia adopted naming policy per country, that is if pages concerning the United States followed one policy and those of Spain, potentially another, etc., but this seems highly unlikely) Mayumashu (talk) 00:00, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment and !vote - unlikely, maybe; true, yes. As with many things on Wikipedia, we "render unto Caesar" by having separate conventions for separate countries, based largely, but not solely, on that country's standard usage. Thus the [[naming convention for Canada is different from the naming convention for Ireland and the naming convention for New Zealand. That for the United States stresses the use of state names, as has been proposed here. as such, I support that proposal. Grutness...wha? 01:34, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
support. provided that those who are from the metro region and not Chicago proper are filed under People from the Chicago Metropolitan Area or People from Cook County, Illinois or People from Gary, Indiana or whatever the case may be. DaronDierkes (talk) 11:52, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- So you are supporting a split and not a merge, right? Vegaswikian (talk) 20:24, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support since the powers-that-be have dictated that the article resides at Chicago, Illinois, we may as well be consistent. Make sure that all the people are really from Chicago, not some suburb, whatever we mean by "from" - hard to be "from" somewhere you never lived but after that it's purely a gray zone about how much time must one spend to be "from" somewhere at WP. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:57, 13 May 2008 (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: delete. Kbdank71 13:11, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: POV, does not aid in navigation or finding articles, vague Zero sharp (talk) 00:10, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to vague definition.--Lenticel ^(talk) 22:22, 8 May 2008 (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: delete. Wizardman 00:41, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Category name is intrinsically and irretrievably POV, does _not_ assist in navigation or grouping articles; serves only to push a particular editor's POV. Zero sharp (talk) 00:09, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The only content (now anyway) is a project page. Johnbod (talk) 18:15, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Lenticel ^(talk) 22:23, 8 May 2008 (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.

May 8

Category:People from Dublin

Category:United States National Film Registry

Category:Pascal, Blaise

US city company categories

Category:Companies based in Las Vegas

Category:Companies based in Henderson

Category:Wikipedia WikiProjects

Heavy metal categories

Regional councils of Israel per WP:HE

Category:Philosophy of history

Category:Political philosophies

Category:Visitor attractions

Category:Presidents of the Italian Republic

Category:Presidents of the Russian Federation

Category:American noise rock groups

Category:Jewish fundamentalism

Category:People from Chicago

Category:Mathematics-centric

Category:Logic_articles_with_limited_philosophical_content