December 19
Category:Shetland Islands
- 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 per nominator --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)
- Propose renaming Category:Shetland Islands to Category:Shetland
- Nominator's rationale: Rename. Discovered while looking into Skye's categories (see below). The article (Shetland) and by far the majority of the subcategories use simply "Shetland". It would also parallel the use of Orkney for categories dealing with that island group, and the current proposed changes for categories relating to Skye. I'm including the following subcategories which are the only six which use the nominated form - the other 33 all simply use "Shetland":
- Grutness...wha? 00:00, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't, no. I assumed that anyone interested would have the category on their watchlist. I also assumed that any WikiProjects with members as jumpy as to ask that sort of question would have an article alert page set up. Grutness...wha? 00:29, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply - they have now! Ben MacDui
- I see a note at WP:SCOWNB, but nothing at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Scottish Islands or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Scotland. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:10, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Dear me, you're hard to please today :) For the Islands, see this diff. It's standard practice to use the SCOWNB noticeboard for announcements of this nature and I see no need to go overboard - I don't think it is an especially contentious issue. Ben MacDui 18:02, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Shetland is ambiguous, this could result is many animal related things falling into the category, requiring chronic patrolling and cleanup. See Shetland (disambiguation). Category names should be quite unambiguous, unlike article names, because of this problem. Further, isn't it "The Shetlands" ? 76.66.194.220 (talk) 06:49, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Makes perfect sense to me, and no it is most definitely not "The Shetlands". I don't have a source immediately to hand but this and this are about Orkney that mentions this issue in relation Shetland too. The animals are all Shetland-related and are, or should already be, in the category anyway. Ben MacDui 10:29, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Makes sense to me. There may be a very slight degree of ambiguity in "Shetland" alone but "Foo of Shetland" seems unambiguous, is shorter and, to me at least, more euphonious. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:07, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. It seems to be the preferred reference by the people who live there, which should carry great weight. See visitshetland website and shetlopedia, for two of the many examples. The tedious task of making wikipedia self-consistent looks a bit daunting, with 88 references to "the Shetlands", but at least it isn't as bad as the 199 references to "the Orkneys". Regards, Notuncurious (talk) 18:46, 20 December 2009 (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:Isle of Skye
- 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 Category:Isle of Skye to Category:Skye. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:55, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Propose renaming Category:Isle of Skye to Category:Skye
- Nominator's rationale: Move: The island of Skye should have a category of the same name. The "Isle of Skye" is a commonly used "poetic name" but we don't have a category of "London Town" which would be a similar expression. There are no disambiguation problems that I am aware of. Ben MacDui 11:17, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename per main article and the subcategories Category:Mountains and hills of Skye and Category:Skye Villages (which will need the capitalisation fixing). Timrollpickering (talk) 11:34, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- rename, and rename the villages one to Category:Villages on Skye. Grutness...wha? 20:40, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename per Skye (although there are quite a few other meanings at Skye (disambiguation)) and also change the usage in quite a few articles in Category:Skye Villages (which should probably be renamed per Grutness). Occuli (talk) 20:52, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Skye may well have the greatest Wikipedia coverage for settlements of any place on the plant, per head of population, courtesy of an enthusiastic creator of articles for every small settlement. I must have amended dozens of them but no doubt there are still more to fix. I presume this "Villages on ... " idea must be standard practice of some kind somewhere else. None of the Scottish islands that have such categories use this method and I much prefer it the way it is - it's shorter and gets to the point first rather than last. Ben MacDui 21:03, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Category:Villages in Scotland uses 'Villages in Foo'. There is also the highly relevant cfd re the Isle of Man. Occuli (talk) 22:36, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, "Villages in..." makes some sense, in that it is used for places like Anglesey, Orkney, and the Shetland Islands (about which, see more above). "On" is used for the Isle of Wight, however. One difference which could be relevant is that - unlike those other four places - Skye is not a county. Grutness...wha? 23:50, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If we must go in this direction, "on" makes a lot more sense to me than "in". I am not quite sure why, but "in" sounds OK for Orkney. It may be because it is a county, but I think more so that it is an archipelago rather a single island. If there were category for one of these islands it would be "Villages on Westray" for example. Ben MacDui 10:36, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yup. Ben MacDui 10:36, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I see a note at WP:SCOWNB, but nothing at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Scottish Islands or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Scotland. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:09, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Please see above re Category:Shetland Islands. Ben MacDui 18:03, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong oppose category names should not be highly ambiguous, as this rename will make it. This will result in a category requiring constant patrolling and cleanup. Category names should be more unambiguous than article names because of these problems. 76.66.194.220 (talk) 06:48, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What is ambiguous about Skye? Peterkingiron (talk) 12:09, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Shorter, matching mainspace and not likely to be ambiguous as the entries on Skye (disambiguation) show. On the of/in/on thing, I think it would be best to favour consistency over euphony. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:13, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support renaming to category "Skye" for the reasons given by the nominator. The issue of "places on" vs. "places in" doesn't seem to be a problem here one way or the other. Regards, Notuncurious (talk) 18:52, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Rename to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 21:39, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Many of the islands are locally known as "Isle of ...". In some cases, this also makes for more natural disambiguation. Articles and categories should reflect this. (nearly missed the notification!). Finavon (talk) 08:36, 21 December 2009 (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:Video games set in the mid 20th century
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: merge to Category:Video games set in the 20th century. — ξxplicit 23:31, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Propose renaming Category:Video games set in the mid 20th century to Category:Video games set in the mid-20th century
- Nominator's rationale: Grammar. Seems like it should probably be merged, definitely renamed. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:34, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Category:Video games set in the 20th century. This category, along with Category:Video games set in the early 20th century and Category:Video games set in the late 20th century, divide the century into three approximately equal parts of 33 or 34 years; however, such division is neither particularly well-established nor necessarily meaningful. A video game set in Vietnam in 1967 has more in common with one set in Vietnam in 1968 than either one has in common with a video game set in Stalingrad in 1942; however, this category scheme would group the first and three together and categorise the second separately.
I have reservations about the entire 'Video games by time period' category system—mostly because it does not distinguish between setting in an accurate version of a historical time period (e.g., the Wehrmacht in Stalingrad in 1942), a fictionalised version of a historical time period (e.g., the Wehrmacht in New York City in 1942), or a completely fictional time period (e.g., the Wehrmacht on Mars in 1942)—but a much more comprehensive nomination would be need to address them. –BLACK FALCON (TALK) 18:45, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Category:Video games set in the 20th century per Black Falcon, and look forward to his wider nomination of the 'Video games by time period' categories. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:30, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge at best. What BHG said. I can't imagine these categories being useful, but at least merge them when possible and keep the sprawl to a minimum. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 07:18, 21 December 2009 (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.