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 nom. --Xdamr^talk 23:34, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming:

• Category:Finns of German descent to Category:Finnish people of German descent
• Category:Finns of Indian descent to Category:Finnish people of Indian descent
• Category:Finns of Iranian descent to Category:Finnish people of Iranian descent
• Category:Dutch-Finns to Category:Finnish people of Dutch descent
• Category:Hungarian-Finns to Category:Finnish people of Hungarian descent
• Category:Russian-Finns to Category:Finnish people of Russian descent

Nominator's rationale: Rename. This is another in a series of similar proposals. Propose changing "Finns" to "Finnish people" and changing the format of some categories in order to standardize them and conform them with the parents Category:Finnish people and Category:Finnish people by ethnic or national origin. Not all nationalities have an appropriate "noun-form" that can be used, so using "Fooian people" is able to bring cross-category and cross-nationality consistency in these categories. I realise "Finns" is shorter than "Finnish people", but in my opinion this benefit is outweighed by the greater benefit brought by inter-category constistencies. See Polish, Swedish, and Swiss discussions for more information. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:36, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom and recent precedents, for consistency. Occuli (talk) 08:31, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom Mayumashu (talk) 14:09, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all per recent precedents. Debresser (talk) 10:43, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all per recent precedents. --Soman (talk) 12:44, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all per recent precedents. --Uuuuuno (talk) 17:56, 19 September 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.

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:Image namespace templates to Category:File namespace templates. --Xdamr^talk 23:36, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Image namespace templates to Category:File namespace templates

Nominator's rationale: The namespace is no longer called "Image", but "File", so the category should be named like this as well. With a bot, this shouldn't be too complicated to rename it. The Evil IP address (talk) 14:07, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy. Should have been done a long time ago. Debresser (talk) 19:24, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment how about Category:Wikipedia templates for file namespace ? 76.66.196.139 (talk) 04:09, 15 September 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.

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:Operas set in America to Category:Operas set in North America. --Xdamr^talk 23:37, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Operas set in America to Category:Operas set in North America

Nominator's rationale: Rename. The term "America" can be understood as the whole American continent. This category should be renamed "Operas set in NORTH America" or include those set in Central and South America.--Karljoos (talk) 11:17, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. America is accepted to mean the US. However in this case the introduction clearly shows that this category intended to cover North America and not the US. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:16, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per both above and Wikipedia:Bias. Debresser (talk) 19:23, 13 September 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.

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 Category:Suburban Noize Records Compilation Albums to Category:Suburban Noize Records albums. --Xdamr^talk 23:37, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Suburban Noize Records Compilation Albums to Category:Suburban Noize Records albums

Nominator's rationale: Seems like non-defining overcategorization. The albums contained in this category are compilation albums where several recording artists signed to the label contributed to. There doesn't seem to be any other categories like this and would seem trivial to separate them by types of releases; for example, Category:Suburban Noize Records live albums and such. With the already low-populated Category:Suburban Noize Records albums, there would be minimal loss. If kept, the category should at least be renamed to Category:Suburban Noize Records compilation albums — Σxplicit 06:43, 13 September 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.

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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:42, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Iron mining to Category:Iron ore mining

Nominator's rationale: Iron is an element; one does not mine iron, one mines iron ore which typically contains iron oxides and other substances.

Also

• Category:Iron mines → Category:Iron ore mines
• Category:Iron mines in Australia → Category:Iron ore mines in Australia
• Category:Iron mines in Canada → Category:Iron ore mines in Canada
• Category:Iron mines in England → Category:Iron ore mines in England
• Category:Iron mines in Sweden → Category:Iron ore mines in Sweden
• Category:Iron mines in the United States → Category:Iron ore mines in the United States

–Moondyne 03:27, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename. I don't think it matters that iron is an element; so are nickel, gold and uranium, and no-one has any objection to "nickel mine", "gold mine" and "uranium mine". But the fact remains that usage greatly favours "iron ore mine" over "iron mine", just as it favours "bauxite mine" over "aluminium mine". I don't know why this is so—perhaps it has something to do with the relative reactivity of these elements, or perhaps it is just a quirk of English vernacular. Hesperian 05:40, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • That its an element was an aside. Its more a question of common useage. I've never heard of an "iron mine". –Moondyne 05:48, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• REname gold mines are different because gold occurs as a native metal (as well as having ores). However we talk of a "copper mine" though its product with be copper ores. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:10, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Nobosy calls them this way. And there is no confusion with other categories, so why touch what is not broken? Debresser (talk) 19:22, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename Category:Iron mines in Australia (only). Google trends indicates that common usage differs markedly between places like Australia and India (which favour "iron ore mining") and South Africa, North America and other countries (which favour "Iron mining"). I was unaware of this previously. Note that the world's largest producers are China, Australia, Brazil and India, all of which favour the term "iron ore". Note also that the Wikipedia article is named "iron ore". But given the regional preference, I propose that we only rename the Australian category. –Moondyne 01:36, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Iron mining includes both iron ore mining and ironsand mining. A\if this is renamed, any ironsand mining operations will become categoryless, and I doubt there are sufficient of them to be considered for their own "by nation" split. Grutness...wha? 22:47, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Google gets 129,000 hits for "iron ore mine", so clearly this is used. While the category might be an issue for ironsand mining, that is not a reason to misname the category for everything else. The comments above point out that we may need to better cover ironsand mining and taconite mining, which is not related to this discussion. There may be mining operations for these, but they are not 'iron ore mines'. Vegaswikian (talk) 04:58, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Grutness. "Iron mine" is a more general term, and while "iron ore mining" may be the most common term for a subset of iron mining, it doesn't cover all of it. Making a separate subcategory for iron ore mining could be considered. Jafeluv (talk) 10:11, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • So why not rename per nom and allow the recreation of Category:Iron mining if needed? The fact that the current contents are iron ore mines calls for a rename. At present we have no articles, that I know of, on the other types of mining operation for material to make iron. As to Category:Iron mines in Australia, that one could remain at that name, but only if the parent is renamed to indicate that it is iron ore mines. We do bend to local naming considerations. However if the parent is not changed that it should be renamed to make clear what is being mined. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:00, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The current title seems to be the clearer usage and corresponds to the standard in the parent Category:Mines by mineral. Alansohn (talk) 03:49, 23 September 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.