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. Dana boomer (talk) 17:19, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Previous CFR: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 March 3#Subcategories of Category:The Gambia

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Countries which use the definite article the in front of the name include the Netherlands, the Soviet Union, the United Kingdom and the United States, and nowhere is the definite article written in upper case. The article on the country, the Gambia also shows that use of lower case is correct. consequently I wish to reverse the decision by the 2008 CFR which opted for capitalization of the definite article.

Note about the scope of categories nominated: All categories that are in the subset of Category:The Gambia which include the term The Gambia have been included, thus excluding e.g. categories where the term Gambian was used. No categories used the lower case capitalization variant.__meco (talk) 00:41, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I thought "the Gambia" would refer to the Gambia River, whereas "The Gambia" refers to the country. (One other place that usually capitalizes the "The" in English is "The Hague".) (By the way, the CFR tags on a bunch of these categories direct users to the wrong page, and I had to search to find this discussion.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:44, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I reckon they all link to the wrong page, and I assume this is because I failed to subst the template. Other templates will give you an error message if they are not subst'ed, and I didn't realize this was a requirement of this template. As for the use of lower case "the" I need only refer to the eponymous article itself, The Gambia, which does admittedly use both variants but where the lower case version is vastly dominant. As for The Hague, I didn't think of that, but where countries go all examples I have been able to think of suggest lower case "the". Also, as for the Gambia River, it appears it usually goes by that name, the Gambia River.__meco (talk) 07:37, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Tentative oppose per official usage by the country's official webpage as well as its UN mission. Capitalizing the "The" seems to be the preferred usage. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 10:09, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did you see that the homepage of the official website uses it as the nominator proposes? [1] --Bsherr (talk) 00:57, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, but I also noted that on balance the website as a whole tends to capitalize. My search went beyond the main page. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 10:43, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Proposer needs a WP:RS, not a WP article. Quite different from the Netherlands, the Soviet Union, the United Kingdom and the United States. –Moondyne 11:28, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • How is it quite different? __meco (talk) 13:10, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Per GO's sources. How is it the same? –Moondyne 00:51, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Change per UNTERM src below. Good find Bsherr. –Moondyne 01:25, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thank you kindly. --Bsherr (talk) 05:36, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename - Two forms are recognized, "Gambia" or "the Gambia", article uncapitalized, in Oxford. "Gambia" The Oxford Dictionary of English (revised edition). Ed. Catherine Soanes and Angus Stevenson. Oxford University Press, 2005. Oxford Reference Online. Oxford University Press. 11 October 2010 [2] --Bsherr (talk) 23:22, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The United Nations Multilingual Terminology Database, which is probably the most authoritative source on official country names, says the article should be uncapitalized, too. [3] --Bsherr (talk) 01:01, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename. Usage seems mixed overall, but the UNMTD seems like a good guide to go by if we're going to adopt one or the other. If we are going to downsize the caps and "Gambia" is considered an acceptable form, I would suggest that using the word "the" in disambiguations is unnecessary. "(Gambia)" is enough to disambiguate. Thus I would make the following suggestions:

Category:National Convention Party (The Gambia) politicians to Category:National Convention Party (Gambia) politicians

Category:People's Progressive Party (The Gambia) politicians to Category:People's Progressive Party (Gambia) politicians

Category:United Democratic Party (The Gambia) politicians to Category:United Democratic Party (Gambia) politicians

Category:United Party (The Gambia) politicians to Category:United Party (Gambia) politicians — Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 10:48, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm a little bit wary about this modifying proposal because I'm unsure how strong affinity Gambians have for their country's definite article, however, should there be no objections raised about this I will tentatively be supportive of these changes to the nomination's choice of names. __meco (talk) 12:07, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I guess it could be likened to "the United States"—"People's Party (the United States) politicians" probably wouldn't be used, but as you say, it's unclear how important the "the" really is, especially since they have the habit of capitalizing it. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:10, 11 October 2010 (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: Relisting, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 October 22. Dana boomer (talk) 17:22, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Shared IP addresses from the military of the United States to Category:Shared IP addresses from government agencies or facilities

Nominator's rationale: Merge. The result at TfD was to merge the template for shared IP addresses of the US military into the template for shares IP addresses of government agencies and facilities. The remaining question is whether this category has any remaining utility. I would advance the proposal that it does not have any remaining utility, that for purposes of the shared IP templates, US military shared IP addresses are treated the same as all government shared IP addresses, regardless of country. I therefore propose the deletion of the category, and that the merge be completed by redirect. Bsherr (talk) 04:37, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Shared IP addresses from government agencies or facilities to Category:Wikipedia user talk pages of shared IP addresses from government agencies or facilities

Propose renaming Category:Shared IP addresses to Category:Wikipedia user talk pages of shared IP addresses

Propose renaming Category:New York Public Library IP addresses to Category:Wikipedia user talk pages of New York Public Library IP addresses

Propose renaming Category:Dynamic IP addresses to Category:Wikipedia user talk pages of dynamic IP addresses

• Comment - One thing to note is that there is no indication in the current name or proposed name that this is a category meant for user pages. Someone seeing this category might think there's some sort of set of articles on military IP addresses; there's no indication that this is a project category. I'd try something like Category:Wikipedia user pages of shared IP addresses from government agencies or facilities. VegaDark (talk) 01:29, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd be supportive of renaming too. --Bsherr (talk) 16:02, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dana boomer (talk) 21:02, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - If the proposal above has turned into moving both pages to a third name, the second category needs to be tagged as being discussed. Thank you, Dana boomer (talk) 21:02, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since there is no one proposal in these discussions, I'll tag the categories as being discussed for renaming. --Bsherr (talk) 21:10, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the simpler current names. It is not just about the talk pages, but the whole account doing the editing. --Pmsyyz (talk) 03:58, 21 October 2010 (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: split and merge as nominated.--Mike Selinker (talk) 14:03, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Hindu and Buddhist heritage of Afghanistan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Merge and split into appropriate categories: Category:Hinduism in Afghanistan, Category:Buddhism in Afghanistan, Category:History of Hinduism, Category:History of Buddhism, Category:Afghan society, etc. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:11, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Manually split After appropriate replacemtn categories have been added to all articles, this can be deleted, but you cannot expect a closing Admin to do the work for you. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:11, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Disagree to split , but agree to add categories . Cultural religious heritage often overlap ,why would you like to split this ??.It would needlessly fractionate ,dissipate an important consumate resource of pre islamic Afghan heritage.Intothefire (talk) 17:16, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dana boomer (talk) 21:02, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Manually split per Peterkingiron – there is no overall scheme Category:Hindu and Buddhist heritage. Overlapping articles go into both Hindu and Buddhist categories so there is no problem. (As things stand, Hindu Temples of Kabul is in various Buddhist categories via category inclusions, which is incorrect.) Occuli (talk) 22:17, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Manually split (And I didn't see any indication the nominator expected an administrator to do it.) --Bsherr (talk) 22:26, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Response There are only 53 articles--and I'm sure that many of them are already in the appropriate categories--so it's not going to be that much work. I'll happily do it when this closes (but a post to my talk would be appreciated, so I see it post-haste.) — Justin (koavf) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:27, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• We have a clear consensus. Justin (koavf) needs to check that ALL 53 have the appropriate replacement category. When he has done so, this can be closed as a Delete, but not until. The alternative might be to rename to Category:Pre-Islamic heritage of Afghanistan. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:16, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does completion of the split precede the close, or does the close precede action? --Bsherr (talk) 23:24, 10 October 2010 (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. Dana boomer (talk) 17:53, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Washington, D.C. stubs to Category:Washington, D.C., stubs

Propose renaming Category:Washington, D.C. geography stubs to Category:Washington, D.C., geography stubs

Propose renaming Category:Washington, D.C. building and structure stubs to Category:Washington, D.C., building and structure stubs

Nominator's rationale: Per proper punctuation use. If an inquiry, I'm pleased to provide a fuller explanation. --Bsherr (talk) 20:57, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. That doesn't sound proper to me.--Mike Selinker (talk) 06:24, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Would we also put a second comma in Category:Springfield, Illinois metropolitan area, or am I missing something? ―cobaltcigs 16:34, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indeed. --Bsherr (talk) 23:04, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • That wasn’t a yes-or-no question. ―cobaltcigs 13:19, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oh, I meant indeed to the former, not that you were missing something. A second comma is needed in Category:Springfield, Illinois metropolitan area. --Bsherr (talk) 17:27, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Nomination makes no sense to me. Nominator has offered to provide a fuller explanation. I think now would be a good time for that. __meco (talk) 13:16, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pleased to explain. In "city, state", the state is an unrestricted appositive, and must be separated from the clause by commas. (I'm waiting for my 16th edition of the Chicago Manual of Style to arrive, so I have to rely on Garner's Modern American Usage to provide you a citation.) "Punctuation" (D), MAU. In my second edition (alas not the latest, third, edition), it's page 655. --Bsherr (talk) 23:04, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • It appears to me that you have missed the gist of the recommendation that non-restricitve appositions be cordoned off on both sides by commas. To conceptualize this I'll quote from Wikipedia's Apposition article: "An appositive, a grammatically complete noun phrase, is set off by commas, a reader-friendly invention. Note that this sentence affirms that commas, not an appositive, are a reader-friendly invention." If the purpose of the commas is to assist the reader, I see no valid rationale for having the trailing comma in these category names. How would that serve to do anything except confound the reader? It is quite obvious to me that only in a running sentence would a trailing comma function as "a reader-friendly invention", here not at all. __meco (talk) 08:34, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I dispute that sentence entirely. It's unsourced, and it's not even presented as a fact in the article, but rather as an example of how commas are used with an appositive. I think it's especially questionable in that it conflicts with the reliable sources I've presented. Can you show it's not invented? --Bsherr (talk) 13:56, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Although Washington and the District of Columbia are today synonymous, such was not the case historically, and as the usage well predates the consolidation it is not correct to call "Washington, D.C." an appositive construct. Shades of Berkeley alumni… - choster (talk) 15:29, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's an unrestricted appositive. They're not to be synonymous. If they were, the form would be "Washington D.C.", without any commas. In contrast, the U.S. Board on Geographic Names still recognizes the city as just "Washington", not some amalgamation. (See feature ID 531871.) And even so, would Washington be the one exception in a nation of "city, state," constructs? "[T]he comma separates parts of an address... Note that... the state in the address...[is] parenthetical, so...would ordinarily take a comma or some other punctuation after it (unless the place name...were used as an adjective...)." Furthermore, if it's not an apposition, what is the connection between the two nouns? Disjunction? Open compound? If it's an open compound, surely you'd have a dictionary to support your opinion, no? --Bsherr (talk) 17:25, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• General oppose. From a purist grammatical standpoint, I think the nominator is correct. However, I see two problems. First, this approach has not been adopted at all amongst the thousands of categories where this could potentially be implemented. So to change these and none of the others makes little sense. Second, I think there's an informal practice both colloquially and in WP of considering "Washington, D.C." to be a unified placename, regardless of what the U.S. Board of Geographic Names recongises. Taking the more common colloquial approach, the second comma would be unnecessary. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:15, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wouldn't it be better to change the others too? I don't understand...it's wrong, but it should be kept wrong? --Bsherr (talk) 00:03, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would characterize the argument as "even if it is somewhat wrong, it's not wrong enough to change." Category names are not sentences, and so I don't think all the rules of sentence grammar apply. YMMV.--Mike Selinker (talk) 03:52, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • But why isn't it wrong enough to change? It would be simple to change, wouldn't it? --Bsherr (talk) 04:19, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Not on a wide scale, no, it wouldn't be easy. There are likely thousands or at least hundreds of these types of categories, and without a clear consensus that they are currently "wrong" in an intolerable way, it's definitely not worth the effort, in my opinion. From the above, I can't see users even being convinced that this is wrong. (We all have our bugaboos—mine is that the categories formatted "FOOian immigrants to XXXX" are incorrect, and that they should be "FOOian emigrants to XXXX" (don't get me started on why). But is it worthwhile for me to nominate all 500-odd immigrants categories when no one else really cares much about the issue or even acknowledges that there is a problem? Probably not.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:51, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Well, not caring is quite different than caring enough to be opposed. Chicago says the same as Garner. I guess all I can do is present reliable sources, and hope the closing administrator looks at the weight of my sources contrasted to the unsourced personal opinions above. Good Olfactory, if you ever do the same on the example you give, I'd gladly engage you on the merits and support the correct outcome, whichever it is. --Bsherr (talk) 02:25, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • Oh, I think it's caring enough. The sheer amount of work necessary to make such a change happen, especially when it's not clear that the change should be made, is enough to oppose it. One of the hallmarks of CfD is if you want to fix a problem, you must get other editors to agree that there is a problem, and here, that's not happening. (Yet, anyway.)--Mike Selinker (talk) 14:19, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • I can certainly see that "FOOian emigrants to XXXX" is the only correct phrasing, so please give me a heads-up when you get ready to nominate this for a name change. __meco (talk) 08:42, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • You might want to read my response to Bsherr arguing that their purist position is in fact erroneous, which would make this discussion thread irrelevant. __meco (talk) 08:42, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think what you said about that is a good point. If I understand correctly, the misunderstanding arises by treating this isolated phrase as if we are dealing with a complete sentence. The commas are not an iron-clad law of nature, but something added when it helps the user comprehend the meaning of a sentence. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 10:53, 15 October 2010 (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. Dana boomer (talk) 22:32, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as non-commercial use only files to Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as files with unacceptable licenses

Nominator's rationale: Makes sense as this category includes files that are 'used with permission', 'for educational use' or for "non-derivative use", as well as non-commercial. Acather96 (talk) 18:09, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. __meco (talk) 18:11, 8 October 2010 (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. Dana boomer (talk) 22:33, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Popular music by decade to Category:Music by decade

Nominator's rationale: Rename. This category obviously isn't limited to popular music. meco (talk) 18:03, 8 October 2010 (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. Dana boomer (talk) 15:00, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Chevrolet video games (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Questionable usefulness of this category, many of these cars featured in this game are not nor ever likely to be licensed by General Motors, therefore they shouldn't be there at all; only one of these is generally dedicated to the Chevrolet brand itself, therefore making it more like another driving games. In my opinion, more like another pointless category dedicated to videogames featuring a single marque, licensed or unlicensed, regardless if it is amongst a multiple of brands featured. Apart from that, far too overcategorized for its own good. Donnie Park (talk) 17:52, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: WP:OVERCAT. --Falcadore (talk) 00:13, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Tangential property, at most. __meco (talk) 13:19, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete severe overcategorization. I don't see why this category should exist, it's tangentially related at best. Royalbroil 00:07, 12 October 2010 (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. Dana boomer (talk) 15:00, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Cumann na nGaedhael politicians to Category:Cumann na nGaedheal politicians

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Rename category following recent renaming of main associated article Cumann na nGaedheal. Snappy (talk) 15:02, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support to match parent article. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 20:07, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. __meco (talk) 13:20, 10 October 2010 (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. Dana boomer (talk) 15:00, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Democratically elected governments overthrown by the United States to Category:Democratically elected governments overthrown with the help of United States

Nominator's rationale: Rename. I started this category after I did some research and missed the link between certain pages but I gave it a title that is clearly misleading. User:Griii2 —Preceding undated comment added 13:57, 8 October 2010 (UTC).[reply]

• The constituents are events rather than governments. Would the category name more accurately be "Overthrows with the help of the United States of democratically elected governments"? --Bsherr (talk) 01:45, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The proposed name introduces a degree of vague uncertainty. How much "help" would be required for an overthrow to qualify? What if all the U.S. had done is supply the military arms that were used by those who carried out the overthrow? Is that "help" of the U.S.? I think this is an issue that is a little bit too nuanced to capture in a simple category. Let the articles do the talking on this complex issue, not an all-or-none category. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:20, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This is a highly problematic category. The applicability of "democratically elected" is disputable (e.g. how legitimate was Ngo Dinh Diem's election?), and as noted the degree of agency by the U.S. is disputable (e.g. how central was Soviet involvement in the Czechoslovak coup d'état of 1948?), and further to that, why the overthrow of democratically elected governments with the backing or assent of one particular country is more noteworthy and defining than the overthrow of any other legitimate/internationally recognized government with the backing or assent of any other country is thoroughly disputable (Kingdom of Hawaii? The assassination of Myeongseong of Korea? The Anglo-Soviet invasion of Iran?). That is assuming, further, that influence or involvement can be proved at all— the nature of foreign involvement in the Cambodian coup of 1970 is still debated.`- choster (talk) 05:37, 12 October 2010 (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. Dana boomer (talk) 15:00, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:M.I.A. to Category:M.I.A. (artist)

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Propose disambiguating for clarity and to match main article M.I.A. (artist). M.I.A. alone is ambiguous. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:39, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename The first thing I thought of before looking at the dab page was Missing in Action instead of the artist.--NortyNort (Holla) 13:01, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to avoid ambiguity and to match parent article. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 20:05, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to avoid ambiguity. __meco (talk) 13:20, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Rename to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 19:26, 12 October 2010 (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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 05:40, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Public corporations (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:American public corporations (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:American corporations (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. I started categorizing the companies in Category:American corporations to the specific subcategories of US companies. These all roll up into the company category. My moving to more specific categories left this category empty and I'll note that most of the articles did not use the word corporation and some already included categories in the company tree. That left the two categories in the public corporation tree. These two companies seem to be there since they are traded on a stock market. Bottom line, these can be deleted in favor of the well use company tree. I suspect that most editors and readers would consider companies and corporations as the same thing as evidenced by the two main articles for Category:Companies.Vegaswikian (talk) 06:44, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Question. Correct me if I'm wrong, but are you suggesting removal of categorization-by-legal-form (Category:Companies by type) altogether? or just the U.S. companies? I cannot fully subscribe to this opinion. But then, public and listed American companies are still included in Category:Companies listed on the New York Stock Exchange etc., and we may assume that public and not listed companies (i.e. Navistar) can do without such categorization, so be it. East of Borschov 07:04, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am suggesting deleting 3 categories that were lightly populated and really duplicated another category tree that is heavly used. I am proposing nothing for Category:Companies by type. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:11, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't see how these three categories are duplicating an existing category tree. Could you tell which category tree that would be? __meco (talk) 13:55, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Second question. What is your take on the remaining corporations that are not companies? East of Borschov 07:06, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see much being done there. Some recategorization of articles might be needed, but nothing major. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:11, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Question. I don't understand this nomination. To start with the first sentence in the nomination rationale: "I started categorizing the companies in Category:American corporations to the specific subcategories of US companies." What does this mean? Can you give some examples of what you were doing? The second sentence reads: "These all roll up into the company category" What does that mean? That the company category is parent to the corporations category? That they were categorized as companies instead of corporations? The third sentence reads: "My moving to more specific categories left this category empty and I'll note that most of the articles did not use the word corporation and some already included categories in the company tree." So, articles that weren't actually corporations were removed from the corporations category? That is appropriate. The fact that some already included company categories appears unimportant as some corporations are companies just as some companies are corporations (have I got that part right?), and while subcategorizing companies down one sub-hierarchy, e.g. companies by year of establishment, should have no inference on sub-categorizing within the corporations sub-hierarchy. As far as these first three sentences go I'm really bewildered about what you have actually done. You removed companies that weren't corporations? Anything else? __meco (talk) 13:55, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, but while we're at it the whole "Corporations" tree should really be merged to "Companies". Category:Corporations and Category:Commercial corporations etc are not useful as they are, & should just be redirects. In both the US & UK the two words effectively mean the same thing, but UK law has long only used "company", though there are odd left-overs like the Corporation tax on profits companies pay. I have to agree the nom is not well explained - maybe have another go? Johnbod (talk) 10:49, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. While there may be legal differences between corporations and companies most everyone tends to group these together. Category:Organizations by legal status would appear to be the place that all of this would converge if anyone was actually using both forms. However in there you find Category:Companies but not Category:Corporations. Corporations are well categorized in the companies tree to a great level of detail. There are very few corporation categories and not many that contain articles about actual entities. If someone wanted to, I suppose they could create a parallel tree for corporations. But I would ask what purpose would be served if we did that? In this case, the articles were categorized in an appropriate sub category of Category:Companies. I will admit that Category:Corporations does exist and has a handful of companies (corporations). But I'll again argue that this lack of articles simply supports the fact that to most editors these are interchangeable terms and therefor we only need one tree for the entities. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:01, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Vegaswikian's comment. The distinctive features of corporations appears to me, and judging from the present discussion probably to most users, so vague that spawmning anything from Category:Corporations would seem unconstructive at this point. __meco (talk) 08:17, 15 October 2010 (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. Dana boomer (talk) 14:57, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Wikipedians who maintain the Energy Portal to Category:Wikipedians who maintain the Energy portal

Propose renaming Category:Wikipedians who maintain the Uruguay Portal to Category:Wikipedians who maintain the Uruguay portal

Propose renaming Category:Supporters of the Romanian football Portal to Category:Wikipedians who maintain the Romanian football portal

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Attempting to standardize the three subcategories of Category:Wikipedians by portal, also matching the lowercase of the nomination below.--Mike Selinker (talk) 05:19, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Although the portals are a separate namespace, I would think that this hierarchy encourages people's sense of ownership over these portal pages, which possibly in turn could infect articles in the main namespace. I'll follow the discussion though in case my concerns are marginalized by weighty information from others. __meco (talk) 18:10, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • While I have no objection to deleting these categories, they do parallel lots of other "I did this!" categories.--Mike Selinker (talk) 18:13, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Surely not concerning editorial content in such a direct manner? __meco (talk) 18:25, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Doesn't seem out of line to me, but then I rarely object to any Wikipedian categories as long as they're in the proper format. YMMV.--Mike Selinker (talk) 06:25, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Tempted to agree with deleting. Delete - This does need a rename per nom at minimum, but I'm wondering why these categories are really necessary. If there's something that needs to be changed/added/fixed on a portal page, I would think posting on the talk page would be a preferable option compared to looking through this category to find someone to message about it. VegaDark (talk) 02:47, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Changed to delete. Note that the parent category, Category:Wikipedians by portal, isn't tagged, but should be eligible for a C1 deletion if all these are in fact deleted. VegaDark (talk) 00:04, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. categories like this don't help build the encyclopaedia. –Moondyne 11:17, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. ―cobaltcigs 22:41, 10 October 2010 (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. Dana boomer (talk) 14:57, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:R&B and Soul Music to Category:R&B and Soul Music portal

Nominator's rationale: Rename and purge. Adding "portal" to the name. The lack of same leads to problems like the mainspace article Cupid (singer) being in the category.--Mike Selinker (talk) 04:46, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. Surely having the word portal in the eponymous category for any portal must be mandatory? __meco (talk) 18:28, 8 October 2010 (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. Dana boomer (talk) 14:57, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Attempting to standardize capitalization of "portal" in these categories. By my hasty reading, this subsection represents about 20% of the "portals" categories. Category:Portal Savoy may be an attempt to mirror French ordering, but I would change it as well.--Mike Selinker (talk) 04:43, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom for consistency. __meco (talk) 18:13, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support for the sake of consistency. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 20:00, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - I believe I created the food related portal cats, and if I messed up, then a correction is needed. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 03:45, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I certainly don't think you messed up, Jeremy. The category format hasn't been settled, but hopefully it will be.--Mike Selinker (talk) 04:02, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• reformat I suggest that Category:WikiPortal xxx be used, since "portal" is ambiguous, and can easily be used for real world non-Wikipedia constructs called portals. 76.66.200.95 (talk) 04:30, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I actually like this idea. For the sake of this nom I'll agree with Rename per nom, but would support a future CfD to propose this renaming scheme, since it doesn't look like there will be consensus to make such a change here. VegaDark (talk) 00:07, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom Seems like a no-brainer. –Moondyne 11:19, 10 October 2010 (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:Hip hop musicians from Detroit, Michigan to Category:Musicians from Detroit, Michigan and Category:American hip hop musicians
• Category:Hip hop musicians from New York City to Category:Musicians from New York City and Category:American hip hop musicians
• Category:New York hip hop musicians to Category:Musicians from New York and Category:American hip hop musicians

--Xdamr^talk 17:12, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging:

• Category:Hip hop musicians from Detroit, Michigan to Category:Musicians from Detroit, Michigan and Category:American hip hop musicians
• Category:Hip hop musicians from New York City to Category:Musicians from New York City and Category:American hip hop musicians
• Category:New York hip hop musicians to Category:Musicians from New York and Category:American hip hop musicians

Nominator's rationale: Overcategorization. These first two categories are the only ones that categorize American musicians by city, state and genre. The last category does essentially the same, only without the city. (Yes, I plan to do the manual work myself.) — ξ^xplicit 01:55, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge. Not a good road to go down.--Mike Selinker (talk) 05:21, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as is. My position on what is overcategorization is that we need to be more dynamic than nominator and Mike Selinker want to allow for. It is possible we'll never have Category:Hip hop musicians from Islamabad, but allowing for categories that can be amply filled with articles – Category:Hip hop musicians from New York City has 242 entries if we include the 238 in its subcategory Category:Rappers from New York City (why wasn't this also nominated?) – yields a dynamicity in category depth which will provide significant information to users browsing the category hierarchy and which will otherwise be lost on them. __meco (talk) 18:23, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Hip hop musicians are not interchangeable with rappers. It's one thing to be a rapper, and another thing to add elements of of hip hop music that doesn't require rapping at all. This is why Category:Rappers is distinct with Category:Hip hop musicians, and why I didn't nominate Category:Rappers from New York City or any other Rappers from Foo. The nominated categories four different characteristics. The individuals must be hip hop (genre, 1) musicians (occupation, 2) from a either New York or Michigan (state, 3), and from New York City or Detroit (city, 4). Are you really suggesting starting a tree of Category:American musicians by state and genre? How is that more helpful than hindering the aid of navigation? — ξ^xplicit 18:44, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  But you are wrong. At least as far as Wikipedia's relating the two categories of artists goes. Rappers are a contained subset of hip hop musicians. The categories aren't distinct at all, one is the parent of the other. Thus, leaving rappers out is a misunderstanding based upon which any decision made in this discussion will be a flawed one forcing the subject to be revisited in the future. __meco (talk) 02:46, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm sorry, but there's absolutely no way a hip hop singer like Keyshia Cole should ever be categorized under Category:American rappers or any of its subcategories simply because she's being categorized in Category:American hip hop musicians. She is not a rapper, nor does she rap, but she does incorporate hip hop into her music. There's a thin but extremely important distinction being made with these categories. The fact that the rappers are being categorized as hip hop musicians simply means that they should are misplaced and should be set into the subcategory, American rappers. — ξ^xplicit 03:35, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  You are completely misreading my post. Also, with an expression like "they should misplaced" you are not altogether coherent. __meco (talk) 04:25, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Crap, I rewrote a sentence and it seems I forgot to change should to are. Anywho, let's try this agian. You're asserting that Category:American rappers and Category:American hip hop musicians are not distinct, right? I might need a clarification of "leaving rappers out is a misunderstanding". Leaving rappers out of what? — ξ^xplicit 04:58, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Leaving rappers out of the nomination we are debating. Rappers are a subset (or sub-category in our arena) of hip hop artists. Thus only nominating the hip hop artists categories and not the rappers categories does not make sense. __meco (talk) 05:17, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. I would merge Category:Musicians from New York into Category:People from New York too as it is an intersection of unrelated characteristics. Occuli (talk) 18:38, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  That's part of the larger category tree Category:American musicians by state. Not worth it in this nomination, to be honest. — ξ^xplicit 18:44, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Are you advocating we become more like the German system? I find it a bit disconcerting that you argue the upmerging of well-established sub-hierarcies like Musicians from Foo. __meco (talk) 19:16, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  I was mistakenly supposing New York was the city, not the State. Category:American musicians by state is OK. Occuli (talk) 22:15, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge Category:New York hip hop musicians into Category:Hip hop musicians from New York City only, but keep the rest. The former is simply redundant. For the rest, subcategories are appropriate when their parent categories are too large, as here. How would a ten-thousand-member People from New York (or Musicians from New York) serve the encyclopedia better than subcategories do? I agree with Meco in this. --Bsherr (talk) 01:55, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Musicians from foo isn't even nominated, nor would I support a merge of these categories. Category:American hip hop musicians has just over one hundred entries, and the contents of the first two nominated categories (not including subcategories) add up to a grand total of six, one page which is a miscategorized discography. Category:Musicians from New York City should be broken down by its boroughs if needed, which would make breaking it down by genre and state overkill after that point. No one has even bothered to break down Category:Musicians from Detroit, Michigan by singers, songwriters, etc., which would bring its total number of 149 down quite significantly when that's done. It would hardly even be overpopulated at any point, especially when its' not overpopulated to begin with. — ξ^xplicit 03:35, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • That may be true presently, but there's every reason to assume these categories will grow. It doesn't seem to fall under any section of WP:OCAT. How is it that the elimination of these subcategories serves the encyclopedia? They're there if readers want them, and can be ignored by those that don't, no? --Bsherr (talk) 05:35, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. Ay. Not a good idea judging by the size of the parent categories. Simply not needed at this stage for easy navigation. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:17, 11 October 2010 (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.