< January 20	January 22 >

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) 19:56, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale - Delete: This category is blank and duplicates Category:United States in fiction — Preceding unsigned comment added by Symphony Girl (talk • contribs) 22:17, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and repopulate. Category:Novels set in the United States is a perfectly reasonable subcat of the much wider Category:United States in fiction (which includes all manner of non-novels). I expect it is empty because the nom has emptied it as happened with the England one (see eg Sense and Sensibility). In any case Category:Novels set in the historical United States is a large non-empty subcat looking for a parent. Occuli (talk) 01:52, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Occuli. 'NsithUS' was, in fact, a subcat of this category before it was emptied by the nom. I've restored it. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:29, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't see what's wrong with this category. -- Necrothesp (talk) 19:19, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
While certainly all novels are fiction, not all works of fiction are novels; some are short stories, some are films, some are television sitcoms, some are television drama series, and on and so forth. Accordingly, this is a perfectly reasonable and natural subcategory to have. Keep. Bearcat (talk) 01:25, 25 January 2011 (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) 19:56, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale - Delete: This category is empty and duplicates Category:England in fiction Symphony Girl (talk) 22:24, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - it isn't and it doesn't. Occuli (talk) 02:33, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - if they are to be different then can we have a clear headnote on each so that we can all see what the differences are. Twiceuponatime (talk) 09:51, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't see what's wrong with this category. -- Necrothesp (talk) 19:19, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Occuli. It's not empty and it's not a duplicate. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:23, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
While certainly all novels are fiction, not all works of fiction are novels; some are short stories, some are films, some are television sitcoms, some are television drama series, and on and so forth. Accordingly, this is a perfectly reasonable and natural subcategory to have. Keep. Bearcat (talk) 01:25, 25 January 2011 (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) 19:56, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale - Delete:This category is empty and duplicates Category:United Kingdom in fiction Symphony Girl (talk) 22:25, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - it isn't and it doesn't. Occuli (talk) 02:33, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - if they are to be different then can we have a clear headnote on each so that we can all see what the differences are. Twiceuponatime (talk) 09:51, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't see what's wrong with this category. -- Necrothesp (talk) 19:20, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Occuli. It's not empty and it's not a duplicate. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:23, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, repopulate, and discipline the person who emptied it. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:57, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
While certainly all novels are fiction, not all works of fiction are novels; some are short stories, some are films, some are television sitcoms, some are television drama series, and on and so forth. Accordingly, this is a perfectly reasonable and natural subcategory to have. Keep. Bearcat (talk) 01:25, 25 January 2011 (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 both. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:02, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming:

Nominator's rationale: The Arena Football team formerly known as the Kansas City Brigade has recently changed their team's name to the Kansas City Command. Tampabay721 (talk) 21:48, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom; general practice for U.S. professional sports teams is to adopt the most current name of the team for the main article and category.- choster (talk) 01:09, 2 February 2011 (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. The target category would need to be nominated separately if "old Armenia" needs discussion.--Mike Selinker (talk) 03:31, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:List of regions of old Armenia to Category:Regions of old Armenia, or maybe Delete

Nominator's rationale: Categories aren't lists and shouldn't be named "List of..." -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:26, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to omit 'lists of' ... and what is old Armenia? Occuli (talk) 21:29, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Good question - I wonder if the category makes sense at all? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:31, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- - I believe the term is Western Armenia or Historical Armenia. --NortyNort (Holla) 13:33, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't go far enough. "Old Armenia" is not defined, and a search for that term takes the reader to History of Armenia. Yours, GeorgeLouis (talk) 18:26, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, interesting. There is also List of regions of old Armenia, which has got lots of regions but no definition of "old Armenia" other than a link to History of Armenia. The original author of this category had placed one new article in it, Metz Aghbak, and had also inserted a redirect in the category to List of regions of old Armenia, so maybe it was just an inexperienced attempt to add Metz Aghbak to List of regions of old Armenia? This whole area looks like a bit of a mess to me, and I'm not sure what to suggest. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:40, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Have updated my proposal to add "or maybe Delete". -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk)`
Merge (without redirect). We do not need a category for a "list" (singular). Peterkingiron (talk) 15:00, 23 January 2011 (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 (early snow close). Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:29, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Constantly changing, usage makes neither celebrity nor electric vehicle more notable Vossanova ^o< 19:35, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — non-notable intersection, non-defining trait. This category in many cases would constitute undue weight. *** Crotalus *** 20:06, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – trivial intersection of 2 trivial categories (Category:Celebrities, which was renamed and possibly repurposed, and Category:People with electric vehicles, which would not survive very long if noticed). Occuli (talk) 20:11, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Facepalm, hard, and delete with extreme prejustice - Wikipedia is not a place for "see how good these people are" boasting. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:44, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Trivial, does not add to notability of subject.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:03, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete You can't put my by Leo in the same cat with that nut Mel Gibson. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:19, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In any event, it is poor usage, since it should be "who" uses, or "celebrities who use". GeorgeLouis (talk) 18:29, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Pointless and poor English. -- Necrothesp (talk) 19:20, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Category:Celebrities who have a toilet which can be flushed by turning a handle so that they don't have to get a bucket of water from a tap in the yard, and who have told their publicity people to make sure this factoid is reported at length in the gossip pages ... or better still, delete as non-defining trivia. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:29, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- "Celebrities" is too vague a term for us to have categories for: we deleted such categoiries long ago. And it is a trivial intersection. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:03, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Categories are for grouping articles by their primary defining characteristics, not for building a Book of Lists-style compendium of trivia for any random factoid one finds "interesting". Bearcat (talk) 01:29, 25 January 2011 (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/rename. Dana boomer (talk) 20:06, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:The Los Angeles Times people to Category: Los Angeles Times people

Nominator's rationale: No “the” in title of paper (see picture of front page of paper at Los Angeles Times for proof), and naming conventions would say drop the “the” even if there was one. Was BOLDly moved from LA Times to “The LA Times” without a discussion. See also discussion regarding Category:The Los Angeles Times vs. Category:Los Angeles Times Purple backpack89 15:38, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. Normal English syntax would drop the "The," even in the case of newspapers that use the article in their titles. In this case, the name of the paper is Los Angeles Times. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 16:00, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to match the article Los Angeles Times. Occuli (talk) 17:37, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Merge to reflect title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 21:27, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename in this case, though nominator's rationale regarding the conventions regarding the "The" in newspapers names is incorrect. See the relevant convention. It's not really a "merge" since the target category is just a redirect. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 13:00, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Cogent referral by the unnamed editor just above me, pointing out the consensus on naming of newspapers (you have to read the whole section that Mr. or Ms. Unnamed pointed to). GeorgeLouis (talk) 01:08, 29 January 2011 (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) 20:06, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:The Los Angeles Times to Category:Los Angeles Times

Nominator's rationale: No “the” in title of paper (see picture of front page of paper at Los Angeles Times for proof), and naming conventions would say drop the “the” even if there was one. Purple backpack89 15:38, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to match the article Los Angeles Times. Occuli (talk) 17:37, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rename to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 21:27, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom.--NortyNort (Holla) 13:25, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Naming conventions for categories would not suggest dropping the "The" if the article had a "The". Eponymous categories always match the article name, and the convention for newspapers is here, which says the "The" is retained in the article name if the "The" appears on the masthead. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:28, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rename. See the online nameplate at http://www.latimes.com/or the masthead. There is no "The" there.--Hjal (talk) 09:25, 31 January 2011 (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) 20:06, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Soviet airspace violations to Category:Violations of Soviet airspace

Nominator's rationale: As the category is now named, it implies 'airspace violations by the Soviet Union', whereas the intended title would make its purpose clear: for incidents where it was Soviet airspace being violated. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:23, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. The present name is ambiguous, and all the articles are indeed about violations of Soviet airspace. The intro text to the category is also ambiguous. Occuli (talk) 11:19, 21 January 2011 (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) 20:06, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Lotus to Category:Lotus Cars

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Suggest renaming to match main article Lotus Cars. The nominated category should really be a disambiguation category for the category for the car company, Category:Lotus software, and Category:Lotus (genus). Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:30, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support Rename to match title of parent article and address possible ambiguity. Alansohn (talk) 21:28, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom - while Lotus Cars may be what most people first think of when they hear "Lotus", ambigious category is ambigious. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:49, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. I think of the software first. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:05, 22 January 2011 (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) 20:06, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Paul of Tarsus to Category:Paul the Apostle

Nominator's rationale: Per main article —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:56, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom. -- Necrothesp (talk) 19:21, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Cjc13 (talk) 14:18, 23 January 2011 (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) 20:06, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Only two entries, one of which is in the parent category anyway —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:18, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Looked for additional articles but found none. No conceptual problem with category but underpopulated. Both should be upmerged to Category:MADtv. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:09, 22 January 2011 (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 at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 February 2. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:58, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:West Coast related Lists to Category:West Coast of the United States related lists

Nominator's rationale: Rename. West coast is ambiguous. Rename to match parent article and category. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:52, 21 January 2011 (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) 20:13, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Beaches of the West Coast (U.S.) to Category:Beaches of the West Coast of the United States

Propose renaming Category:Plant communities of the West Coast (U.S.) to Category:Plant communities of the West Coast of the United States

Propose renaming Category:Flora of the West Coast (U.S.) to Category:Flora of the West Coast of the United States

Propose renaming Category:History of the West Coast (U.S.) to Category:History of the West Coast of the United States

Propose renaming Category:Islands of the West Coast (U.S.) to Category:Islands of the West Coast of the United States

Propose renaming Category:Parks of the West Coast (U.S.) to Category:Parks of the West Coast of the United States

Propose renaming Category:Regions of the West Coast (U.S.) to Category:Regions of the West Coast of the United States

Propose renaming Category:Wine regions of the West Coast (U.S.) to Category:Wine regions of the West Coast of the United States

Propose renaming Category:Culture on the West Coast (U.S.) to Category:Culture of the West Coast of the United States

Nominator's rationale: Rename to match main article, parent category, to use one form for all subcategories and eliminate the abbreviation. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:36, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support Categories and their main articles should (almost?) always match. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:12, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. No need for the abbreviation.--NortyNort (Holla) 13:27, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Abbreviations are bad, mmkay. -- Necrothesp (talk) 19:22, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Created the original categories. — Look2See1 t a l k → 09:39, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I know this is not a deletion discussion but the Wine regions cat seems pretty useless. I'm not sure if anyone is really using it. At the Wine Project, we usually put these in either Category:American Viticultural Areas or, if it is a California AVA, Category:American Viticultural Areas of California. With the exception of perhaps, the Central Valley (California) which doesn't have an AVA (or wine article for that matter), there isn't a "wine region of the West Coast" that is not an AVA. Agne ^Cheese/^Wine 22:33, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Foo of the West Coast (United States), the customary form for disambiguation. We don't say "Georgia of the United States" either.- choster (talk) 03:14, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem here is the main article that also defines the scope. This is not about simply the west coast. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:49, 28 January 2011 (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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 03:34, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Speeches by author to Category:Speeches by speaker

Nominator's rationale: I reckon that most of these speeches were not written by the same person who delivered them. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:30, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:16, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought, keep - Good Olfactory makes a decent point, and the cat is also a subcat of "Works by author." Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:30, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do not rename. Even if they weren't actually written by the speaker, the speaker is almost invariably deemed to be the author of a speech that they deliver. It's similar to a book that is ghostwritten—George W. Bush didn't actually write Decision Points, but it is still deemed to be a book "by George W. Bush". Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:28, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Question. I don't get it. What does "Speeches by Speaker" mean exactly? Or "Speeches by author," for that matter. If I give a speech, I am speaking it,right? If a talk extemporaneously, I am certainly not an "author," am I? Can we have more information from the nominator, please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by GeorgeLouis (talk • contribs)

Response These categories are not arranged by the author of the speeches (usually, a speechwriter for these contemporary speakers), but rather the person who delivered the address itself. It's probably the case that (e.g.) Barack Obama hasn't composed a speech of any note in his political career since 2008. —Justin

(koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:11, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It was fairly widely reported that Obama wrote his recent speech in Tuscon himself. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:24, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Huh That's surprising to me, but certainly plausible. I was too hasty in my judgement. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:49, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, then . . . If I get the gist of this, shouldn't the category be "Speeches written by the person who delivered them"? GeorgeLouis (talk) 18:35, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe That's a different categorization scheme entirely. What this is trying to do is to categorize speeches by the person who spoke them, which is fine, except that they call them the authors of the speeches when they frequently aren't. Having a category about speeches written and delivered by the same person would be a different way of categorizing. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:18, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alternate Rename: Category:Speeches by person seems straight-forward to me. That doesn't imply authorship and avoided the redundant "Speeches by speaker". RevelationDirect (talk) 00:59, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Speeches by person per above. I disagree with Good Ol'factory - the speaker is the person that delivers them, but I don't think he'd necessarily be considered the author. -- Necrothesp (talk) 19:25, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you provide some examples of some speeches that are widely noted as being "by" someone who was not the speaker? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:24, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Still confused. Speeches are always delivered by a person, right? Unless they are made by a parrot. Still don't know who would be covered here, and when . . . maybe the nominator of others can cite some examples?? Thanks in advance, GeorgeLouis (talk)

If you look at the contents of this category, it only contains subcategories. Each of the subcategories is formatted in the form "Speeches by PERSON". So the category is containing subcategories of speeches by specific people. Thus, the category is Category:Speeches by author or Category:Speeches by person, because it contains only subcategories of this type. It's not mean to contain speeches that were delivered by persons, but I can see how you could be confused by that proposed name. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:24, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

REname to Category:Speeches by speech writer. A head note should be added to the effect that speeches delivered by theri author should not be included but placed in Category:Speeches by speaker. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:07, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I get it now. Look at Category:Speeches to get the big picture. Why not Category:Speeches: Arranged by name of speaker? You would then have to change the other subcategories on the Category:Speeches page to conform. GeorgeLouis (talk) 20:55, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Because that's not the way categories are usually named. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:26, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's no excuse for the naming of categories to be incomprehensible. Besides "there are no rules," and anything that improves the encyclopedia should be on the table. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 19:26, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - There are conventions and standards. Personally, I think Category:Speeches by author is completely comprehensible and is in conformity with the convention, which makes me wonder why we need to rename this. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:27, 25 January 2011 (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.

January 21

Category:Novels set in the United States

Category:Novels set in England

Category:Novels set in the United Kingdom

Kansas City Brigade/Command

Category:List of regions of old Armenia

Category:Celebrity that uses electric vehicles

Category:The Los Angeles Times people

Category:The Los Angeles Times

Category:Soviet airspace violations

Category:Lotus

Category:Paul of Tarsus

Category:MADtv sketches

Category:West Coast related Lists

West Coast of the United States

Category:Speeches by author