< March 21	March 23 >

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: Listify. Timrollpickering (talk) 16:22, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Convert Category:Pupils of Frédéric Chopin to article List of students of Frédéric Chopin

Nominator's rationale: Convert to list article. I suggest converting this category into a list. I propose this because this has been the consensus of what to do with similar categories for other composers: see here, here, and here. The list article should then be placed in Category:Lists of music students by teacher. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:43, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Such a list (an article you suggest) is to be created; it is now in my sub-pages as a rough draft. I did not know the consensus, but in my opinion the category is nevertheless quite useful for those interested in the matter. Regards, Gregory of Nyssa (talk) 23:37, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• 'Make the list; keep the category also. Whenever there is a list, there should normally be a category and v-v unless there is some really special reason, and I do not see one here. DGG ( talk ) 05:50, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Listify – being someone's pupil is not defining: this is the objection to such categories. Occuli (talk) 09:36, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Listify - agree that it is good information, but not suitable for a category. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:18, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Listify. Not sufficiently defining for a category. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:29, 24 March 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. Timrollpickering (talk) 22:34, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:People from Sligo to Category:People from Sligo (town)

Nominator's rationale: Rename to disambiguate People from the Irish town of Sligo (to which this category refers) to People from the surrounding County Sligo, which has its own parent category, Category:People from County Sligo. The town is the primary topic for the unqualified term "Sligo", but the county is sometimes referred to simply as "Sligo" rather than "County Sligo", creating an ambiguity which leads to errors in categorisation. Similar disambiguators have been added to the categories for cities in Ireland which have eponymous counties. Snappy (talk) 21:07, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. "Sligo" is used so much as a shorthand for "County Sligo" that a disambiguating word in the category name would be good. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:19, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom and per Roscelese, and per numerous similar recent renamings of categories for to county towns in Ireland. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:27, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note. See also Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 March 24#Category:Sligo. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:30, 24 March 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/merge per second proposal, and allow creation of Union/Confederate subcategories to the new Category:Military personnel killed in the American Civil War.--Mike Selinker (talk) 12:47, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Whichever of the following to best use the term "American" consistently or else all to better names (see also 1.8 below):

"American" as adjective to mean the Union

• Category:American military personnel of the American Civil War to Category:to be determined by consensus

"American" as adjective to encompass all

• Category:American military personnel killed in the American Civil War to Category:to be determined by consensus
• Category:American civilians killed in the American Civil War to Category:to be determined by consensus

Nominator's rationale: Administrative nomination following inconclusive previous discussion of one of the categories here. The use of the adjective "American" is inconsistent across the American Civil categories. It is used in wider categories such as Category:American military personnel by war and there's inconsistency over whether in the Civil War context it encompasses just the Union or both sides, with some Confederate military categories sitting in the wider American military categories (e.g. Category:Confederate States Army officers in Category:American military officers & Category:American soldiers). Timrollpickering (talk) 16:14, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Split into Union and Confederate categories as has for instance been done with the other soldier categories; OTOH I think we can simply rename Category:American civilians killed in the American Civil War to Category:Civilians killed in the American Civil War as I am not convinced that allegiance is important in that case, Barbara Fritchie aside. Mangoe (talk) 19:15, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

American is an all encompassing term. Union members were American. Confederates were American. If you going to say how many people died all together during the war then the term American would suffice. If you were going to give separate totals American wouldn't suffice. The terms Union and confederate would be required.It is known as the American Civil War to many. I find it doubtful that anyone thinks that American stands for union in this context and I wouldn't say that American and union would be interchangeable in this context (ie Union Civil War).Serialjoepsycho (talk) 19:56, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Have you considered to simply Remove American. It seems to me that Removing American would be correct.

Category:Military personnel of the American Civil War Category:Military personnel killed in the American Civil War I would also suggest you keep Category:American civilians killed in the American Civil War as it is because all Civilians were American civilians since secession was illegal and there for it was invalid. The states never actually ceased to be states of the USA and therefor all civilians remained American civilians.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 03:00, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Okay how about the following:
  • Merge Category:American military personnel of the American Civil War to Category:Union military personnel (anything about the names for Union categories can be dealt with later); this also matches the equivalent Category:Confederate States military personnel
  • Rename Category:American military personnel killed in the American Civil War to Category:Military personnel killed in the American Civil War and Union & Confederate sub-categories can be created if deemed necessary - Category:Military personnel killed in action by war has a number of categories encompassing all sides in a war with sub-categories for sides - e.g. Category:Military personnel killed in the Mexican–American War
  • Rename Category:American civilians killed in the American Civil War to Category:Civilians killed in the American Civil War - whilst they were all American (were any foreign nationals killed?), it's better to use this sort of category as a container, similar to Category:Civilians killed in World War I and if it grows then subcategorise by known allegiance
• That removes the problematic adjective in each case and follows existing precedents. Timrollpickering (talk) 14:16, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, seems to cover the major points of the previous discussions.
    • (Prefer that the sub-cats of Category:Military personnel killed in the American Civil War be created and populated at the outset, but can wait if necessary.) Fat&Happy (talk) 16:33, 9 April 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. Timrollpickering (talk) 22:38, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Songs about transport (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. A very unhelpful and subjective way to classify a song. I also nominate its seven sub-categories for deletion—do I need to tag those pages as well? (Fun fact: I found this after "This Charming Man" was categorised as a song about a bicycle)—indopug (talk) 16:06, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep all These categories are quite notable, being used in numerous collections and books. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:32, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Reluctant keep for now. The "songs about" categories are a logical mess, because most of them confuse the setting of a song with its theme, and avoid its meaning (tho I accept that the meaning may be subjective). For example Category:Songs about trains includes The Gambler, which is set on a train; but it's not about trains, and it's arguably not even about gambling. Similarly, putting Bridge over Troubled Water and Love Can Build a Bridge in Category:Songs about bridges is a form of crass literalism which insults the reader.
  However, I don't see that the transport end of this mess is any more daft than the rest of it, and it should not be singled out. The whole lot should be considered together. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:30, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I created some of the subcategories after the main category was nominated in this recent nomination. The concept survived that nomination, and probably should go a bit longer before being addressed again. However, songs that are not about the thing in question can and should be removed from the category.--Mike Selinker (talk) 16:41, 29 March 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. Timrollpickering (talk) 22:35, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Academy Award for Best Original Screenplay templates to Category:Academy Award for Best Writing templates

Nominator's rationale: Merge. This is one of only two subcategories at Category:Academy Award templates that uses 10-year periods (the other is Category:Academy Award for Best Film Editing templates). Also in the broader context, of theatrical award templates it is one of the few using only 10-year periods. See also Category:BAFTA Awards templates, Category:Golden Globe Awards templates, Category:Screen Actors Guild Award templates, Category:Emmy Awards navigational boxes, Category:Tony Award templates. Most subcats of these categories use 20- and 25-year periods. In this case, by merging you could merge these 10-year templates into existing 20-year templates. TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:00, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support: It looks like there's some redundancy between the templates as well: we have Original Screenplay templates for 1960-1969, for 1970-1979 AND for 1961-1980. Clearly there's no reason to have competing templates. Aristophanes68 (talk) 18:38, 26 March 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: Speedy (er ish) rename. Timrollpickering (talk) 00:21, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Train stations in Val-d'Oise to Category:Railway stations in Val-d'Oise

Nominator's rationale: Rename to match standard name for such categories. (See also nomination below) Pichpich (talk) 14:57, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy rename per Speedy Criterion C2C (convention of Category:Category:Railway stations. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:24, 24 March 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: Speedy (er ish) rename. Timrollpickering (talk) 00:21, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Train stations in the San Francisco Bay Area to Category:Railway stations in the San Francisco Bay Area

Nominator's rationale: Rename match both the parent category and the children categories. Pichpich (talk) 14:56, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy rename per Speedy Criterion C2C (convention of Category:Category:Railway stations). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:25, 24 March 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 to Category:2011 Libyan civil war. This may be a temporary move, since the article (now named 2011 Libyan civil war) is under a requested move debate again. But at the very least, these articles should all be one category, whatever its name.--Mike Selinker (talk) 16:52, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:2011 Libyan War to Category:2011 Libyan uprising

Nominator's rationale: Merge. There is no reason for a new category, the contents of the new category don't even contain most of the civil war articles. The shift between uprising and war occurred much earlier than the UN intervention, the current division is original research. 184.144.166.85 (talk) 01:58, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose merging: An uprising is not a war ... In this case, the war involves specific techniques, an international coalition, UN-resolutions, ... Moreover, the goals of the uprising are completely different from what the people involved in the war intend to achieve. Stefanomione (talk) 08:08, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The uprising was most certainly a Civil War. 65.93.12.101 (talk) 11:35, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to make it clear that this does not refer to the internal civil war (the related article is 2011 military intervention in Libya ... perhaps UN should be added to this). Occuli (talk) 10:59, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Reverse merge, the uprising became a civil war, with pitched battles. The uprising articles should all be dumped into this category. 65.93.12.101 (talk) 11:35, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose reverse merge to category not using the main article title The article currently at 2011 Libyan uprising has been through a number of RMs in response to developing events and the final title it not yet clear. The previous CFD on these categories settled on following the article RMs and not going their own way. If the categories are to be merged they should use the main article title and discussion on what that should be should be kept to its talkpage. Timrollpickering (talk) 19:53, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename There are many (well, several) articles related to the 2011 Libyan situation at present, the most common term seems to remain uprising. For the time being therefore, all the related articles, categories etc. should be left as or changed to uprising until such time as a consensus is reached to change all to war, civil war, revolt, revolution, or whetever other term may be most appropriate. Lynbarn (talk) 11:40, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename The lead article on the subject is still named 2011 Libyan uprising. There is a rename discussion currently under way but it has not yet come to conclusion. It would seem premature to rename the category when the article and topic banner are still employing 2011 Libyan uprising.--Labattblueboy (talk) 20:41, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Update. I have closed the article's requested move discussion and renamed it 2011 Libyan civil war.--Mike Selinker (talk) 20:41, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note' the main category is now called Category:2011 Libyan civil war. 65.93.12.101 (talk) 09:09, 31 March 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 to Category:People of the 2011 Libyan civil war. This may be a temporary move, since the article (now named 2011 Libyan civil war) is under a requested move debate again. But at the very least, these articles should all be one category, whatever its name.--Mike Selinker (talk) 16:52, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:People of the 2011 Libyan War to Category:People of the 2011 Libyan uprising

Nominator's rationale: Merge. The division between uprising and civil war does not allow for a separation of people, as most would be in both categories. 184.144.166.85 (talk) 02:01, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose merging: see above. Stefanomione (talk) 09:57, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Reverse merge, the uprising became a civil war, with pitched battles. The uprising articles should all be dumped into this category. 65.93.12.101 (talk) 11:35, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • (The same issue & response as in the CFD above but for ease of reading I'll repeat them here)
    Oppose reverse merge to category not using the main article title The article currently at 2011 Libyan uprising has been through a number of RMs in response to developing events and the final title it not yet clear. The previous CFD on these categories settled on following the article RMs and not going their own way. If the categories are to be merged they should use the main article title and discussion on what that should be should be kept to its talkpage. Timrollpickering (talk) 19:54, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • What precisely is a "pitched battle"? Do the combatants use pitch and/or tar? Does it mean that it is ferocious? Is baseball involved? I would probably support '2011 Libyan conflict' as a catch-all term, but to call it civil war when there are outside agencies and nations at work with much more force than the national army or rebels, just seems to be stretching credibility. -- Avanu (talk) 19:49, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Outside agencies are frequently involved in civil wars. Before the major intervention of outside agencies, it was already a civil war, with credible news agencies calling it that as well (ie, before the no-fly zone was established). "2011 Libyan confict" is fine though; but do you wish separate categories or one category? And if you wish to rename this category, then you have a "conflict" category and "uprising" category, so that would also be problematic. 65.93.12.101 (talk) 07:13, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Update. I have closed the article's requested move discussion and renamed it 2011 Libyan civil war.--Mike Selinker (talk) 20:42, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note' the main category is now called Category:People of the 2011 Libyan civil war. 65.93.12.101 (talk) 09:09, 31 March 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.