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: C1'd as empty. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:10, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Ireland cricket team (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Redundant category; out of synch with Category:National cricket teams Brian (talk) 18:17, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments – there is Ireland cricket team so a category is plausible. What did it contain before the nom emptied it? Oculi (talk) 20:09, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – Perfectly reasonable category for reason given above. PS How come this category was emptied before discussion. I've been given the impression in the past that this is verging on a mortal sin in the Wikisphere Djln --Djln (talk) 22:02, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply. It was emptied by default during a general categorisation maintenance exercise, not because of any sinister motive to present an empty category here. I understand there is actually no need to list empty categories here, anyway, as a bot disposes of them. The real points are that the article Ireland cricket team is categorised according to a years-old standard created by the WP:CRIC project and there are no other such sub-categories in Category:National cricket teams. This sub-cat was the odd one in and if we are to maintain an accepted categorisation standard, it must be defined superfluous. Perhaps it should have been discussed at WT:CRIC before it was ever created, given that it is unique and breaches the project standard? --Brian (talk) 18:30, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment It would be interesting to know what it contained but I'm still leaning towards deletion because I just can't see how this could be populated. Pichpich (talk) 18:25, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply. Ireland cricket team was the sole entry. I recategorised that to comply with WP:CRIC standard on national cricket teams and afterwards I noticed the unpopulated category, which I reported here. --Brian (talk) 18:38, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ireland cricket team was not the sole entry. As Ireland cricket team is not a national team, I am not sure that 'WP:CRIC standard on national cricket teams' has anything to contribute on the matter. Oculi (talk) 22:28, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Excuse me, but I think the standards adopted and used by the cricket project are a major contribution "on the matter". The category is non-standard and superfluous. If one-off categories like that are allowed they create confusion and add no value whatsoever, especially to users navigating the system. And, for your information, Ireland cricket team is the national cricket team of Ireland that has played in the last two World Cups. --Brian (talk) 04:28, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • It is not a national cricket team as it represents the island of Ireland: "Cricket Ireland, officially the Irish Cricket Union, is the governing body for cricket in Ireland (both the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland)". Oculi (talk) 13:28, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Technically speaking it's not a national cricket team, as all-Ireland isn't a sovereign nation, just like the cricket teams of England, Scotland, Bermuda, Jersey, Guernsey ect. Howzat?Out!Out!Out! (talk) 21:55, 12 June 2012 (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) 00:42, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep and repopulate -- It looks as if some on has emptied the category out of process. The team exists; it has a squad of players; so that there ought to be a subcat for its players. Unfortunately for those who like everything to be tidy, despite the 1922 partition, some things continue to be organised on an all-Ireland basis, and it is appropriate for these to appear in an Ireland category, rather than one for NI or RoI. We have split a lot of Irish categories according to the two polities on the island, but WP neess to reflect what is happening in the real world, not try to impose its own world view. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:22, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- The rationale is that we do not have any other categories for national teams, only articles. Accordingly contrary to what I said above, I now consider this a redundant category. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:28, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Note this page actually has been deleted, so I am not sure why the nomination is still open. It was not just emptied, but it has been fully deleted.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:20, 9 July 2012 (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 / no consensus. It's not quite accurate to say that there's no consensus, since there is a clear consensus to move away from the current titles or even structure, but there's no consensus on the particular direction to take. There is no consensus to follow the suggestion, by Vegaswikian and JPL, to delete and start over and, in any case, such an action would require a wider nomination encompassing the subcategories. Likewise, there is no clear consensus for (nor, to be fair, any strong opposition to) the proposal, by Fayenatic and supported by Bushranger, to rename to 'Road vehicles...' and recreate Category:Vehicles by year of introduction as a parent for road vehicles, locomotives, ships and so on.

So, rather than retaining the status quo, which no one supported, I will rename both categories as nominated as there was no opposition per se to the limited change proposed by the nominator. I encourage interested editors to propose or boldly implement some of the cleanup that was discussed, whether it be a general discussion/RfC at Category talk:Introductions by year (or elsewhere) regarding the precise definition of 'introduction' or re-categorization of the type proposed by Fayenatic, starting with either a follow-up nomination or the splitting out of Category:Road vehicles by year of introduction.

By the way, my compliments to the participants. When closing discussions, it's always nice to read one that is peppered with ideas, examples and insightful analysis. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 19:46, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Vehicles introduced by year to Category:Vehicles by year of introduction
• Propose renaming Category:Locomotives introduced by year to Category:Locomotives by year of introduction

Nominator's rationale: Rename. The existing names seem to be the only ones in Category:Introductions by year to use "introduced by year," which I find a bit awkward. I considered "Vehicle introductions by year" as well as "Vehicles by year of introduction," but I believe the latter is smoother for compound constructions as we will see further down in the tree, or which we find even at the same level: Category:Fictional characters by year of introduction‎ over Category:Fictional character introductions by year, which pushes us into crash blossom territory. Note that the nom is for the named categories only; I have no quarrel with the subcats as they stand. - choster (talk) 17:52, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I have a mild concern about the slightly ambiguous name for the category. What does introduced or introduction mean? Take the Chevrolet Volt which was introduced a few years before it went on sale in 2010 which is where it is categorized. It even won at least one award in 2009. So for this vehicle, 2010 represents the year it first went on sale. I'm not opposing the rename for the reason given, just wondering about how we are categorizing items by year here. We only have a vehicle type specific subcategory for ships like Category:2010 ships (which includes commissioning, launches and shipwrecks). So how do we clean this up so the contents are based on some firm definition of introduction? Is introduction the first year of sale or the year first shown either of those would suggest adding appropriate named sub categories. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:01, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Perhaps this is a discussion for Category talk:Introductions by year. Was the 2010 Volt event considered a demo or a launch? I wouldn't consider a demo to be a product introduction, even if it is an "introduction to the public" in the sense of informing outsiders about something new. After all the Ford Probe was first presented as a concept car as far back as 1979, but it wasn't on the market until 1989. Conventions may vary by branch, and multiple dates may be entailed in some cases. The same potential ambiguity lies in Category:Establishments by year. The United States says it was established in 1776, but off the top of my head I could make a case for 1774, 1775, 1777, 1781, 1787, 1788, and 1789 as well.- choster (talk) 23:09, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Ooh ooh, also 1783.- choster (talk) 23:15, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename as Category:Automobiles by year of introduction and create new head category Category:Vehicles by year. This is because, as far as I have seen, the articles in the year-by-year sub-cats are all for automobiles. If people here think it sounds a good idea, I will bring forward a separate nomination for them to be renamed from "Vehicles introduced in 19XX" to "Automobiles introduced in 19XX". I know there are also sub-cats for "19XX ships", and a small number of the "Railway locomotives introduced in 19XX" are likewise in them, but I would sort these out afterwards. – Fayenatic London (talk) 14:09, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  No, they are not. There are buses and lorries, and I have been adding motorcycles to them.- choster (talk) 15:23, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Then how about Category:Road vehicles by year of introduction? Do we need "by year of introduction" for anything other than road & rail vehicles? – Fayenatic London (talk) 17:35, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  The categories also include subcategories for ships, and the main category is Category:Vehicles, so I don't know why we need to change it now. Category:Automobiles by country is its own mess and a half to clean up. - choster (talk) 23:00, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  I know; I would move the "ships" categories up into the new head category "Vehicles by year", which would contain Ships by year, Road vehicles by year of introduction and Railway locomotives by year of introduction. – Fayenatic London 08:45, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. The related Category:Automobiles by decade and its contents are ambiguous, as they contain cars by dates of production rather than introduction. I intend to bring forward a proposal to rename these as "Automobiles by decade of production" and "Automobiles produced in the 19X0s". Please comment on this suggestion here as well. – Fayenatic London (talk) 14:09, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  I would wonder if we need that type of category at all. While the beginning and end dates might be notable, I don't see how it is notable for the decades. This is strongly pointed out by a model that existed for two years and happens to span two decades, in fact a single model produced for one year could span two decades. Why is that logically grouped in a decade category with a model that had a twenty year life? And for that later case, a model could be in 3 decades if the first year moved forward or backward a single year. I think that the manufacture templates that that show the model histories do a much better job for navigation in this area. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:11, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  This is off-topic, and I'm not the most active editor for motor vehicle topics. For what it's worth, the concept of production years for a model does seem to be uncontroversial and of some importance to those editors. Production years and model years have top billing on Template:Infobox automobile and there is an extensive collection of production year timeline templates (see Category:Automotive company timeline templates).- choster (talk) 23:07, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, I saw those templates, and I'm inclined to retain the categories for production. In many cases, the designs change incrementally over the years; this makes the production years relevant for the vehicle, as well as the year of introduction. I have no objection to the use of decades, despite Vegaswikian's valid points. I just think the categories need a more specific name. – Fayenatic London (talk) 17:35, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  By the way, if we want to talk about a name misleadingly representing something of radically different design, I propose California's 35th congressional district :). I suppose most high-number legislative districts would qualify. To think Maxine Waters holds what is nominally the same seat as James B. Utt boggles my mind.- choster (talk) 18:18, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Michigan's 1st congressional district has a history that is equally as off the wall. There is no connection between the current district and what it was when represented by John Conyers. So it is not even high number districts that have this issue. Whether seperate articles should be created when some level of redistricting occurs is probably an issue worth discussing. The congressional district articles tend to be overly presentist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:35, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Based on the above, it is clear that this is a mess and so are the associated categories. We should however allow recreation under a new name that removes the ambiguity associated with the current name. If the result here is delete, then I guess we need a discussion on other subcategories of Category:Introductions by year. However in looking at those, I think this could be the only one with issues. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:00, 1 June 2012 (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) 00:36, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• kill and build new categories with workable names per Vegaswikian's nomination.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:58, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename locomotives as nominated, and Category:Vehicles introduced by year to Category:Road vehicles by year of introduction, adding new head categories for "Vehicles by year". To resolve Vegaswikian's point, I would favour stating the category purpose for road vehicles that the year of introduction is the year that the vehicle went on sale. – Fayenatic London 13:32, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per FL. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:10, 16 July 2012 (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. to the second set The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:11, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming
  • Category:Plants used in Traditional Chinese medicine‎ to Category:Traditional Chinese medicinal plants
  • Category:Traditional Native American medical plants‎ to Category:Traditional Native American medicinal plants‎ - 'medical' → 'medicinal'

  or

  • Category:Plants used in Traditional Chinese medicine‎ to Category:Plants used in traditional Chinese medicine - lowercase 'traditional'
  • Category:Traditional Native American medical plants‎ to Category:Plants used in traditional Native American medicine

Nominator's rationale: These two subcategories of Category:Medicinal plants by tradition should adhere to the same naming standard: either Traditional Fooian medicinal plants or Plants used in traditional Fooian medicine. Either standard is acceptable within the structures of Category:Medicinal plants and Category:Traditional medicine. I prefer Traditional Fooian medicinal plants because it is slightly shorter but no less precise. (Category creators notified using Template:Cfd-notify) -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 20:39, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: consistency is good, and for me the pair Category:Plants used in traditional Chinese medicine and Category:Plants used in traditional Native American medicine are clear and unambiguous. Moonraker (talk) 23:27, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to second set of options (Category:Plants used in traditional Chinese medicine and Category:Plants used in traditional Native American medicine) per nom, as I feel these are the two least ambiguous category names. --Eastlaw ^talk ⁄ _contribs 03:23, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge both to Plants used in traditional medicine. Seems like a non-notable intersection. Benkenobi18 (talk) 17:57, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Worth the separate categories because of the phytogeographic differences Brad7777 (talk) 18:56, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• rename to second set of options per eastlaw. --KarlB (talk) 20:49, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to second set of options. The used in form seems to make the category intent more clear, especially since the plants used in the traditional form of medicine may not actually be used for medical purposes directly. To pretend there is one "traditional madeince" that is trans-cultural enough to include both these cases is to ignore reality, so these cannot in good conscience be merged.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:25, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename "Plants used in traditional XYZ medicine" sounds good to me. Definitely keep the cultural labels, its important to history and medical anthropology and the study certain branches of alternative medicine, like traditional Chinese medicine. Asarelah (talk) 20:33, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The category of Category:Ayurvedic medicaments should have the plants put into a new subcategory of "Plants used in Ayurveda" and have that as the subcategory of Category:Medicinal plants by tradition, rather than have Category: Ayurvedic medicaments be the subcategory. Asarelah (talk) 20:41, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I also plan on dividing the rest of the medicinal plant articles up by regional tradition (such as European and so forth), but I'll hold off on that until this category rename has been straightened out. Asarelah (talk) 00:25, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  I do not think that such broad, regional splits would be useful. The narrow scope of the ones that currently exist is what makes them useful. A category of plants used in traditional Asian medicine, for instance, would be too broad, in my opinion. Further, the articles probably should continue to remain in Category:Medicinal plants, even if such categories are created, per WP:DUPCAT. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 05:59, 1 July 2012 (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. Might make a worthwhile list in Pound's articles (contents at closing here) but not a category. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:56, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Visitors to Ezra Pound at St. Elizabeth's Hospital for the Mentally Ill (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Trivial category that is very peripheral to the articles it is attached to. NtheP (talk) 20:04, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Agree that this is a case of WP:OVERCAT. "Visitor to Ezra Pound at St. Elizabeth's Hospital for the Mentally Ill" is not a defining characteristic of any of the people so categorized. Deor (talk)
• Delete per Deor. —Diiscool (talk) 20:45, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Tom Harrison ^Talk 22:32, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Jpcohen (talk) 22:41, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep — Ezra Pound was a seminal figure in 20th century history. He was incarcerated in St. Elizabeth's for 13 years and was visited there by dozens of famous and influential people, whose visits are invariably mentioned in their biographies and autobiographies. Having a category listing these people is immensely useful for getting a sense of the breadth and depth of his visitor list. This is in no way a trivial category. — alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 13:39, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Note— From Wikipedia:Categorization#Articles: "A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently define the subject as having". By this definition, the subject of the category under discussion is in fact a defining characteristic. — alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 14:20, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per above. Exceedingly trivial. Oculi (talk) 16:47, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Already, while incomplete, this list contains radical experimentation in three different fields. Actual research, rather than mere recollection, will doubtless turn up more. If this list were named as an ideological movement this conversation wouldn't be happening. Let it continue. eztafette —Preceding undated comment added 23:52, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The category function serves as a flexible method of signalling a connection that would be cumbersome to relate in an individual article. Lists like the one under consideration are emphatically non-trivial. There is no other wikipedia functionality which could so readily serve to identify those members of the Modernist literary movement who chose to support Pound during his incarceration. Any method of identifying the fault lines, and therefore the complexity, within a movement too often perceived as monolithic in its allegiances ought to be fostered, if for no other reason than common sense. georgelazenby 23:54, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  If supporting or not supporting Ezra Pound was some sort of schism/point of major debate within the Modernist movement then surely it should be reflected in an article on Modernism somewhere or is better served by an article on (List of) Modernists who supported Ezra Pound but not by a category where the question of inclusion is a simple Did they/Didn't they. Apart from triviality, categories of this type are discouraged by WP:OC#OPINION as well. NtheP (talk) 13:42, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  In addition, of the 15 people currently included in this category, only 3 are specifically mentioned in our articles as having visited Pound at St. Elizabeths (there's no apostrophe in the name, by the way)—viz., Hollis Frampton, Eustace Mullins, and Charles Olson. (I suppose that John Kasper's article can be read as implying visits, though this is not stated explicitly.) This violates the principle that "it should be clear from verifiable information in the article why it was placed in each of its categories". Categorization should not be a means of including either original research or verifiable details that are judged to be too insignificant to be mentioned in articles. Deor (talk) 14:18, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. 'Conducting OR' is contrary to the principles of wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a publisher. Benkenobi18 (talk) 17:59, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Away I am not yet conducting original research (which neither makes 'a publisher' nor is unheard of here—for instance: Jan_Smuts#cite_note-22). Out of respect for Wikipedia's coherence I have purposely refrained from stuffing visit citations into articles I may not even have otherwise read. You had the choice of rectifying these inessential violations by contribution but it seems the culture of this website tilts towards peripheral, hostile chastisement. (Your diligent efforts in policing style on this talk page are, however, appreciated by a provincial who lazes at the prospect of googling alternate timekeeps.) If my liberty and interests prove suited to such edits I promise to make them myself; in any case I welcome you to delete unsupported entries while preserving the rest. As far as objections to the category as-such rather than as-is—a distinction I feel peculiarly alone in making on a wiki—the only one to rise surpass mere intimation, "triviality," invites my disbelief but nonetheless gets my attention. Solidarity with a traitor is so far from an incidental concern that it appears to have completely determined the course of at least two of the lives identified so far: Hollis Frampton and Eustace Mullins. We err in judgment if we assume either would be notable enough to deserve a page without a visit to Pound, and in imagination if we refuse to recognize and consider what relates such dramatic routings. Further observation of the variety, scope and character of Pound's legacy will again be fractured among specialists and withheld from amateurs if you delete this category. eztafette —Preceding undated comment added 01:34, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• delete I'm sure I'm missing an inside joke here, but it's not WP:DEFINING for these people that they visited this fellow.--KarlB (talk) 20:50, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep re the original rationale, there's nothing 'trivial' about the cat. Interesting, useful and notable. Span (talk) 17:48, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete visiting someone in a hospital is not a defining characteristic of a person. I shudder to think what would happen if we let this become a standing precedent for more visiting person x in hospital y categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:28, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment based on Deor's above observations, this category should be stripped down to four articles unless the other articles are revised to reflect this. The fact that well over half the articles in this category do not mention that the alleged visits occured suggests that this is not a defining trait of the article subjects. If it is not mentioned in the articles, it is not likely to be defining.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:31, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - A category should be evaluated against several standards, of which one is whether the characteristic around which the category is based is defining for the category's members—in other words, does it reflect information that is essential to having basic knowledge of a person. Information such as when or where someone lived and what they did to become notable is essential; whether someone visited Ezra Pound at St Elizabeths is perhaps interesting, but it is not essential, it is not defining. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 05:47, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Listify and then delete -- This is much too like a performance by performer category, the "performance" being the visit. This will be a very trifling incident in the subject's biography. It is a misuse of category space to use it for such NN incidents in a lifetime. On the other hand the subject matter is intersting. A list will provide the opportunity to include the date and other information and a reference, that removing any WP:OR suspicions. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:34, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Instead of a list, it might be more efficient to add a sourced sentence to Ezra Pound#St Elizabeths mentioning any noteworthy visits. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 20:06, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Not particularly defining for the individuals so categorized. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:30, 29 June 2012 (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. Consistency with sibling categories outweighs consistency with the lead article name, and category names should be more specific than article names even where the primary topic is dominant. – Fayenatic London 16:58, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Denver to Category:Denver, Colorado
  • Category:Sports in Denver to Category:Sports in Denver, Colorado
  • Category:Arena Football League in Denver to Category:Arena Football League in Denver, Colorado
  • Category:National Hockey League in Denver to Category:National Hockey League in Denver, Colorado
  • Category:Soccer clubs in Denver to Category:Soccer clubs in Denver, Colorado
  • Category:People from Denver to Category:People from Denver, Colorado
  • Category:People from Denver by occupation to Category:People from Denver, Colorado by occupation
  • Category:Sportspeople from Denver to Category:Sportspeople from Denver, Colorado
  • Category:Politicians from Denver to Category:Politicians from Denver, Colorado
  • Category:Actors from Denver to Category:Actors from Denver, Colorado
  • Category:Organizations based in Denver to Category:Organizations based in Denver, Colorado
  • Category:Companies based in Denver to Category:Companies based in Denver, Colorado
  • Category:Media in Denver to Category:Media in Denver, Colorado
  • Category:Television stations in Denver to Category:Television stations in Denver, Colorado
  • Category:Radio stations in Denver to Category:Radio stations in Denver, Colorado
  • Category:Radio personalities from Denver to Category:Radio personalities from Denver, Colorado
  • Category:Denver television anchors to Category:Denver, Colorado television anchors
  • Category:Images of Denver to Category:Images of Denver, Colorado
  • Category:History of Denver to Category:History of Denver, Colorado
  • Category:Government of Denver to Category:Government of Denver, Colorado
  • Category:Mayors of Denver to Category:Mayors of Denver, Colorado
  • Category:Geography of Denver to Category:Geography of Denver, Colorado
  • Category:Protected areas of Denver to Category:Protected areas of Denver, Colorado
  • Category:Parks in Denver to Category:Parks in Denver, Colorado
  • Category:Neighborhoods in Denver to Category:Neighborhoods in Denver, Colorado
  • Category:Education in Denver to Category:Education in Denver, Colorado
  • Category:High schools in Denver to Category:High schools in Denver, Colorado
  • Category:Economy of Denver to Category:Economy of Denver, Colorado
  • Category:Transportation in Denver to Category:Transportation in Denver, Colorado
  • Category:Law firms based in Denver to Category:Law firms based in Denver, Colorado
  • Category:Culture of Denver to Category:Culture of Denver, Colorado
  • Category:Visitor attractions in Denver to Category:Visitor attractions in Denver, Colorado
  • Category:Restaurants in Denver to Category:Restaurants in Denver, Colorado
  • Category:Religion in Denver to Category:Religion in Denver, Colorado
  • Category:Music of Denver to Category:Music of Denver, Colorado
  • Category:Buildings and structures in Denver to Category:Buildings and structures in Denver, Colorado
  • Category:Theatres in Denver to Category:Theatres in Denver, Colorado
  • Category:Universities and colleges in Denver to Category:Universities and colleges in Denver, Colorado
  • Category:Sports venues in Denver to Category:Sports venues in Denver, Colorado
  • Category:Skyscrapers in Denver to Category:Skyscrapers in Denver, Colorado
  • Category:Schools in Denver to Category:Schools in Denver, Colorado
  • Category:RTD light rail stations in Denver to Category:RTD light rail stations in Denver, Colorado
  • Category:Residential buildings in Denver to Category:Residential buildings in Denver, Colorado
  • Category:Office buildings in Denver to Category:Office buildings in Denver, Colorado
  • Category:National Register of Historic Places in Denver to Category:National Register of Historic Places in Denver, Colorado
  • Category:Museums in Denver to Category:Museums in Denver, Colorado
  • Category:Hotels in Denver to Category:Hotels in Denver, Colorado
  • Category:Churches in Denver to Category:Churches in Denver, Colorado

Speedy rename. I'm not sure what the process is for overturning a Speedy nomination that was unchallenged. This set of unchallenged nominations seems clearly in conflict with dozens of precedential nominations that have overwhelmingly confirmed the (City, State) format for all US cities, with exception of New York City. Here are just a few: two nominations here, seventeen more here, two more, another here, yet another here, and so many more that I can't list them all. This should be overturned and put back to its former "Denver, Colorado" format.--Mike Selinker (talk) 04:46, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. The format he proposes is more accurate and less prone to ambiguity. I'm not sure why these categories were speedily changed in the first place. --Eastlaw ^talk ⁄ _contribs 05:40, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think we were just asleep at the switch. I know I was, anyway.--Mike Selinker (talk) 16:12, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom – a good example where the category name needs to be more specific than the article name (for consistency within the category tree, in this case Category:State capitals in the United States). (Category:Denver is not in the nom. Is this deliberate?) Oculi (talk) 11:04, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just missed it. I have added it.--Mike Selinker (talk) 16:12, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• rename per nom The speedly rename this reverses does match our category naming conventions. Hmains (talk) 16:10, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose as speedy nom. I can't fathom how "Denver" can be good enough for the mainspace article but not for the corresponding title. If the categories are moved back, this significant exception to speedy criteria C2D needs to be mentioned at WP:CFD. --BDD (talk) 16:26, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  C2D isn't a blanket policy. Sometimes categories have different constructions than articles, and so C2D is more of a firm suggestion than a rule.--Mike Selinker (talk) 20:28, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  But why the different standards? Categories use redirects and hatnotes too. --BDD (talk) 17:26, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  No, they don't. You can't use standard page redirects for categories, and can't use the pipe trick when categorising. - jc37 20:42, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Neutral - What is the advantage of the (City, State) format in a case like this one? The city in Colorado has a population of 600,000 (2.5 million metro). The other Denvers are: an English village (pop. 847); a Canadian community in a municipal district of c. 2,500 people; a town in Indiana (pop. 541); a city in Iowa (pop. 1,780); a village in Missouri (pop. 39); a community in North Carolina (pop. 13,030); a borough in Pennsylvania (pop. 3,332); and three unincorporated communities in Illinois, Ohio and West Virginia. Even combined, all of the other Denvers amount to less than 4% of the population of Denver, Colorado (less than 1% of the metro area). The only advantage of the (City, State) format that comes to mind is consistency within the category structure, even if it comes at the expense of inconsistency with article naming. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 21:13, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consistency within the category structure is good enough for me.--Mike Selinker (talk) 23:34, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Consistancy makes sense to me as well. Benkenobi18 (talk) 18:01, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - The vast majority of the world's cities get categories (and, for that matter, article names) using the "Category:Cityname" format. Why is it that American cities get "Category:Cityname, ST"? If we're aiming for consistency, we need to rename most of the American categories to 'just city name', not the other way around. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 16:28, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support in virtually all US cases we use the city, state form of the category name. We do it for Category:Detroit, Michigan so I see no reason why Denver should not be so named.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:34, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral -- This is by far the most notable Denver, so that it is entitled to the present form of the name, so that there is no imperative need to change it, on the other hand, almost all American Cities have the state appended, so that I cannot oppose this. One reason for including the state is to keep articles on its lesser namesakes out, but they are all so small that there is litlte risk here. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:40, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, since the article is at Denver, and I think categories names should generally match article names when they are about the same thing. (Yes, even if there remains some latent ambiguity, etc.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:27, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Factory. Steam5 (talk) 20:52, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. categories require more specificity at times than articles, as I noted above. - jc37 02:03, 31 July 2012 (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. If there are specific ones people want to merge with other categories, nominate them separately.--Mike Selinker (talk) 08:32, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Pre-state history of U.S. states to Category:Pre-statehood history of U.S. states
  • Category:Pre-state history of Alabama to Category:Pre-statehood history of Alabama
  • Category:Pre-state history of Alaska to Category:Pre-statehood history of Alaska
  • Category:Pre-state history of Arizona to Category:Pre-statehood history of Arizona
  • Category:Pre-state history of Arkansas to Category:Pre-statehood history of Arkansas
  • Category:Pre-state history of California to Category:Pre-statehood history of California
  • Category:Pre-state history of Colorado to Category:Pre-statehood history of Colorado
  • Category:Pre-state history of Connecticut to Category:Pre-statehood history of Connecticut
  • Category:Pre-state history of Delaware to Category:Pre-statehood history of Delaware
  • Category:Pre-state history of Florida to Category:Pre-statehood history of Florida
  • Category:Pre-state history of Georgia (U.S. state) to Category:Pre-statehood history of Georgia (U.S. state)
  • Category:Pre-state history of Hawaii to Category:Pre-statehood history of Hawaii
  • Category:Pre-state history of Idaho to Category:Pre-statehood history of Idaho
  • Category:Pre-state history of Illinois to Category:Pre-statehood history of Illinois
  • Category:Pre-state history of Indiana to Category:Pre-statehood history of Indiana
  • Category:Pre-state history of Iowa to Category:Pre-statehood history of Iowa
  • Category:Pre-state history of Kansas to Category:Pre-statehood history of Kansas
  • Category:Pre-state history of Kentucky to Category:Pre-statehood history of Kentucky
  • Category:Pre-state history of Louisiana to Category:Pre-statehood history of Louisiana
  • Category:Pre-state history of Maine to Category:Pre-statehood history of Maine
  • Category:Pre-state history of Maryland to Category:Pre-statehood history of Maryland
  • Category:Pre-state history of Massachusetts to Category:Pre-statehood history of Massachusetts
  • Category:Pre-state history of Michigan to Category:Pre-statehood history of Michigan
  • Category:Pre-state history of Minnesota to Category:Pre-statehood history of Minnesota
  • Category:Pre-state history of Mississippi to Category:Pre-statehood history of Mississippi
  • Category:Pre-state history of Missouri to Category:Pre-statehood history of Missouri
  • Category:Pre-state history of Montana to Category:Pre-statehood history of Montana
  • Category:Pre-state history of Nebraska to Category:Pre-statehood history of Nebraska
  • Category:Pre-state history of Nevada to Category:Pre-statehood history of Nevada
  • Category:Pre-state history of New Hampshire to Category:Pre-statehood history of New Hampshire
  • Category:Pre-state history of New Jersey to Category:Pre-statehood history of New Jersey
  • Category:Pre-state history of New Mexico to Category:Pre-statehood history of New Mexico
  • Category:Pre-state history of New York to Category:Pre-statehood history of New York
  • Category:Pre-state history of North Carolina to Category:Pre-statehood history of North Carolina
  • Category:Pre-state history of North Dakota to Category:Pre-statehood history of North Dakota
  • Category:Pre-state history of Ohio to Category:Pre-statehood history of Ohio
  • Category:Pre-state history of Oklahoma to Category:Pre-statehood history of Oklahoma
  • Category:Pre-state history of Oregon to Category:Pre-statehood history of Oregon
  • Category:Pre-state history of Pennsylvania to Category:Pre-statehood history of Pennsylvania
  • Category:Pre-state history of Rhode Island to Category:Pre-statehood history of Rhode Island
  • Category:Pre-state history of South Carolina to Category:Pre-statehood history of South Carolina
  • Category:Pre-state history of South Dakota to Category:Pre-statehood history of South Dakota
  • Category:Pre-state history of Tennessee to Category:Pre-statehood history of Tennessee
  • Category:Pre-state history of Texas to Category:Pre-statehood history of Texas
  • Category:Pre-state history of Utah to Category:Pre-statehood history of Utah
  • Category:Pre-state history of Vermont to Category:Pre-statehood history of Vermont
  • Category:Pre-state history of Virginia to Category:Pre-statehood history of Virginia
  • Category:Pre-state history of Washington (state) to Category:Pre-statehood history of Washington (state)
  • Category:Pre-state history of West Virginia to Category:Pre-statehood history of West Virginia
  • Category:Pre-state history of Wisconsin to Category:Pre-statehood history of Wisconsin
  • Category:Pre-state history of Wyoming to Category:Pre-statehood history of Wyoming

Nominator's rationale: More grammatically accurate than "pre-state", since the categories refer to the history of these states prior to achieving statehood. Eastlaw ^talk ⁄ _contribs 03:14, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• rename per nom I created the categories. The new name reflects what is in the categories and, if more clear to the reader, fine. Hmains (talk) 16:08, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. The proposed names are more precise/clear. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 21:18, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm noticing that 'pre-statehood' Wyoming does not contain any information on Texas. I would support deleting and purging the categories outright. Pre-statehood is a really bad way to organise this information. Best to just leave it as the categories that it does cover (ie, Wyoming Territory), etc. Delete. Benkenobi18 (talk) 18:05, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename most -- "pre-statehood" is certainly better than "pre-state". However, for the east coast states, I cannot see how this category differs greatly from Category:History of colonial Virginia. If there is an artile on pre-colonial Virginia, it can go into Category:History of Virginia, which ought to cover all periods. The West Virginia cat ought to be redundant to Virginia; and Maine was part of Mass. Similarly probably Spanish (and Lone Star) Texas and Spanish California. However these can properly stay in the renamed parent. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:51, 28 June 2012 (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: (procedural) keep as the category was not tagged. As there appears to be a consensus to keep the nominated category and, instead, to upmerge Category:People educated at Presentation College, Reading, I have initiated a procedural nomination for that category here. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 19:01, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:People educated at Elvian School

Nominator's rationale: There are no articles about people in this category. It acts as the parent to Category:People educated at Presentation College, Reading‎, but no one included in that was educated at Elvian School, a rather different kind of school which followed Presentation College on the same site. As categories are principally for navigation, it would surely be better for Category:People educated at Presentation College, Reading‎, to be directly visible within Category:People educated by school in Berkshire. Moonraker (talk) 00:47, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – it would indeed be better for Category:People educated at Presentation College, Reading‎ to be directly visible within Category:People educated by school in Berkshire, easily accomplished by a simple edit (now done). Oculi (talk) 11:26, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep these two schools are included under one article. Personally I would say upmerge the sub-cat, but there is no reason not to have this category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:36, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge both to Category:People educated at Elvian School. The practice with merged or renamed colleges and schools is that the students of the predecessor are treated as alumni of the successor. I presume that Elvian took over the pupils of Presentation, enabling them to complete their education there; if so, it is the same scheel with a new mangement and perhaps ethos. The merged category will require a short introduction explaining why alumni of Presentation College appear there. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:59, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per Peterkingiron. My initial statement was about whether or not to keep this category. In the broader system I support the merger. We should never only categorize under the historic name. With both Category:Princeton University alumni and Category:Brigham Young University alumni we have a subcat for a former name of the institution. I am not sure either of those subcats are really needed and merging might be in order.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:24, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per PKI - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:13, 16 July 2012 (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.