< November 25 November 27 >

November 26

toponyms by language

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. Cleanup is obviously recommended.--Mike Selinker (talk) 18:46, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. These are not articles on various languages' toponymy- they are a collection of articles on places in the country, region, state, province, etc. where the languages are spoken, and a slew of disambiguation pages. As discussed previously with Norwegian toponyms (see Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_November_13#Category:Norwegian_toponyms, there are schemes for categorizing places by where they are located, and even for articles on place name etymologies (such as the first article in the Austro-Bavarian category, and others of like flavor, (see Category:Etymologies of geographic names). As explained on the first nom (Norwegian toponyms), numerous other cats to follow. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:12, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Toponymy is a topic of linguistics, unfortunately the vast majority of the articles here are about cities, towns, or (ahem) disambiguation pages! We have a schema for naming of geographic places (toponymy), which in WP parlance is "Etymologies of geographic names"; see the category I cite above. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 07:12, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Category:Etymologies of Scottish geographic names is better example of how WP should treat this subject. We should categorize pages about toponymy not the words themselves. --Kevlar (talk • contribs) 20:46, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Attempting to get clear about this specific. I think that upper level cat Category:Scottish toponymy is by and large fine. If the big picture result here is "Keep" then no change is required, but if it is other than that then Category:Scottish toponyms should be Moved to Category:Etymologies of Scottish geographic names or similar. I don't have the time/patience to start looking through the dozens of of other categories, but I can't support a "delete all" outcome. Ben MacDui 18:57, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
By some convoluted logic Category:Celtic toponyms is the super-cat for Irish, Welsh and Scottish toponymy as well as Irish, Welsh, Scottish etc. toponyms. This should be renamed to Category:Celtic toponymy and cleaned out (or deleted and a new cat created of this name). Category:Breton toponyms is a dead duck and contains only one redirect. (It was created by a likely sockpuppet of User:Sheynhertz-Unbayg per the below comment by Michael Bednarek.) Happy to assist in the above Celtic clean up if need be but I don't want to start until it's clear what the general outcome is. Ben MacDui 21:31, 20 December 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.

Category:Reformed Christians

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. The argument that Reformed Christianity is anything but Calvinism in doctrine is suspect, but there are at least a couple things in here which predate or don't descend from Calvinism, so I'll leave it for now.--Mike Selinker (talk) 18:50, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: According to Category:Calvinism, Reformed is synonymous with of Calvinism, so Reformed Christians is synonymous with Calvinists, which already exists as a category. JFHutson (talk) 15:47, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Point of information: there is no such thing as a definition "decided... for WP purposes". Wikipedia is based on reliable external sources. In other words: we cannot just make things up here, within Wikipedia. --Mais oui! (talk) 22:18, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that was poorly worded. By for Wikipedia purposes, I mean common usage in reliable sources, which is what the discussions mention. It is common in reliable sources in the field to use the terms interchangeably, despite several different colloquial usages. --JFHutson (talk) 16:32, 6 December 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.

Category:Gu of Seoul

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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 12:25, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Evidently redundant. cf. Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_November_2#Category:Gangnam-gu —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:10, 26 November 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.

Category:Media by country

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. No prejudice against a nomination of all the similar categories.--Mike Selinker (talk) 18:44, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Like the main articles, e.g. Media of Afghanistan, Media of Angola. Avoid ambiguity for French media and German media, where it could refer to the language. ChemTerm (talk) 00:55, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The user's process so far has been to nominate a small handful of categories as if they were isolated cases that were somehow subject to different concerns than all of the others, and then to arbitrarily create the new categories without waiting for CFD consensus in a few other cases — which he would then use to selectively recategorize a random portion of the existing category's content so that "Nationality media" and "Media of country" were no longer functioning as one category whose name was under debate, but as two separate categories serving distinct purposes — and to simply ignore the majority of sibling categories that are actually subject to the same concerns as the ones he's been choosing to single out for special treatment. He hasn't been asking for "test cases" in pursuit of a comprehensive change to a tree's naming convention — he's been singling out random "special cases" to be renamed in isolation from other sibling categories.
That it takes "time and effort" to put together a comprehensive batch nomination is not an excuse for lazy half measures or for arbitrarily doing an end run around Wikipedia process. For one thing, even if there is a consensus established to apply this discussion as a precedent for renaming the rest of the tree, then this discussion will have opened and closed without most of the affected categories ever having been tagged as being under consideration — meaning that the renaming would sneak in under most people's radar, since they never had any opportunity to learn that this discussion was happening in the first place or any opportunity to comment on it. It takes "time and effort" to have to restage the same discussion over and over again on five or ten or twenty individual batches of five, too. Bearcat (talk) 16:31, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per naming convention at Wikipedia:Category_names. If you want to change the guideline, start a discussion there. If you want these five to be exceptions, explain why. --Qetuth (talk) 07:46, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I see the problem - 'Society' could mean even more, and a wider range, of ideas, and yet we still have Category:American society. Large trees have to have a parent somewhere, and abolishing these just because they are too broad would leave many nation/country categories unworkably large. Category:American media, which I think is the largest, has 41 appropriate sub-categories, but its parent American Society has 59 and United States has 24 many of which are incredibly broad. Maybe a news media subcategory could help subdivide a large media category, but I wouldn't want anything to be taken out of media back into its parents. --Qetuth (talk) 23:40, 29 November 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.

Category:Society by country

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. No prejudice against a larger nomination of all the similar categories.--Mike Selinker (talk) 18:45, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. 90% of the subcategories use "of/in" Afghanistan. These are clear "by country"-categories. ChemTerm (talk) 00:25, 26 November 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.
More