< April 11	April 13 >

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 Category:Surnames of African origin and possibly revisit once content is defused. A good case has been made for deleting the category or making it just as container category. The problem with this is practical rather than theoretical. To defuse we would need to put the articles in a category in country/language sub divisions. For some articles its straight forward, for others like Touré (surname) there is not enough information in the article to identify a unique country or a language. It would also mean making a number of small cats with one or two entries. For convenience I've included a summary of the article below.--Salix (talk): 21:43, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:African-language surnames to Category:African surnames

Nominator's rationale: It seems to me either Category:African given names or this category should be renamed. I think both names are accurate and descriptive, so we might as well prefer the more concise forms. BDD (talk) 22:30, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete they are all in surnames by language, which is where they should be - geography is an illogical grouping for languages, as they are not bounded that way. Many people holding Dutch, English, and Arabic surnames are Africans (Botha, Charles Ghankay Taylor, and Anwar Sadat, e.g.). Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:41, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • This cat contains both sub-cats and articles; only some of the sub-cats, and none of the articles, are in Category:surnames by language. At worst, the outcome should be to upmerge the sub-cats to Category:surnames by language, and I suggest the articles could be moved to Category:African culture to be re-categorised more specifically along with others currently held there. – Fayenatic London 07:09, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Surnames of African culture Surnames of African origin like others in Category:Surnames by culture. In addition, we could split by family, e.g. Category:Niger–Congo language family surnames, Category:Afroasiatic language family surnames (see e.g. map at Niger–Congo languages); this would fit in with a recent proposal by user:BrownHairedGirl at Category talk:Words and phrases by language. – Fayenatic London 16:54, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a great improvement to me. But wouldn't the better title be Category:Surnames of African origin? None of the other subcats have "culture" in the name. --BDD (talk) 17:14, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I have made that correction above. – Fayenatic London 08:06, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete we do not categorize surnames by continent. Africa is a continent made up of many countries with many and varying cultures. This attempt to imply a uniform Africa ignores reality.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:46, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • And yet we have Category:African culture; deletion would remove most of this category's members from it. – Fayenatic London 07:09, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Last names are not part of trans-national culture, but reflect specific national cultures and should be so categorized. Art, music and literature may be at times part of trans-national cultures, but last names are not.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:15, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think an umbrella category could still be useful when a surname can't be specifically tied to one nation. Let's not forget that in Africa, most modern boundaries reflect old colonial holdings more than regions of distinct national identity. This category came to my attention when I created Mahama. The majority of people with this name for whom we have articles are Ghanaian, but I don't know if that's actually where the name originated or not. --BDD (talk) 07:05, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is not "the majority" of people with the last name of Mahama who are from Ghana, it is 'all the people with that as a surname are Ghanaian. The description of this as African is just a lazy avoidance of dealing with more precise national identities.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:37, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, you're right. All of the non-Ghanaian people on that page indeed use it as a given name. Still, I don't think we're strong enough on African biography to say that this is definitely a Ghanaian name. This category can still be useful as a container or in cases where we're not sure. --BDD (talk) 15:11, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• rename to Category:Surnames from Africa, then sub-cat by country if it's possible to do so. We should and could also create other groupings by continent, so this would fit in a Category:Surnames by continent tree. I don't know why it's illogical to group surnames in this fashion, especially if we are grouping by country today - there is certainly likely to be more cohesion or linkages between languages within a continent that across them, and it provides a useful and unarguable split. And as pointed above, if the particular modern-day source country cannot be easily established, placing it in the continent would be useful nonetheless. But we should only do this if we create Category:Surnames from Europe, Category:Surnames from North America etc., as Africa isn't special in this regard (it's not the only place where boundaries have changed...) --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:47, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge/Delete - I considered endorsing the "keep only as a container category" comments above (though renamed to Surnames by languages of Africa, to reflect the parent's name), and wouldn't strongly oppose that outcome. But the lack of such container cats for Europe or Asia suggest to me that such a cat for African surnames is unnecessary. - jc37 18:48, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  "Upmerge" begs the question "where to?" In case the closer does not choose "rename" or "split", I point out my fall-back suggestion above (19 April) for separate merge targets for the sub-cats and the member articles. – Fayenatic London 20:23, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  This is another problem with this category. It's a subcat both of Category:Surnames by culture and Category:Surnames by language.

  So I suppose, Upmerge all to one or the other as appropriate. - jc37 21:24, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Both are parent categories, and should hold no articles directly; hence my suggested target of Category:African culture for the articles. Perhaps the sub-cats should be separated, putting only the 4 that include "-language" in the cat name into surnames by language, and Category:Fula surnames and Category:Serer surnames into "by culture". – Fayenatic London 18:45, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Looking through the entries so see if there are defusable we have:--Salix (talk): 21:44, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bockarie (surname) is a common surname among the Mende people of Sierra Leone,
  • Cissé (or Cisse) is a common West African name of Mandinko origin.
  • Conde (surname), Condé, Condeh or Kondeh is a common surname among the Mandinka people of West Africa,
  • Conteh (surname) is a common surname among the Limba people of Sierra Leone, and may refer to:
  • Daramy (surname) is a common surname among the Mandinka people of West Africa, and may refer to:
  • Dembélé is a surname of African origin, found in Mali, Senegal and Ivory Coast.
  • Diakité is a Malian and Sengalese family name of Fula origin.
  • Diawara is the French transcription of a surname of Manding origin (the English transcription is Jawara), and may refer to:
  • Emeagwali is a surname. Nigerian?
  • Jawara is the English transcription of a surname of Manding origin (the French transcription is Diawara),
  • Kabbah (surname) or Kabba is a common surname among the Mandinka people of West Africa, and may refer to:
  • Kamara may refer to: Places/ People with surname Sierra Leonean
  • Koroma (surname) is a common surname among the Temne, Limba, and Loko people of Sierra Leone,
  • Mahama is an African given name and surname. Ghanaian/Others
  • Ouedraogo/Ouédraogo, sometimes Ouedraogo, is a surname taken from the French spelling of Wedraogo, semi-legendary son of princess Yennenga and founder of the Mossi Kingdom. (Burkinabé)
  • Sidibé is a surname of Fula origin
  • Touré (surname) is a surname. Notable people with the name include: various (Malian/Ivorian/Guinean/...)
  • Traoré or Traore is a surname of Malian origin.

---

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/2013 June 17 in order to tag the other categories now affected by the discussion. – Fayenatic London 18:57, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Social enterprise to Category:??

Nominator's rationale: We have several cats here:

• Category:Social enterprise
• Category:Social enterprises
• Category:Social entrepreneurship

I feel like all are rather poorly differentiated from one another. There are a few (~15-20) articles on the overall field, and then something like 50-100 companies which would qualify as being a social enterprise (but that again needs better definition) - so it does make sense to me to separate the topic from the organizations - but I'm not sure we need 3 cats to do so.
In any case, I'm not sure the best course here, happy to hear your thoughts. I do think we should get rid of all of the people in Category:Social entrepreneurship, and categorize them into the Category:Founders category as appropriate. I note the category Category:Social entrepreneurs was deleted along with the rest of the Entrepreneurs tree back in 2007.Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:16, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agree to merge from three to two The existing Category:Social enterprises seems to be the best repository for organisations with another - I don't know about the name - for individuals involved. S a g a C i t y (talk) 08:41, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

for the individuals, we have both Category:Non-profit organization founders and Category:Founders of non-governmental organizations, as well as several others. Category:Social entrepreneurs was deleted a while back. I think one cat for the organizations Category:Social enterprises - with some clear criteria for inclusion so it's not a catch-all for all NGOs - and one more for articles about the general space should suffice - but I'm not sure what that cat should be called - perhaps Category:Social entrepreneurship fits best? --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:51, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I suggest renaming Category:Social entrepreneurship as Category:Organizations supporting social entrepreneurship/enterprise or similar, and then redirecting Category:Social entrepreneurship to Category:Social enterprise. A note should be added to discourage adding bios to any of these categories rather than the list. Category:Social enterprise should probably then be kept as the head category. Talk:Social enterprise includes a failed merger proposal for the articles on social enterprise/entrepreneur, but that was years ago, and the current content has a large degree of overlap so it's probably worth trying that again. – Fayenatic London 21:40, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can you clarify your suggestion? It sounds like you're proposing to rename, and then redirect, the same category. Also, Category:Organizations supporting social entrepreneurship may be problematic as it could include orgs which support social enterpreneurship (but do really do it) like the Skoll Foundation, instead of social enterprises themselves which I think is more defining. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:05, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your first comment on my proposal. However, I would also keep the other sub-cat for social enterprises, and I think this means there would not be the problem that you suggest. Here is my proposed structure:

• Category:Social enterprise
  • Category:Social enterprises
  • Category:Organizations supporting social entrepreneurship

A social enterprise which also supports others would belong in both the sub- categories.

The parent cat would just hold the sub-cats, the generic articles and the list of social entrepreneurs. – Fayenatic London 22:52, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment: although I said "renaming Category:Social entrepreneurship", my proposal is not really a rename, but rather restructure, providing a more specific new category which would make that one redundant, given that we are against categorising biographies in this tree. – Fayenatic London 13:12, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What is an organization supporting social entrepreneurship? Something like Ashoka? The problem is, many major donors in this space (say USAID, Gates, etc) also support social entrepreneurs. I don't think this is defining. I'm ok with the rest of your structure above - a cat for the field of social enterprise, and then a cat for the orgs which are so deemed as "social enterprises", though we still need a decent consensus definition on what that means - that term itself has become quite wonky and overused.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:27, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep all, but rename Category:Social entrepreneurship to Category:Social entrepreneurs. I think that's the best solution here: it leaves one category for social enterprises, one category for people involved in the field, and one overarching container catgory. And yes, I'm aware 'Social entrepreneurs' was previously deleted as a category, but it shouldn't have been: like it or not, it's a widely-used term, and for many people it really is the best way of describing their profession. I've come across plenty of articles where I wanted to add that category but was frustrated that it didn't exist (e.g. Joe Green (entrepreneur)). The delete discussion was back in 2007, when the term 'social entrepreneur' was perhaps less widely used than it is now, and it was mistakenly thought of as being redundant to the 'businesspeople' tree when it's actually rather different. Robofish (talk) 23:10, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I accept that it is a term with some currency, but it still has IMHO major definitional issues - even social enterprise is tricky, but social entrepreneur even more so. Can you point us to some places where this is well and crisply defined, and with some notion of who is *not* a social entrepreneur? I think the founders-by-type-of-org tree is a better place for these people - if they started a business, fine, if they started a non-profit, fine - the rest is more woolly stuff around intent, and while I love that stuff, I'm not sure if we can categorized based on it.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:43, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Category:Social enterprise, but prune all example enterprises and entrepenuers, restricting it to the topic, not those who may be examples of the topic; and Delete the other two. This is a rather broad distinction, which would require explanations for each example as to why they are defined as such. To quote social enterprise: "A social enterprise is an organization that applies commercial strategies to maximize improvements in human and environmental well-being, rather than maximising profits for external shareholders. Social enterprises can be structured as a for-profit or non-profit, and may take the form of a co-operative, mutual organization, a social business, or a charity organization." And: "The forms social enterprises can take and the industries they operate in are so many and various that it has always been a challenge to define, find and count social enterprises." - This is just too broad for categorisation. - jc37 19:06, 15 June 2013 (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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:37, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Non-profit organization founders to Category:Founders of non-governmental organizations

Nominator's rationale: The differentiation between an NGO and an NPO is not worth categorizing on - most NGOs are NPOs and vice versa. We should merge these. I'd be happy for suggestions on a renamed head category. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:26, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: depending on outcome of this discussion, we may also consider the much thornier problem of Category:Non-governmental organizations, Category:Charitable_organizations and Category:Non-profit organizations. Some older discussion here Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Organizations/Taskforce-Categorization, Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_December_31#Category:Types_of_organization --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:27, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete every politician in the US is a founder of his/her political campaign committee so this is basically a trivial characteristic, however worded. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:43, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Carlos Suzrez is right that this category has way too many potential members.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:47, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• comment Delete would unfortunately lose information, which is why I proposed a merger. In any case, membership should be based on WP:DEFINING - if outside sources do not regularly highlight that so-and-so founded X, then they don't belong. There is a whole Category:Founders_by_field tree, so this does fit into a pattern.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:31, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and potentially rename per nom. The example given that "every politician in the US is a founder of his/her political campaign committee" doesn't pertain, since in the vast majority of cases such committees are not independently notable as organizations. Therefore deleting on the basis of what Carlossuarez46's claim might mean for the potential size of the category seems to me to be an especially poor rationale. As has been pointed out by the nominator, it seems to be a perfectly valid and viable subcat of Category:Founders_by_field. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:21, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Question: What exactly are NGOs - do they also include for-profit corporations? Ottawahitech (talk) 15:54, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

see Non-governmental_organization#Legal_status. It actually depends on the country where they are based, what they are called. But NGO is the widest umbrella IMHO, even if it's not captured this way in our current (broken) categorization. They generally have to have some social purpose, so Apple would never be called an NGO.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:59, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• comment Another option might be to merge, as suggested, and then add sub cats, either by nationality of the founder or by country where the entity is based - I note that we have Category:Company founders by nationality. Then, we could use the dominant title (e.g. non-profit organization, NGO, or charity) depending on the country. This is still a bit problematic as the type of organization is determined by where it's based, vs the nationality of it's founder, so another option would be something like Category:Founders of non-profit organizations based in the United States or Category:Founders of charities based in the United Kingdom - I would prefer this option, as the definition of non-profit/NGO is actually based on the laws of the country where it is based, and would thus be WP:DEFINING - then this top level cat would just be a container cat for by-country or by-nationality. In any case, either of these solutions could address Carlos Suarez's point by excluding from the category certain types of organizations - for example political campaign organizations - as not inherently notable and worthy of categorization in this way.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:57, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

However we do not require most things to be defining to categorize by, just to be central to the person's identity. Being the leader of their own political action committee is very important to many people. I actually think for both non-profits and companies being the founder is not really notable and should not be categorized by. In fact I have grave doubts about all founders cats.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:18, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"However we do not require most things to be defining to categorize by, just to be central to the person's identity" - where do you see this? That's not my reading of WP:DEFINING, which says "One of the central goals of the categorization system is to categorize articles by their defining characteristics. Categorization by non-defining characteristics should be avoided." As for the founders cat in general, well, that's a bigger issue - at least merging these two would help clean up the tree a bit, then you could propose a broader restructuring. Just not sure there is enough of a difference for now to merit two categories.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:32, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep the category, neutral as to the renaming; I think we need a consistent approach (or at least an approach that has some rationality) to the distinction b/w non-profits & non-governmental orgs.
  
  ... As to the comments by User:Carlossuarez46, yes, absolutely politicians who found their own PACs should not be included. But that's just a question of overcategorization. There are definitely folks who are defined in part by their founding of an organization. For instance, Frank Oppenheimer is at least as well-known as the founder of the Exploratorium as he is as a nuclear scientist. Organizational founding work can be and often is a very significant, defining part of someone's career and life. University founders for instance would also fit. So the category should be kept, but guidelines as to inclusion should be written up and included within WP:OVERCAT. --Lquilter (talk) 18:11, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, this is a proposal for a merge, not a rename. Are you ok with the merge? --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 00:21, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, sorry; missed that. We need one "founders" category; whether it attaches to "nonprofit" or "NGO" is probably irrelevant. --Lquilter (talk) 00:37, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep separate - although there is considerable crossover, I think there's enough justification to keep these categories apart. Namely, an NGO and a NPO are not quite the same thing: although in theory, most non-governmental organizations are also nonprofits and all nonprofits are non-govermental, in practice the terms are used slightly differently to refer to different kinds of organizations. 'NGO' usually implies an international organization, while 'NPO' does not. (I note that a merge of the articles was proposed on Talk:Non-governmental organization back in 2006, to very strong opposition.) Many do fall under both categories, it's true, but I think the distinction is worth preserving here. Robofish (talk) 23:02, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment As a minimum requirement we should have an article on the organization before we categorize someone by being its founder. However, considering how many organizations we have articles on, we do not need articles on all their founders, but if the organization is not notable enough for an article, foundign it is not notable enough to categorize by.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:56, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete both (listify if wanted, I suppose). Just to quote Non-governmental organization: "The number of NGOs operating in the United States is estimated at 1.5 million.[1] Russia has 277,000 NGOs.[2] India is estimated to have had around 3.3 million NGOs in 2009, just over one NGO per 400 Indians, and many times the number of primary schools and primary health centres in India." This is more common than the most common occupations! And an NGO could have a membership of zero, just existing on paper. This is better done as a list, if anything. This is just too broad a grouping. And I'm looking over Non-governmental_organization#Types_of_Non-Governmental_Organizations and thinking that these have very little in common. - jc37 02:30, 9 June 2013 (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. Wizardman 02:26, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Hey Arnold! characters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Contains only one page. At one time it was intended for individual character articles, but those have since been deleted and merged into the main list. Paper Luigi ^{T • C} 20:26, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Unlikely to ever be further populated. --BDD (talk) 22:33, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. --NaBUru38 (talk) 20:05, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge to all parents. Please, everyone, look at the hierarchies before just saying "delete". – Fayenatic London 21:46, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. It's just one article, though. --BDD (talk) 15:15, 18 April 2013 (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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:06, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Cartoon Network-related lists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: A more complete/standard category already exists at Category:List-Class Cartoon Network articles. Paper Luigi ^{T • C} 20:21, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose The two categories have different functions. Category:Cartoon Network-related lists is a content category and Category:List-Class Cartoon Network articles is project category. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 21:06, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Armbrust. --NaBUru38 (talk) 20:05, 16 April 2013 (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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 10:09, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Category:Self-published writers
• Nominator's rationale To be a self-published writer is not a mark of distinction. It is often a mark that the work has not been heavily reviewed or judged worth publishing by anyone except its creator. This will often involve people who are only border-line notable for their writings and mainly notable for other things. It also makes us take a clear yes or no postion on what is or is not self-publishing. If the person is the controlling owner of a publishing company, does that make their work self-published, no matter how big the publishing company is. This is not really a notable intersection and not really something that is worth categorizing by, and it is much harder to say clearly yes or not than it might seem. Also, if someone self-published one work but had published by others 100 works does it make sense to put them in this category? This leads to overly broad tags.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:50, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete doesn't it include every wikipedian? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:44, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment All the articles included make explicit mention that one or more of these writers' works was self-published. But some of these writers are indeed owners of their own publishing companies: Ozark Mountain Publishing (Dolores Cannon), Age of Reason Publications (Earl Doherty), Uru publications (Rex Gilroy, his wife Heather is mentioned as co-owner), Paddleless Press (Timothy Mo), and Stellar House Publishing (Acharya S). Dimadick (talk) 15:48, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • As there are no articles for Ozark Mountain Publishing, Age of Reason Publications, Uru publications, Paddleless Press or Stellar House Publishing, these do not indicate notability, so I don't understand what point you are making. – Fayenatic London 21:50, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • We are not discussing notability of the writers themselves. The Nominator's rationale pointed the distinction between writers who self-publish because of lack of interest in their works, and those who are the controlling owners of a publishing company. Dimadick (talk) 14:16, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • But if there is no article on the publishing company, we may suspect that the "company" exists primarily to publish the writer's own works. It may not even be a company but simply a brand for the author. – Fayenatic London 07:13, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as not notable or defining. – Fayenatic London 21:50, 17 April 2013 (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 As I count it there are 7 support and 8 oppose which is too close to call. There are good arguments on both sides, a strong convention has been established for other US cities and there are good arguments that it does not need disambiguating. However to overturn the convention would require a strong consensus which has not been shown.--Salix (talk): 22:37, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Neighborhoods in Los Angeles, California to Category:Neighborhoods in Los Angeles

Nominator's rationale: The cat main is List of districts and neighborhoods of Los Angeles (no California in the title). Virtually all the neighborhoods don't contain California in the title. Neighborhoods in Los Angeles already soft-redirects to this title pbp 19:03, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following other categories for renaming:

• Category:Los Angeles, California to Category: Los Angeles
• Category:Companies based in Los Angeles, California to Category:Companies based in Los Angeles
• Category:Education in Los Angeles, California to Category:Education in Los Angeles
• Category:Cemeteries in Los Angeles, California to Category:Cemeteries in Los Angeles
• Category:Geography of Los Angeles, California to Category:Geography of Los Angeles
• Category:Government of Los Angeles, California to Category:Government of Los Angeles
• Category:Healthcare in Los Angeles, California to Category:Healthcare in Los Angeles
• Category:History of Los Angeles, California to Category:History of Los Angeles
• Category:Landmarks in Los Angeles, California to Category:Landmarks in Los Angeles
• Category:Gangs in Los Angeles, California to Category:Gangs in Los Angeles
• Category:People from Los Angeles, California to Category:People from Los Angeles
• Category:Sports in Los Angeles, California to Category:Sports in Los Angeles
• Category:Transportation in Los Angeles, California to Category:Transportation in Los Angeles
• Category:Theatres in Los Angeles, California to Category:Theatres in Los Angeles
• Category:Synagogues in Los Angeles, California to Category:Synagogues in Los Angeles
• Category:Skyscrapers in Los Angeles, California to Category:Skyscrapers in Los Angeles
• Category:Restaurants in Los Angeles, California to Category:Restaurants in Los Angeles
• Category:Hotels in Los Angeles, California to Category:Hotels in Los Angeles
• Category:Churches in Los Angeles, California to Category:Churches in Los Angeles
• Category:Buildings and structures in Los Angeles, California to Category:Buildings and structures in Los Angeles
• Category:Television stations in Los Angeles, California to Category:Television stations in Los Angeles
• Category:Television shows set in Los Angeles, California to Category:Television shows set in Los Angeles
• Category:Films set in Los Angeles, California to Category:Films set in Los Angeles
• Oppose Maintain consistency with category tree for parent Category:Los Angeles, California. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 19:09, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating that for renaming as well as that is also an improper name since the name of the main page of the category is Los Angeles, not Los Angeles, California pbp 19:18, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose The convention for city of United States in the category system is "CITY, STATE" (except New York City). Don't see any reason, why this should be an exception. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 19:33, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Los Angeles is the second-largest city in the United States. Why shouldn't it follow the same convention as the largest, especially when there's no "California" in the cat main? pbp 20:51, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Previous related discussions: 2008 March 10, 2008 November 17 and 2012 December 2. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 19:40, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the most recent discussion ended in "no consensus" and the remaining ones are 3+ years old, therefore hardly germane pbp 20:53, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose – the "CITY, STATE" convention in category names for US cities was thrashed out at cfd over several months a couple of years back. It is disappointing that the nom has not bothered to check 'what links here' for previous discussions. Oculi (talk) 19:45, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You need to stop making unfounded assumptions. I checked "what links" here, and there are no discussions that Category:Los Angeles, California links to since 2010. Anyway, since it's been a couple of years, it's perfectly acceptable to discuss it again. We shouldn't just blindly follow some years-old discussion that didn't link to this particular case, particularly when the catmain doesn't follow that convention pbp 20:51, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In my version of 'what links here', there is 2012 December 2, which is exactly this case and in which the nom opined. Armbrust too has linked to this very discussion immediately above. Oculi (talk) 01:26, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Was it closed as a consensus either way? No! A discussion that resulted in no consensus can be revisited at any time. Please stop claiming there is a recent consensus for this title when there blatently isn't. And quit it with the tone, it's far too condescending pbp 13:51, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"No consensus" doesn't mean "Keep nominating till you get your way." Three months from the last closure seems way too soon to think a change will happen.--Mike Selinker (talk) 16:13, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

'Fraid not. Actually, a no-consensus closure can be immediately renominated pbp 16:54, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose The clear convention is to use "City, State" for ALL US cases, except for very rare exceptions. I see no reason that Los Angeles should be an exception.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:56, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The reason is quite simple: the title of Los Angeles doesn't follow that convention. It's the second largest city in the country, one of the largest in the world. Why does its category have to have an extra 12 characters that are unnecessary? pbp 20:58, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nom. By rights this should be a C2D speedy issue, given Los Angeles. I have yet to see evidence of editors mis-tagging topics related to the other Los Angele, and I'm convinced that any benefits from this CFD WP:LOCALCONSENSUS are completely illusory. --BDD (talk) 22:37, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• rename per nom. This disambiguation is not needed here - similar to Category:New York City--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:48, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • So are you supporting a rename to Category:Neighborhoods in City of Los Angeles? Then you can compare it to NYC. Also how does this proposal differentiate neighborhoods in the city from those in the county? Vegaswikian (talk) 23:14, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do we categorize neighborhoods by county? Those would, of course, go at Category:Neighborhoods in Los Angeles County, California, per Los Angeles County, California. --BDD (talk) 23:59, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose yet again. The convention for US cities is very clear: City, State. Only Category:New York City doesn't follow it, and it very much should, but no one has been able to get it through a rename.--Mike Selinker (talk) 16:10, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That convention violates, in this particular context: a) common sense, b) the main article's title (Los Angeles), and c) general naming conventions, which suggest as short a title as possible. But you want to arbitralily ignore that? OK pbp 16:54, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per article Los Angeles. If that name is good enough for the article, it's good enough for the categories. WP:USPLACE gives an explicit exception to the best known cities (as defined by the AP list) and Los Angeles is about the best know next to New York. Timrollpickering (talk) 17:27, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Renames It's about time that we followed convention here and used the name of the parent article, Los Angeles. For those who are apparently unaware, Los Angles is a world city and one of the largest in the United State. There is no confusion here other than the arbitrary demand that there are a few dozen cities that need no disambiguation in mainspace but needlessly require it as a category, a discrepancy in policy that only adds confusion. Alansohn (talk) 16:15, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose yet again, per Mike Selinker. We have a simple, clear and consistent convention. Let's stick with it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:28, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The convention is neither simple nor clear, let alone a rational argument for retention. We have a rather clear convention of using the title of the parent article in categories and that parent article is Los Angeles. We use that exact same standard at Category:People from New York City. Consider a list of the world's largest cities in population, ordered by several ranking methods taken from the article World's largest cities, along with a link to the corresponding category of people from that place.

City	People Category
Beijing	Category:People from Beijing
Bogotá	Category:People from Bogotá
Buenos Aires	Category:People from Buenos Aires
Cairo	Category:People from Cairo
Delhi	Category:People from Delhi
Dhaka	Category:People from Dhaka
Guangzhou	Category:People from Guangzhou
Istanbul	Category:People from Istanbul
Jakarta	Category:People from Jakarta
Karachi	Category:People from Karachi
Kinshasa	Category:People from Kinshasa
Kolkata	Category:People from Kolkata
Lagos	Category:People from Lagos
Lima	Category:People from Lima
London	Category:People from London
Los Angeles	Category:People from Los Angeles, California
Manila	Category:People from Manila
Mexico City	Category:People from Mexico City
Moscow	Category:People from Moscow
Mumbai	Category:People from Mumbai
New York City	Category:People from New York City
Osaka	Category:People from Osaka
Rio de Janeiro	Category:People from Rio de Janeiro
São Paulo	Category:People from São Paulo
Seoul	Category:People from Seoul
Shanghai	Category:People from Shanghai
Shenzhen	Category:People from Shenzhen
Tehran	Category:People from Tehran
Tianjin	Category:People from Tianjin
Tokyo	Category:People from Tokyo

Wikipedia navigation is needlessly complicated by an illogical and inconsistent set of standards under which some category titles match the parent article and some don't, and it's only made even worse by the insistence of magnifying the policy conflict only for the largest cities in the United States, but not elsewhere in the world. Of the dozens of world cities that make a Top 20, why is Los Angeles the only one that fails to follow a rather clear convention? Alansohn (talk) 16:41, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Categories which could theoretically be confused with those above include Category:People from Bogota, New Jersey, Category:People from Cairo, Illinois, Category:People from Lima, Ohio, Category:People from London, Ontario, Category:People from Moscow, Idaho. If we are to take these claims that category names need to be absolutely ambiguous at face value, some of these world cities' categories will probably need renaming. Any oppose voters want to propose those moves? --BDD (talk) 17:18, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. As long as we allow creation of articles with ambiguous titles, we are going to have problems. So while there may be tools that are more effective at dealing with incorrect links to articles, there is no such equivalent for misplaced articles in categories. Categories can not and should not be ambiguous. Seeing other stuff is not a valid argument to fix something that is not broken. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:36, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But isn't it a reason to "fix" that other stuff? If so, why does no one ever seem to make that argument? --BDD (talk) 20:43, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, other stuff needs fixing. Why is it not happening? Because too many editors believe that disambiguation pages are bad? I'm sure there are many other reasons. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:03, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously? Los Angeles is ambiguous? There is an article for Los Ángeles, Bío Bío, but there's only one article in Category:People from Los Ángeles, Bío Bío. We have Category:People from Paris, Texas, but we don't disambiguate Category:People from Paris. There's Category:People from Bogota, New Jersey, but Category:People from Bogotá needs no indication that it's another place in Colombia. We also have both Category:People from London, Ontario and Category:People from London, Kentucky, but Category:People from London exists on its own. Why are Americans the only people who are too stupid to differentiate between similarly named cities? The standard of naming categories after their parent article works well in the ambiguously named cities of Bogotá, Cairo, Lima, London, Moscow and Paris. Why do we break this simple system for Los Angeles when it works so well everywhere else in Wikipedia? Alansohn (talk) 21:33, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously? Yes! You really do need to read the dab page and consider the many points raised over the years in various discussions. Yes it is the common name for the city. But it is also the common name for the metro area, the county and many other things. So yes, it is ambiguous. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:01, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What's that got to do with the price of eggs? This is one of the few articles where the title of category is different than the title of the catmain. Not only with all those cities, but with pretty much any other category. It's pretty clear that the City of Los Angeles is the primary topic for anything named Los Angeles, so the category shouldn't contain ten extra letters, a space and a comma. That violates our naming conventions. FYI to all: Vegas' line of reasoning on this has been discredited in numerous naming discussions on a variety of pages pbp 02:11, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I really thing we should consider renaming more categorize. London is not as unambiguous as people think. Lima is also not as unambiguous is writing, so I would support renaming that one for sure. However these is no requirement that we rename. The counter example is Category:People from Birmingham, West Midlands.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:21, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - per nom, to match catmain's title, and also because LA is undoubtless the primary topic and the 2nd largest US city. IMHO could be thinked also for some other (unambiguous) largest US cities as Chicago and Houston... IMHO. Regards. --Dэя-Бøяg 01:10, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename. I have to support the proposals; since the article is at Los Angeles, that is the logical way to name the categories. Category:Los Angeles is no more "amibiguous" than Category:London and Category:Paris. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:59, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Strongly oppose renaming - We have a standard, and there are good reasons for the standard. none of which have to do with "personal preference". Disambiguation. Springfield is just one example of a city name which is the name of many cities. Unlike articles (like Los Angeles), categories can not have simple redirects (like Los Angeles, California) due to technical issues. So it is better to have a standard for all cities to make it easier for EVERYONE to know what to search for. That's the point of a standard, to simplify. Otherwise, by creating a myriad of exceptions, we end up making it more difficult for readers to find things. And that is contrary to the very purpose of categories: navigation. - jc37 02:42, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  There is a standard, but it appears to be routinely ignored and applied arbitrarily. All of the more than 30 cities listed as the world's largest are listed as categories without disambiguation, for the simple reason that there is no confusion and that these are the titles of the articles. Bogota, Lima, London, Moscow and Paris (as well as their associated categories) are all listed without disambiguation, despite the existence of Bogota, New Jersey, Lima, Ohio, London, Kentucky, London, Ontario, Moscow, Idaho and Paris, Texas. Let's apply the standard of "Use article title as title of category" and thereby eliminate the needless confusion of having the article be Los Angeles with the non-corresponding structure of Category:Los Angeles, California. Alansohn (talk) 05:31, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  There's a difference between the standard for city naming in the US and such naming throughout the rest of the world. And remember, Wikipedia tends to bow to already existing standards where possible. I sincerely doubt I need to quote various manuals of style, or even state or federal documents indicating that City, State is the standard. IWANTIT because a certain city is large or famed just doesn't trump references or standards. - jc37 19:19, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  As you haven't been contributing to Wikipedia for quite some time, your lack of recollection of longstanding Wikipedia policy is understandable. Policy specifies that article titles for place names are not disambiguated for the largest cities across the world and the United States, so that we have article titles that include Paris, London, New York City and Los Angeles. Policy further dictates that category titles match the titles of the corresponding article, so we have Category:London, Category:Paris and Category:New York City, while we are working here to correct the erroneous naming for Category:Los Angeles, California. We have a rather consistent set of standards that is followed even for cities with non-unique names so that in addition to London and Paris we have Bogota, Lima and Moscow (as well as their category structures), all of which are used without disambiguation despite the existence of Bogota, New Jersey, Lima, Ohio, London, Kentucky, London, Ontario, Moscow, Idaho and Paris, Texas. This system works and works well. Other than IWANTIT, I'm not sure why you would ignore these rather clear and logical policies here and create needless conflict between the article title and the titles of the corresponding categories for Los Angeles. FYI: Since you've been gone we've started editing individual sections so that other editors have a vague idea of what you're referring to with your cryptic edit summaries. Alansohn (talk) 05:15, 16 June 2013 (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, but split out Northern Ireland. - jc37 19:35, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:People by city in Ireland to Category:People by city or town in Ireland

Nominator's rationale: Not sure I see the value of this category. we already have a somewhat broader category, which fits into the Category:People by country and city tree. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:35, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge. Category:People by country and city contains "by city" for some countries and "by city or town" for others; nowhere needs both. – Fayenatic London 17:01, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Question: is there any ambiguity over definition of cities as opposed to towns in Ireland? This was part of the rationale when merging the Australia categories, see CFD 2011 Jan 30. – Fayenatic London 17:09, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge In Northern Ireland it's the ones granted the status ceremonially. Armagh, Belfast and Derry are directly in the category but Lisburn and Newry aren't. In the Republic it's a mixture of administrative status (Dublin, Cork, Galway, Limerick and Waterford) and a ceremonial status for Kilkeny. City status in Ireland goes into detail but basically there are different definitions in the two parts so this category is strictly "People by settlements that have the designation of "city" within their current jurisdictions within Ireland". "By city or town" is a better name that avoids the whole issue of local status. Timrollpickering (talk) 19:31, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Thanks, Tim. I stand by my opinion to "merge", then. – Fayenatic London 20:16, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong oppose. We have a Category:People by country and city, whose subcats are Category:People by city in Norway, Category:People by city in Poland etc. The few countries for which the city categories have been merged with towns appear to be those where city status is ambiguous, but that is not the case here: there is a clear definitions of a city in the RoI, and another clear definition in NI.
  What is wrong here is that Category:People by city in Ireland should have been split into two sub-categories: Category:People by city in Northern Ireland and Category:People by city in the Republic of Ireland, to match the parent cats Category:Cities in Northern Ireland and Category:Cities in the Republic of Ireland.
  There is a wider problem with Category:People by city or town in Ireland, which is that in the RoI there is no clear distinction between a town and a village, so we have Category:Towns and villages in the Republic of Ireland ... but the two are distinguished in NI, where we have Category:Towns in Northern Ireland and Category:Villages in Northern Ireland. This should be reflected in gthe structure of the people-fromresolved separately.
  BTW, it's a pity that the nominator did not have the courtesy to notify WikiProject Ireland. None of the previous contributors to this discussion are Irish, and the lack of local knowledge is evident :( --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:29, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Northern Ireland has been notified. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:15, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Ireland has been notified. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:15, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. Agree that there should be a ROI / NI breakout. In the ROI, there are 34 entities at the level of LAU I for EU purposes. They may be sub-categorised as counties and cities; they have equal status. Categories exist for "People by county"; it is necessary therefore to maintain an equivalent one for cities. Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:19, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• comment There were previous CFDs (CFD 2, CFD 1) on a related matter, after which the top level category of Category:People by town was deleted. The bottom line is, having looked through a number of the country cats, even if they say Category:People by city in X they are actually dealing with all sorts of smaller level subdivisions, so at some point we should clean up that tree - Category:People by city in France is a great example, but I could give many others.

In any case, the real problem at hand is that we have duplicate categories - one of them is city or town, and the other is city - you clearly do not need both. So either you remove the 'by city or town' cat and have a Category:People by town or village in the RoI and Category:People by city in the RoI, or just blend them together like is done in most countries. I can't think of any possible reason to not blend the together - what do administrative classifications have to do with finding people? From the user perspective, a much better solution is to decide what is the lowest level of administrative subdivision by which you will classify people, and then group all of those subdivisions together. This is how it is done in every other country I've looked at, and no argument has been put forth why Ireland is extra special on this matter.

Also BHG I'm not sure why you're critiquing that something was done wrong here - you were the one who created some of these cats in the first place! (eg Category:People by city or town in the Republic of Ireland

To those two oppose votes above, please provide an alternative comprehensive suggestion on fixing this mess. Also I'll just point out that if there's an attempt to argue based on consistency, the Ireland tree is itself still a mess in this regard - Category:Categories_by_city_in_Ireland has lots of subcats that aren't technically cities, so editors are already voting with their feet to blend cities and towns. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 01:07, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Obi, I can't recall why I created Category:People by city or town in the Republic of Ireland, rather than having separate categs for cities and towns. Maybe that reflected some other structure at the time, or maybe I screwed up. What matters is getting it right now, and if that means undoing something I did before, then so be it; my interest is in creating a coherent category structure rather than in insisting that my edits remain unchanged.
  In this case, we are looking at people-by-settlement-type categs which fit under the settlement-type categs. The groupings we have here are:

NI: 1) Cities 2) Towns 3) Villages

ROI: 1) Cities 2) Towns+villages

Reply/ Other items relating to Ireland or other countries may be miscategorised under cities. If so, we need to fix that rather than replicating an error. And it is an error, because it makes no sense to treat Category:People from Gweedore, Category:People from Dunmanway, Category:People from Leixlip or Category:People from Portumna is if Gweedore, Dunmanway, Leixlip or Portumna were cities. In all other contexts we categorise settlements by type, distinguishing cities from smaller entities. I can see no reason not to do so here, both to maintain the coherence of categories and to facilitate navigation. Ireland's rural population is unusually dispersed, so many more ppl are from cities rather than from towns or villages; and in any case, notable ppl gravitate to cities, where they can cluster with other ppl in similar occupations. So putting the large categories for cities in with the small categs for towns involves burying the city categories in a long list of much smaller categories, which impedes navigation. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:18, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can you show any other place where this is done this way? e.g. big cities have their people, small towns have their list of people? I could see an argument for having Category:Irish cities and Category:Irish towns and villages, but not to henceforth subcategorize *everything* as a result underneath that (e.g. Category:Irish churches by city and Category:Irish churches by town or village, Category:Irish buildings by city and Category:Irish buildings by town or village. I'm also not sold on the "navigation" story - if I'm looking for someone in a town, village, city, whatever, one place to find them is better than two.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:46, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

comment. The categories exist under a slightly different name. Category:Cities in Ireland, Category:Towns in Ireland, and Category:Villages in Ireland all exist as subcategories of Category:Populated places in Ireland. Then we have Category:Categories by city in Ireland as a container category covering Architecture, Buildings and structures (including churches), etc. Dimadick (talk) 12:27, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - yeah I didn't bother to link the actual irish cats - but if you'll notice, those categories all contain both cities, towns, villages, and everything in-between. I still don't understand why we need to have separate cats for people in cities and people in towns, when nothing else in Ireland (or anywhere else in the world that I've found) does it that way. What is the justification? navigation is a weak argument, as there are only 30-40 members in this cat I think all together.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:19, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: It's rare that villages will have enough notable people to justify a category, so this is mainly about people by town and people by city. IMHO there is very little navigational value in splitting them, and it may be better not to split them so that readers can navigate a whole country's people by large settlements without having to be aware of their municipal status. Note that these are national alphabetical categories which operate in parallel with by-county hierarchies. Also IMHO, it is fine to have "People by city or town in Foo" as a sub-cat of both "Categories by city in Foo" and "Towns in Foo". So I still favour merger. As for the French example mentioned above, it could be fixed by renaming likewise as "city or town". – Fayenatic London 05:19, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge This is a distinction that will hinder navigation.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:23, 15 June 2013 (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:Western Sahara geography stubs. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:02, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Oued Ed-Dahab-Lagouira geography stubs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Very few articles in the permanent category, very few in this stub category. Propose to delete category and upmerge template. Dawynn (talk) 18:03, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Upmerge category, redirect template to Category:Western Sahara geography stubs and ((Western Sahara-geo-stub)). The contents are all in suitable specific categories. – Fayenatic London 09:06, 21 April 2013 (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 merge per WP:CSD#G7, since the category creator supports merger. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:47, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Propose merging:

• Category:Sportspeople from Cloughjordan to Category:Sportspeople from North Tipperary
• Category:Sportspeople from Templemore to Category:Sportspeople from North Tipperary
• Category:Sportspeople from Nenagh to Category:Sportspeople from North Tipperary and Category:People from Nenagh
• Category:Sportspeople from Stillorgan to Category:Sportspeople from Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown
• Category:Sportspeople from Malahide to Category:Sportspeople from Fingal
• Category:Sportspeople from Clonsilla to Category:Sportspeople from Fingal
• Category:Sportspeople from Portmarnock to Category:Sportspeople from Fingal and Category:People from Portmarnock
• Category:Sportspeople from Swords to Category:Sportspeople from Fingal and Category:People from Swords, Dublin
• Category:Sportspeople from Donabate to Category:Sportspeople from Fingal and Category:People from Donabate

• Nominator's rationale: This series of categories relating to suburbs and small towns create an excessively small set of subdivisions of the by-county categories in Category:Sportspeople by county in the Republic of Ireland. So far, the only small sportspeople-by-area categories are those for the cities. Most of the towns covered by these categories do not even have a "People from X" category, so it's silly to start with a "sportspeople from X" category.
  These categories were all created as an exercise in WP:POINT disruption by Finnegas (talk · contribs). The underlying issue is that Finnegas apparently believes that Irish sportspeople should be categorised geographically only in the 32 traditional counties of Ireland, and not in the counties created in 1898 (North Tipperary and South Tipperary), and 1994 (Fingal, South Dublin and Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown).
  In February, Finnegas nominate the 2 Tipperary categories for deletion, having first depopulated them out of process ([1], [2], [3]); the contents were restored, and he then depopulated them again while the discussion was underway ([4], [5], [6]). Both were kept.
  On April 3 & 4, Finnegas depopulated Category:Sportspeople from South Dublin (county) ([7], [8], [9], [10]) and also depopulated Category:Sportspeople from Fingal ([11], [12], [13], [14]) ... and then opened a deletion discussion for Category:Sportspeople from Fingal.
  In both the CFD discussions, Finnegas rejected requests to stop depopulating categories out-of-process. When it became clear that the Fingal CFD was heading for a consensus to "keep", Finnegas moved to withdraw the nomination to "centralise discussion" in an already-open thread at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland#Associating_modern_administrative_counties_with_pre-1994_topics. While that discussion continued, both Finnegas and Brocach (talk · contribs) continued to depopulate Category:Sportspeople from Fingal. When I warned on April 7 that this could lead to sanctions, Finnegas responded "Great :("[15] .... before changing tack when it became clear that the "centralised discussion" was also not producing the outcome he wanted. Having repeatedly insisted that "sportspeople from" should not be divided below the 32 traditional counties, he then created all these micro-categories.
  This disruption has gone on too long, despite many warnings, and I having set out the details here I will notify WP:ANI to ask for some restraint to be imposed on Finnegas. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:58, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The WP:ANI discussion is at ANI#User:Finnegas and category disruption. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:39, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Ireland has been notified. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:13, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. This to me seems disruptive and not aligned with any other cats. Sportspeople by small-town is not needed.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:25, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. Splitting small categories into tiny ones is a waste of everyone's time. Oculi (talk) 18:36, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge An egregious case of sour grapes and inverted A Nation Once Againism. Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:09, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom, the categories are too small. Also disruptive and pointy editing. Snappy (talk) 20:18, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge I concede defeat Finnegas (talk) 10:34, 13 April 2013 (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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 10:07, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:General law reviews to Category:General law journals

Nominator's rationale: All other categories in the "Law journals" tree use "journal", not "review". Randykitty (talk) 15:04, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per convention of Category:Law journals, and to remove ambiguity. When I saw the category title I assumed that it referred to processes for review of the law, such as the Law Reform Commission (Ireland) or the American Public Land Law Review Commission, or one of the other bodies in Category:Law commissions. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:20, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Ha! Thanks for pointing that out, I hadn't even thought about that possibility! --Randykitty (talk) 17:00, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• rename for consistency. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:11, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy rename per C2C. The convention of Category:Law journals by topic is to use the word journals. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 19:43, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Law review has a different, and more specific meaning than 'Law journal'. Law reviews are associated with law schools and produced by law school students. As such, I see some value in retaining the current category name. Or, to express it in another way, perhaps there should be a new Category:Law reviews as a subcategory of Category:Law journals. I'd recommend soliciting feedback on this one from WikiProject Law. Regards, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 12:11, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Many journals in the other categories named "Foo law journals" are student-edited and associated with law schools, too (and not all of those have the word "review" in their titles; in fact, neither do several journals in the current category). Law journal redirects to law review. As far as I can see, the two labels are synonymous. BTW, note that there is a separate category for student-edited journals: Category:Academic journals edited by students (not specific to law journals). --Randykitty (talk) 12:57, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• While all law reviews are law journals, not all law journals are law reviews (quite a few of the journals included in Category:Law journals are not edited by students). If there were a Category:Law reviews it would be appropriate to include it as a subcategory also of Category:Academic journals edited by students. Kind regards, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 13:13, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think a new subcat tree distinguishing law reviews from law journals should be formed. While I appreciate there is a difference, we don't need to build up a whole tree to make this difference visible - adding a given law review to Category:Academic journals edited by students as a catch-call should be sufficient. We have a whole tree of Category:Law journals by country and Category:Law journals by topic - if we are serious about categorizing law reviews separately, we would have to hence create Category:Law reviews by country and Category:Law reviews by topic and then everything underneath as a parallel tree. Not worth it. I think the title of each article will suffice to explain whether it is a law review or not.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:24, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I don't think that this "difference" between law journals and law reviews is generally accepted or even general usage. The Washington and Lee ranking just talks about "journals" and has no separate category for "reviews". In their discussion of what journals are included or not, they don't even use the expression "law review" (except in quotations). --Randykitty (talk) 22:46, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• The W&L ranking database is for all law journals, including law reviews. The ABA does make such a distinction, as in this recent article. Kind regards, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 11:35, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here's another related posting. I agree that the distinction between 'journal' and 'review' is fuzzy. Kind regards, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 11:42, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's so fuzzy, that I cannot even see that these links actually make that distinction: they seem to use "journal" and "review" quite interchangeably. Neither do they say that they limit themselves to student-edited journals only. They do limit themselves to US journals and there, of course, most are student-edited and law-school related. But that is a geographical distinction and not a fundamental one. --Randykitty (talk) 12:35, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename The preceding discussion has been helpful... I agree that, for consistency, the proposed category rename makes sense, per nom. Thanks, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 13:49, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename while some people may think these is a clear distinction, there are other people involved in the field that use journal and review interchangably, so we should not assume there is consensus that the terms are distinct. There is even less reason to categorize by this distinction.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:25, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to keep language consistent and understandable outside the field. The distinction between "law review" and other law journals is important but a bit too wonky to be a good category, IMO. And while the flagship law review at a particular school is usually defined by its status as "student-edited" etc., other law reviews are usually more defined by their subject of coverage. I also note that different law reviews have different levels of faculty support/supervision, and there are hybrid models .... All of this is to say that I think a few lists would be a better way to handle the distinctions here, since lists can accommodate notes and caveats and explanations, while categories cannot. --Lquilter (talk) 15:13, 24 April 2013 (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 Category:Groups (military unit) of the United States. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 10:04, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Groups of the United States to Category:Groups of the United States military

Nominator's rationale: Parent category is "Military units and formations of the United States by size", but a more precision in the name is needed. E.g., "groups" could be seen a social organizations, etc. – S. Rich (talk) 14:18, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• rename per nom - Category:Groups (military unit) of the United States is also ok.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:08, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment another alternative is keeping this category, but adding additional category per nom as a subcategory. I would think there would be many "Groups" in the US, both military & non-military. Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 01:51, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• rename per nom. Existing name is ambiguous; parent categories and content indicate this is only about US military. Hmains (talk) 04:48, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Alternative Category:Groups (military unit) of the United States instead, since this isn't about "groups of the US" nor is it about "groups of the US military" , it is about group as a type of unit (military), not as a generic grouping. -- 70.24.250.103 (talk) 06:10, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support rename to Groups (military unit) of the United States in line with other categories such as 'Divisions (military formations) of X'. Buckshot06 (talk) 22:47, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Military groups of the United States pbp 23:36, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Groups (military unit) of the United States. These are called groups, but that by itself is ambiguous.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:49, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support rename to Groups (military unit) of the United States --Lineagegeek (talk) 22:15, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• By OP: Support rename to "Groups (military unit) of the United States". This will allow the inclusion of service-specific groups, such as Army and Civil Affairs. – S. Rich (talk) 02:59, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to much less ambiguous title. Valenciano (talk) 07:06, 17 April 2013 (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: upmerge to Category:Passeroidea stubs. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:59, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Passeridae stubs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Tried to fill, but still only a half-size category. Propose to delete category, upmerge template. Dawynn (talk) 12:50, 12 April 2013 (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: upmerge to Category:European school stubs and Category:Lithuania stubs; keep template. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:59, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Lithuania school stubs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Underpopulated stub category. Delete category, upmerge template. Dawynn (talk) 12:02, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as part of Category:European school stubs which has potential to remain useful since many new pages could be created. – Fayenatic London 17:04, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not asking that we get rid of the template, just the category. There are 40 other countries that seem to be satisfied with having just a template. Since Lithuania doesn't have enough to fill a stub category, why should it be treated more important than say France or Russia? Dawynn (talk) 19:41, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ah, I see; I thought you wanted to redirect the template. Fair enough: upmerge category keeping template. I guess people can always try "what links here" from a stub template page if they want to see how many pages use it. – Fayenatic London 21:29, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge category, but keep template per Fayenatic. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:20, 19 April 2013 (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:Asian royalty stubs. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:57, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Mirza title stubs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Very undersized stub category. Category and template never proposed, so not approved. If this is a helpful categorization, a permanent category would be built, yet none exists, which makes populating the stub category that much more difficult. Biographical articles do not tend to link to the main article. Propose deleting both stub category and template. Those interested in this categorization would do well to start with populating a permanent category. Dawynn (talk) 11:46, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Upmerge category to Category:Asian royalty stubs, replace template with ((Asia-royal-stub)). – Fayenatic London 21:42, 17 April 2013 (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: not renamed --Salix (talk): 21:39, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Songs from Rent (musical) to Category:Songs from Rent

Nominator's rationale: Contains the songs of both Rent (musical) and Rent (film). Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 09:17, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Upmerge to Category:Songs from films or and Category:Songs from musicals, as appropriate for each article. Minimal content. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 16:39, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  I think you misunderstood me. I meant that every song in the category was used in both the musical and the film. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 16:53, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. They appeared in the musical first, which is why they are so categorized. The category can also be in Category:Songs from films, since the film is a musical film. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:42, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Good Ol’factory. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:18, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Question - If they were in both works, then it seems like they should be categorized in both works, regardless of which appeared first. In particular, if the film and the musical are both notable and topical enough to have eponymous categories, then the songs should be in both. I'm phrasing this as a question & a comment because I'm curious about the rationale behind the "only-in-the-first-appearance" category. It sounds reasonable at first, but then I thought well, why? --Lquilter (talk) 15:38, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • What's the point of having two categories when the one category can be in both the theatre tree and the film tree? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:57, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong oppose - the term "musical" is not necessarily confined solely to the stage. - jc37 20:10, 15 June 2013 (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: Not renamed --Salix (talk): 21:44, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Songs from Hair (musical) to Category:Songs from Hair

Nominator's rationale: Contains both the songs from Hair (musical) and Hair (film). Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 09:04, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Upmerge to Category:Songs from films or and Category:Songs from musicals, as appropriate for each article. Minimal content. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 16:39, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  I think you misunderstood me. I meant that every song in the category was used in both the musical and the film. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 16:53, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. They appeared in the musical first, which is why they are so categorized. The category can also be in Category:Songs from films, since the film is a musical film. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:42, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Good Ol’factory. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:18, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Question - Repeat comment from Songs from Rent (musical): If they were in both works, then it seems like they should be categorized in both works, regardless of which appeared first. In particular, if the film and the musical are both notable and topical enough to have eponymous categories, then the songs should be in both. I'm phrasing this as a question & a comment because I'm curious about the rationale behind the "only-in-the-first-appearance" category. It sounds reasonable at first, but then I thought well, why? --Lquilter (talk) 15:38, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • (repeated response from above) What's the point of having two categories when the one category can be in both the theatre tree and the film tree? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:57, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose for all the reasons stated above. Isn't the film a musical, too, or am I missing something? --Richhoncho (talk) 10:18, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong oppose - the term "musical" is not necessarily confined solely to the stage. - jc37 20:10, 15 June 2013 (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.