< March 3	March 5 >

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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:49, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Davis political family of West Virginia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Rename. This category encompasses articles detailing the persons and places related to the family of Henry G. Davis and his brother Thomas Beall Davis, as well as to the son-in-law of Henry G. Davis, Stephen Benton Elkins, and his descendants (including Davis Elkins). A category entitled "Davis and Elkins political family of West Virginia" would be more appropriate to encompass the Wikipedia articles detailing this family and its contributions to West Virginia history and society. Caponer (talk) 20:56, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense, but why is the word "political" included? Why not just Category:Davis and Elkins family of West Virginia? Or just Category:Davis and Elkins family (since there's no need to disambiguate from other Davis and Elkins families)? --Orlady (talk) 00:12, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Category:Davis and Elkins family per Orlady. The "political" and "west Virginia" are just redundant disambiguators. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:45, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Davis and Elkins family per the above mentioned rationale stated by Orlady and BrownHairedGirl, I also concur with renaming the category Category:Davis and Elkins family. --Caponer (talk) 05:29, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Davis and Elkins family, for reasons discussed above. --Orlady (talk) 16:19, 6 March 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:Hathras district.--Mike Selinker (talk) 14:27, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Mahamaya Nagar district (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: This category and its subcategories need to be deleted. The district name has changed to Hathras district. These categories and subcategories for Hathras district has been created and used. GDibyendu (talk) 18:51, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, but as an experienced editor you should have known better than to recategorise articles like that; it is considered "out of process". The best thing to do is to nominate the categories here (or at WP:CFDS) for renaming. The work you have done would then have been automated. – Fayenatic London 19:30, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy merge to Category:Hathras district, and also merge the subcats (Category:Villages in Mahamaya Nagar district and Category:Cities and towns in Mahamaya Nagar district) ... and then recreate with ((category redirect))s.
  And WP:TROUT the nominator for the out-of-process move. That deprives other editors of the chance to object, and just presents CFD with a fait accompli. As Fayenatic points out, it's also a lot more work to do it out-of-process. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:44, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge tp Category:Hathran distict. This should not have been emptied out of process.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:07, 18 March 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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:33, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Propose renaming Category:Svensktoppen songs to Category:Svensktoppen number-one singles

Nominator's rationale: Rename to better define inclusion criteria, but I'm not opposed to deletion based on the article for Svensktoppen, explained as a radio station chart, as opposed to Sverigetopplistan, which appears to be the official national chart. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 10:59, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Changing to recommendation to Delete. The best I can tell is that songs in this category are just popular songs recorded in Swedish and then played on this station, thus defining songs that make the cut as "Svensktoppen songs". It has nothing to do with topping a chart and I see no indication that this is a defining characteristic of the songs placed in this category.

• From 9 to 5 (Sheena Easton song): "Swedish-born Norwegian singer Elisabeth Andreasson covered the song in Swedish ... This version also stayed at Svensktoppen for 9 weeks during the period 21 February-18 April 1982, with a chart peak of #4."
• From Bright Eyes (Art Garfunkel song): "In 1979 Siv-Inger recorded the song with lyrics in Swedish ... This version was tested for Svensktoppen, where it stayed for 10 weeks during the period 30 March-1 June 1980, peaking at #4."
• From One Wish (Roxette song): "'One Wish' was tested on the Swedish hitlist 'Svensktoppen', where it debuted on October 15, 2006 by entering at 4th place. The Svensktoppen visit lasted for four weeks, with a 3rd place on October 22, 2006 as best result."

These are just a few samples of references to Svensktoppen within articles in this category. It may be worthy of mention in these articles, but surely not categorized by it. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 20:29, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's a radio chart, not a singles chart. Songs can be tested for svensktoppen without even being released as a single. J 1982 (talk) 19:20, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for some clarification. So can you explain how a song being tested for svensktoppen makes it a defining characteristic of the song? --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 19:25, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete having been featured on a particular radio program is not a notable quality of a song.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:05, 9 March 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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:08, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Propose deleting Category:Billboard number-one Tropical Albums (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Album categories are deprecated in favour of lists, per per Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_July_15#Number-one_album_categories. Le Deluge (talk) 10:54, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per numerous precedent. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 11:00, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Listify -- This is too like an awards category. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:14, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's already been done at List of number-one Billboard Tropical Albums from the 2000s and similarly for other decades. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 18:09, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Hadn't known there was a previous discussion pertaining to albums. But shouldn't the same be done with number-one singles? Or has there already been a discussion for singles? An example: List of number-one Billboard Hot Tropical Songs of 2005 and Category:Billboard Tropical Songs number-one singles. The difference here is that the Lists are included as subcategories. Regards. — DivaKnockouts 19:01, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The inconsistency is just based on how consensus has been formed over the years. I've failed in CfDs of various number-one songs categories. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 19:54, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This is the type of thing that works with a list but not with a category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:06, 9 March 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: generally, keep. There's no consensus to switch to SMSAs. This seems contrary to the structure of Category:Metropolitan areas, which doesn't get its definitions from governmental designations. It is not terribly clear where these definitions should come from, of course. So pending some agreement on that, most of these stay. I'm making the following changes based on the discussions:

• Category:Augusta – Richmond County metropolitan area to Category:Augusta, Georgia metropolitan area (to avoid conflict with Augusta, Maine)
• Category:Visitor attractions in the Detroit metropolitan area to Category:Visitor attractions in Metro Detroit
• Category:Cape Fear region to Category:Wilmington, North Carolina metropolitan area
• Category:Austin – Round Rock metropolitan area to Category:Greater Austin
• Category:Duluth–Superior to Category:Duluth–Superior metropolitan area

It might be good to nominate the San Antonio category on its own, as well.--Mike Selinker (talk) 02:06, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisting comment (by BHG): I have relisted all 13 of these discussions from CFD Feb 24, because they all relate to broadly similar topics: metropolitan areas in the USA.

Some of them raise specific issues, and some are closer to consensus than others. However, they nearly all raise two common questions:

1. Is a defined statistical area a suitable basis for these categories, even tho "Foo Metropolitan Statistical Area" may not be the common name for the area?
2. If the categories are not named "Foo Metropolitan Statistical Area", is "Foo metropolitan area" well-enough defined to serve as the basis for a category?

It might be a good idea to try to achieve a consistent outcome here. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:25, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One point that is in the discussion and not your summary. That is the use on some of these of metro area v metropolitan area. They are not the same since the latter generally equates to the MSA definition and the former may relate to the more populated core. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:19, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Um, isn't "metro area" just shorthand for "metropolitan area"? (Sort of like "photo" and "photograph.") I contend that category names should contain the complete word, not just the shorthand. (Similarly, state names should be spelled out, not just postal codes.) And "metropolitan area" is a generic term that's understood worldwide, whereas "Metropolitan Statistical Area" is a US federal government-specific technical definition from the Census Bureau and the Office of Management and Budget. --Orlady (talk) 00:00, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Metro and metropolitan areas are not the same. In my area, we have a formally defined metropolitan area and an informal metro area. Since the use is not consistent, better to acknowledge that and use the one with a uniform supporting source. Vegaswikian (talk 02:45, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting -- this is the first time I've ever encountered the notion that there is a difference between a "metro area" and a "metropolitan area". In the US, the stand-alone word "Metro" often is used as the name or official nickname of transit systems (e.g., [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]), but in every one of those cases I bet you will find that the "Metro" name reflects its existence as a "Metropolitan Regional Transit Organization" or similar creature. Oregon uses the word "Metro" to refer to an elected regional government for the Portland metropolitan area. I'd bet dollars to donuts that none of those oh-so-official "metropolitan" organizations serves exactly the same region that the Census and OMB currently define as a Metropolitan Statistical Area.

I do see from my web investigations that the Las Vegas region is served by a Metropolitan Police Department that often is called "Metro" for short. Apparently that Las Vegas Metro Police serve all of Clark County, which also constitutes the federal government's Las Vegas-Paradise Metropolitan Statistical Area. If so, this is an unusual case of a one-to-one correspondence between an MSA and a local "metropolitan" designation, but not one that's particularly important for Wikipedia categorization because the county and the MSA are the same. There also is a Metro Chamber of Commerce that says it serves "the entire Las Vegas metropolitan area". It's not clear whether or not this means all of Clark County (I don't think so); it most definitely does not correspond to the combination of Clark and Nye counties, which together constitute the government's Las Vegas-Paradise-Pahrump Consolidated Statistical Area. Regardless, it looks to me like Las Vegas is unusual among US metropolitan places in having its primary metro area contained within a single county (Nevada has exceptionally large counties); the model of Las Vegas is not a particularly good basis for making decisions about nomenclature for the far-more-typical multi-county metropolitan areas. --Orlady (talk) 21:55, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Further to the above, I note that this recent Census Bureau press release treats "metro area" as shorthand for "Metropolitan Statistical Area". The same usage appears in the report that the press release advertises. (They also use "micro area" as shorthand for "Micropolitan Statistical Area".) --Orlady (talk) 16:12, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actuall the Las Vegas case is not a one to one correspondence, since Henderson, Nevada, North Las Vegas, Nevada and other incorporated places in Clark County are largely outside the purview of the Metro Police authorities jurisdiction.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:13, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well not the whole story since that department is run by the Sheriff, it is ultimately responsible even in the cities. But metropolitan was chosen from what I have found since it was mainly in the core of the county, in other words, the Las Vegas Valley. In fact when the department was created, the metropolitan area at the census bureau covered parts of two states. But this really has no bearing on the discussion other then to show the metropolitan is in the eye of the beholder and not a fixed definition. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:48, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - As if on queue, in the last couple of days the U.S. federal government issued a revised set of definitions for Metropolitan Statistical Areas -- and changed a lot of their names. For example, the MSA for the metro area where I live has added 4 counties to the 5 it previously included. Two of the added counties were previously defined as micropolitan statistical areas but included in the consolidated statistical area (CSA), one of the added counties had been in this MSA in decades past but was most recently included in a different metropolitan statistical area that was part of the CSA, and the fourth added county was previously outside of any MSA or micropolitan statistical area. Fundamentally, it's the same metropolitan area, but the official definitions are kind of chaotic. --Orlady (talk) 21:33, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Could you provide a link to an article about these revised definitions?John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:10, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a link to the official announcement: [9]. It turns out it was issued February 28, but it took a while to trickle into the news media. This is the local newspaper story that alerted me to the situation, it wasn't published until March 20. --Orlady (talk) 22:19, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Note on related discussion: After encountering a strong difference of opinion about the title of the main article in one of these categories, I started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Article titles#Two-letter abbreviations for U.S. states in titles for articles about Metropolitan Statistical Areas. --Orlady (talk) 17:46, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Lexington–Fayette metropolitan area[edit]

• Propose renaming Category:Lexington–Fayette metropolitan area to Category:Lexington–Fayette, KY Metropolitan Statistical Area

Nominator's rationale: Main article of the category is Lexington–Fayette, KY Metropolitan Statistical Area. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 09:25, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. The proposed move is a step in the wrong direction. Instead of renaming the category, reconsider the title and scope of the main article -- or whether it's the right main article. Metropolitan areas, sui generis, are economically, culturally, and governmentally important population concentrations that are a useful basis for categorization. However, Metropolitan Statistical Areas (geographic areas defined and delineated by the U.S. federal government for various official statistical purposes) are just one of several official and unofficial definitions for metropolitan areas. The fact that there is an article about a particular Metropolitan Statistical Area, but not about the more generically defined "metropolitan area", does not mean that the category scope is or should be defined by the federal government's statistical construct. Additionally, regardless of other aspects of the scope and name, we should not use postal abbreviations like "KY" in the names articles or categories. Rename this one to "Lexington–Fayette, Kentucky metropolitan area". --Orlady (talk) 05:49, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per Orlady's argument.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:59, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment (also, applicable to the discussions below) Do we have reliable sources that tell us with certainty what the boundaries of this metropolitan area are? Other than the fed gov't's various "statistical construct"s? Or are we making our own "constructs" which seems contrary to WP:NOR - that we don't even have an article to match the current title may be indicative of the negative.... Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:06, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suspect that the valid statement would be that reliable sources may or may not exist for metro areas. What the government defines as the metropolitan area, and statistics are released for, may not be what others use as the metro area. Reliable sources may help in some cases, but probably not all. We may find that each of these needs to be discussed on its merits. One other comment on the government's metropolitan areas. They change over time. In the case of mine, I believe in the recent past it covered parts of two states and I think three counties. It now covers just one county. Is this a good source for categories? Vegaswikian (talk) 07:03, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • In practice, metropolitan areas have a reality that defies precise definitions, but the typical metro area will have several different (and discordant) government definitions. These multiple governmental definitions can include the Metropolitan Statistical Area, possibly a Consolidated Statistical Area, possibly a Metropolitan Division (all of these are defined by the Office of Management and Budget and the Census Bureau); a metropolitan transportation planning region (typically defined by the state using Department of Transportation criteria and census data); one or more metropolitan authorities that operate metro-wide services such as transit or a parks system; and metro-region economic development partnerships. For purposes of categorization, I think it makes sense to allow the category to include articles related to any and all of these discordant definitions of the metro area, rather than insisting on a rigid definition based on a particular census construct. --Orlady (talk) 04:45, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • That implies a subjective definition of the category. Something we generally do not endorse. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:00, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't think it's "subjective", so much as it is "imprecise". --Orlady (talk) 14:33, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:08, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

---

Category:Bradenton–Sarasota–Venice metropolitan area[edit]

• Propose renaming Category:Bradenton–Sarasota–Venice metropolitan area to Category:North Port–Bradenton–Sarasota, Florida Metropolitan Statistical Area

Nominator's rationale: The main article of the category is North Port–Bradenton–Sarasota, Florida Metropolitan Statistical Area. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 09:24, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:41, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per arguments on the above discussion. The metro area and the statistical area are not the same thing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:00, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose for same reasons as Johnpacklambert cites. --Orlady (talk) 04:46, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:02, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

---

Comment: The official name of the Metropolitan Statistical Area has changed again. As of February 28, it is the North Port-Sarasota-Bradenton Metropolitan Statistical Area. The inclusion of "FL" vs. "Florida" in the related article title is under discussion at Wikipedia talk:Article titles#Two-letter abbreviations for U.S. states in titles for articles about Metropolitan Statistical Areas. I've had a hunch that the MSA name isn't used by real people and that region should be called something like "Sarasota metropolitan area", and I find that local sources also dislike the MSA name and may prefer "Greater Sarasota". Let's not fool with changes to the category name until we have a clearer idea what the region should be named. --Orlady (talk) 17:55, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Category:Sarasota metropolitian area, per general local usage. John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:33, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Evansville metropolitan area[edit]

• Propose renaming Category:Evansville metropolitan area to Category:Evansville, IN–KY, Metropolitan Statistical Area

Nominator's rationale: The main article of the category is Evansville, IN–KY, Metropolitan Statistical Area. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 09:19, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep this is the common way to refer to it, and the reference does not always mean the statistical area.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:01, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Instead, either keep current name or rename to Category:Evansville, Indiana-Kentucky, metropolitan area. As discussed above, it's not a good idea to rigidly define metropolitan area categories as "Metropolitan Statistical Area" categories. It may be appropriate to add the state identifications here, but postal abbreviations such as IN and KY don't belong in category names. --Orlady (talk) 04:51, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Utica–Rome metropolitan area[edit]

• Propose renaming Category:Utica–Rome metropolitan area to Category:Utica-Rome Metropolitan Statistical Area

Nominator's rationale: The main article of the category is Utica-Rome Metropolitan Statistical Area. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 09:01, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep this is the common way to refer to it, and the reference does not always mean the statistical area.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:01, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose (meaning keep current name). As discussed above, it's not a good idea to rigidly define metropolitan area categories as "Metropolitan Statistical Area" categories. --Orlady (talk) 04:52, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:01, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

---

Salem, Oregon metropolitan area[edit]

• Propose renaming Category:Salem, Oregon metropolitan area to Category:Salem Metropolitan Statistical Area
• Propose renaming Category:Salem, Oregon metropolitan geography stubs to Category:Salem Metropolitan Statistical Area geography stubs

Nominator's rationale: The main article of the category is Salem Metropolitan Statistical Area. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 08:56, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep this is the common way to refer to it, and the reference does not always mean the statistical area.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:01, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. As discussed above, it's not a good idea to rigidly define metropolitan area categories as "Metropolitan Statistical Area" categories. The fact that an article exists by the name "Salem Metropolitan Statistical Area" does not make the MSA a useful basis for a category. --Orlady (talk) 04:54, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:00, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Keep per @John Pack Lambert - WP:COMMONNAME should apply Le Deluge (talk) 11:01, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Augusta – Richmond County metropolitan area[edit]

• Propose renaming Category:Augusta – Richmond County metropolitan area to Category:Augusta–Richmond County Metropolitan Statistical Area

Nominator's rationale: The main article of the category is Augusta–Richmond County Metropolitan Statistical Area. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 08:51, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep this is the common way to refer to it, and the reference does not always mean the statistical area.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:01, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Augusta metropolitan area. As discussed above, it's not a good idea to rigidly define metropolitan area categories as "Metropolitan Statistical Area" categories. (The fact that an article about the "Metropolitan Statistical Area" exists does not make the MSA a useful basis for a category.) For the category, I suggest not including "Richmond County" because nobody calls it that in real life. Augusta is the main city in the metro area; Richmond County is an important component of the region, but not a place that people identify as part of the metro area name. --Orlady (talk) 04:58, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Aususta metropolitian area. Since Augusta and Richmond County are essentially coextensive (sort of like Indianapolis, Indiana and MArion COunty, Indiana) this is a really odd name.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:14, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:58, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

---

Category:Greenville, South Carolina metropolitan area[edit]

• Propose renaming Category:Greenville, South Carolina metropolitan area to Category:Greenville–Mauldin–Easley Metropolitan Statistical Area

Nominator's rationale: The main article of the category is Greenville–Mauldin–Easley Metropolitan Statistical Area. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 08:50, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep this is the common way to refer to it, and the reference does not always mean the statistical area.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:01, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. As discussed above, it's not a good idea to rigidly define metropolitan area categories as "Metropolitan Statistical Area" categories, and as JPL says, the current name is the common way to refer to this area. --Orlady (talk) 05:06, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:57, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Keep per @John Pack Lambert - WP:COMMONNAME should apply Le Deluge (talk) 11:01, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Kingsport–Bristol metropolitan area[edit]

• Propose renaming Category:Kingsport–Bristol metropolitan area to Category:Kingsport–Bristol–Bristol, Tennessee-Virginia Metropolitan Statistical Area

Nominator's rationale: The main article of the category is Kingsport–Bristol–Bristol, Tennessee-Virginia Metropolitan Statistical Area. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 08:47, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep this is the common way to refer to it, and the reference does not always mean the statistical area.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:02, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, as the least-worst option for now. In common parlance, this is part of the Tri-Cities, Tennessee-Virginia, metropolitan area, which the Census Bureau currently treats as a Combined Statistical Area that also includes the Johnson City metropolitan area. The current category is not ideal because it's not particularly meaningful outside the context of the census, but keeping it as is looks like the simplest and least disruptive choice for now. --Orlady (talk) 05:48, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:36, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

---

Category:Visitor attractions in the Detroit metropolitan area[edit]

• Propose renaming Category:Visitor attractions in the Detroit metropolitan area to Category:Visitor attraction in Metro Detroit Category:Visitor attractions in Metro Detroit

Nominator's rationale: The main article of the category is Metro Detroit, and it is used in every subcategory of Category:Metro Detroit except this one. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 08:30, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose current suggestion. The proposed name is in the singular instead of the plural. Neutral if corrected to Category:Visitor attractions in Metro Detroit. Imzadi 1979 → 09:10, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

   Fixed to plural Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 09:20, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. For consistency across U.S. metropolitan regions, I'd prefer to keep the current name and change the other categories to refer to "Detroit metropolitan area." I note that this provides one good example of why it's not helpful to use Metropolitan Statistical Areas as the sole basis for metropolitan categories: Windsor, Ontario, is part of the Detroit metropolitan area a.k.a. Metro Detroit, but it's not part of the U.S. MSA. --Orlady (talk) 05:54, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:55, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Support rename to Category:Visitor attractions in Metro Detroit based on the existence of the parent category and the main article. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:57, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Cape Fear region[edit]

• Propose renaming Category:Cape Fear region to Category:Cape Fear (region)

Nominator's rationale: The main article of the category is Cape Fear (region). Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 08:21, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename and rescope article and category to Wilmington Metropolitan Statistical Area, which is what it is actually about, not the made-up "Cape Fear region" titling. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:40, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Wilmington, North Carolina metro area. That is what is intended hear.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:02, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree with Johnpaclambert regarding the name, but I would avoid the shorthand and rename to Category:Wilmington, North Carolina metropolitan area. --Orlady (talk) 04:32, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:51, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Rename to Category:Wilmington, North Carolina metropolitan area rescoping contents as needed. The article mentions the Wilmington Metropolitan Statistical Area and also points out that the region definition, while having a base set of counties, sometimes includes a variable number of other counties. Not a good definition for building a category. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:03, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note. Probably best to move the article if this is moved. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:47, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Austin – Round Rock metropolitan area[edit]

• Propose renaming Category:Austin – Round Rock metropolitan area to Category:Greater Austin

Nominator's rationale: The main article of the category is Greater Austin. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 08:12, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename category and article to Austin–Round Rock–San Marcos Metropolitan Statistical Area, which is the actual name of the MSA here, not the nebulous "Greater Austin" the tourism board made up one day. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:39, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Greater Austin. This is the common way to refer to the area.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:05, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep current name. Consistency in naming style across U.S. metropolitan regions makes category maintenance go more smoothly. --Orlady (talk) 05:40, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:50, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

---

Category:San Antonio metropolitan area[edit]

• Propose renaming Category:San Antonio metropolitan area to Category:Greater San Antonio

Nominator's rationale: The main article of the category is Greater San Antonio. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 08:11, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename category and article to San Antonio–New Braunfels Metropolitan Statistical Area, which is what the MSA is actually called. Note that the article says "Greater San Antonio" is a colloquial name - it's something the Chamber of Commerce made up one day. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:37, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. This is not limited to the MSA. That is not the only way to envision or define metro areas.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:03, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep current name. Consistency in naming across U.S. metropolitan regions makes category maintenance go more smoothly. --Orlady (talk) 05:39, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:49, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Rename to San Antonio–New Braunfels metropolitan area. I don't see a convincing case that the colloquial name is in fact the common name. If renamed, the article should likely follow the new name here. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:07, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Duluth–Superior[edit]

• Propose renaming Category:Duluth–Superior to Category:Twin Ports

Nominator's rationale: The main article of the category is Twin Ports. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 08:04, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename category and article to Duluth-Superior Metropolitan Statistical Area and prune so it only contains populated-place articles/subcats like the other MSA categories appear to use for their inclusion criterion. "Twin Ports" appears to be something some tourist board made up one day for promotion, and the "Twin Ports" article decribes the Duluth-Superior Metropolitan Statistical Area - which is called the Duluth-Superior Metropolitan Statistical Area, not "Twin Ports Metropolitan Statistical Area" or "Twin Ports" anything else. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:36, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Not only is the article title hopeless ambiguous, capitalization aside, but the article itself seems to say that the correct name is the Duluth–Superior MSA. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:41, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Duluth-Superior metro area MSAs are not the only way to designate metro areas, and not always what is meant by such terms.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:04, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Duluth-Superior metropolitan area, which follows a standard format/style for naming a metropolitan area. "Twin Ports" is inappropriate; it seems to be a semi-promotional term limited to the two cities (and possibly just their port areas) and excluding their suburbs. --Orlady (talk) 05:17, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment "Twin Ports" sounds potentially ambiguous to me. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:07, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted from CFD 2013 February 24 to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:46, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Rename to Category:Duluth-Superior metropolitan area. This follows the normal naming for these. Metro area is often used in sources to indicate something other then the census defined metropolitan area. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:14, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • If this move receives consensus, the main article should also be moved. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:17, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, the current "main article" is focused on the two ports (or possible the port cities). It doesn't include the surrounding area. I figure that a new article is needed for the metro area. I collected sources, but I didn't get around to starting the article yet. --Orlady (talk) 02:11, 5 March 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. Jafeluv (talk) 09:57, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Propose renaming Category:Lists of words with uncommon properties to Category:Lists of English words with uncommon properties

Nominator's rationale: Insert "English" in category name as these articles (lists) are under Category:English words. DexDor (talk) 06:47, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nominator to clarify scope, without prejudice to recreating Category:Lists of words with uncommon properties as parent category if and when there are any such lists inj other languages.
  (BTW, wouldn't the scope of the parent category be better described if it was called Category:English-language words?) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:11, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to more accurately reflect contents.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:18, 31 March 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.