< August 14 August 16 >

August 15

Subcategories to Video games by country sorted by company

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 "Video games developed in Foo" for where the work was actually done, and rename "Video games by Fooian company" to "Video games by Fooian companies" for the base of the company that published the game. "By company" is more logical IMHO but "by companies" follows the precedent for works by individuals, see the sub-cats of Category:Works by writer nationality and Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_February_12#Category:Ancient_Greek_works_by_writer. Therefore, the "by company" categories will be renamed to Category:Video games by Chinese companies, Category:Video games by Czech companies, Category:Video games by Japanese companies, Category:Video games by British companies and Category:Video games by American companies. – Fayenatic London 14:47, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose renaming Category:Video games developed in China to Category:Video games by China company or Category:Video games by Chinese company
  • Propose renaming Category:Video games developed in the Czech Republic by company to Category:Video games by the Czech Republic company or Category:Video games by Czech company
  • Propose renaming Category:Video games developed in Japan by company to Category:Video games by Japan company or Category:Video games by British company Category:Video games by Japanese company
  • Propose renaming Category:Video games developed in the United Kingdom by company to Category:Video games by the United Kingdom company or Category:Video games by British company
  • Propose renaming Category:Video games developed in the United States by company to Category:Video games by the United States company or Category:Video games by American company

Subcategories also include games not developed by these companies but only published.Max Payne was fr example developed in Finland but it is according to the old category name also developed in USA which is incorrect. There are other examples of this like Operation Flashpoint: Cold War Crisis or Overlord. I already moved these categories because I didn't know that I have to discuss here first and was warned a bit late. Sorry for this mistake of mine. --Bedivere.cs (talk) 15:34, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Propose alternate naming in the style of Category:Video games developed by British companies. The proposed naming are not idiomatic and are overly wordy. SFB 17:16, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Problem is that these categories doesn't include only games developed by these companies but also published. I would better suggest style of Category:Video games by British company. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bedivere.cs (talk • contribs)
I think companies not involved in the development of the game in anyway are not worthy of categorisation. These should be forced out of the category structure. SFB 20:45, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I assume that you meant Japanese instead of British for the Japan cat? Aristophanes68 (talk) 00:53, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: Pages needed to be tagged.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Fayenatic London 23:16, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Czar: I think the issue is that these parents are heavily populated (~1500 for the UK one). Also, some companies may have international offices which would complicate the country categorisation. SFB 19:53, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Songs written by Eddie Fisher (musician)

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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 05:25, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: C2B disambiguation fix per Eddie Fisher (drummer) LittleWink (talk) 23:17, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Brand name poultry

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 as nominated. – Fayenatic London 17:25, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. I am proposing this renaming due to the ease of confusion on this matter. Hybrid poultry breeds, such as ISA Brown could easily be confused with this, which is brand name meats not poultry hybrids/breeds. JTdale Talk 16:18, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think this naming is avoided as these categories contain both the brands themselves and their sub-products, e.g. Burger King is the brand, BK Chicken Nuggets is a product (not a brand). SFB 17:06, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Fayenatic London 22:56, 15 August 2014 (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.

Italian municipalities

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: reverse merge. The "communes" sub-categories may be speedily renamed to "Municipalities", if someone would be so kind as to tag them and list them at WP:CFDS. – Fayenatic London 06:45, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I propose merging:

and rename its subcats

The majority of Categories for Italian municipalities as well as Category:Communes of Italy uses the Italian term commune for the name of the category. A small number of municipalities however uses municipalities. I guess that this is just caused by the preference of the user who created the category. To avoid confusion about the difference of terminology the categories should be renamed to commune. Inwind (talk) 10:14, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  1. What translation of the Italian word "comune" is most commonly used in English-language reliable sources?
  2. Does the same terminology apply to all comuni? It occurs to me that there may a sub-type or variant of "comune" which is more appropriately labelled a "municipality".
FWIW, my suggestion is to start by improving the head article, and find the reliable sources which could answer these questions, before a followup CFD based on whatever answers arise these. There is a general consensus on the principle that categories should follow the head article, but the current head article is not robust enough to follow. And sorry, despite my suggestion I don't have the time or energy to do the necessary research myself :( --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:13, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks a lot for your problem analysis! By the way, I've been trying to involve Italian Wikipedians in this discussion but without any success so far. I'll try to think of other ways in the next week. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:24, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Reverse merge. The term "municipalities" is a term that is wider used in English than "communes", which is basically a verbatim translation of the Italian term. Gryffindor (talk) 18:32, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: I have now tagged the target category as well, as reverse merge has been suggested, in order to attract more comments. If anybody has time to tag and list the target's sub-cats, that would be welcome, but I think that they could be processed speedily if they are not added to this nomination. – Fayenatic London 21:19, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Fayenatic London 21:19, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reverse merge I just read about this discussion. So, the italian word for the basic local government is "comune" (musculin, singular, with only one "m"), with the plural "comuni". There is no problem of cunfusing it with "an informal living places often associated with the counterculture of the 1960s", which in Italian is "la comune", feminin form and much lesser used. The current English translation is "municipality". The town hall is called either "comune" or "municipio". The whole territory of Italy is divided into "comuni" and this local level of government has been written in the constitution a couple of years ago (Title V). Some local "comuni" have been awarded the rank of "città" (which indicates both city or town), so they use in their acts the wording "città di XY" instead of "comune di XY", especially in cases of a recent award or of a rural "comune" in order to state their importance, but this does not change the current language nor the administrative concept, since all local goverment are "comuni", even if are called "città". There are only 3 exceptions to the organization into "comuni": 1) some sub-municipal zones, with a (supposed) strong historical identity, recently received a smaller level of local government within their respective municipality, and they are called "municipalità" (same form for singular and plural); 2) the municipality of Rome has recently become "Roma capitale", meaning the capital city of Rome, with peculiar powers; 3) within the municipality of Rome, the territory has been subdivided into "municipalità", with a range of powers intermediate between other cities "municipalità" and normal "comuni". My proposal is to call 1) all italian "comuni" municipalities, since it makes the concept clear to everybody; 2) "Roma capitale" the capital city of Rome, if needed ; 3) all "municipalità", both Rome ones and any other instituted in other cities, boroughs, similarly to London boroughs, in order to get the idea. --Vadsf (talk) 11:29, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise I would support the suggestions of User:Vadsf. Jsmith1000 (talk) 22:13, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reverse merge. The term "municipalities" is a term that is wider used in English than "communes", which is basically a verbatim translation of the Italian term. Use English terms in English Wikipedia. Gryffindor (talk) 21:26, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Programming rules of thumb

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. – Fayenatic London 17:12, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Any differences between these two seems fuzzy and subjective. I don't find the distinction useful for navigation. -- Beland (talk) 20:19, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:People from Stockport Borough

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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:01, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: To undo recent rename, which was in error. This is the category for people from the town of Stockport, not Stockport Borough - which is Category:People from Stockport (district).Mhockey (talk) 19:31, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • My objection to Stockport (district) is that (a) Stockport (district) is a redirect to Stockport and (b) the only category name including Stockport (district) is Category:People from Stockport (district). I suspect there is no such thing as Stockport (district). Oculi (talk) 17:04, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Stockport (district) should be a redirect to Metropolitan Borough of Stockport, i.e. Stockport Borough, not the town of Stockport. I have now corrected. A metropolitan borough, legally defined as a metropolitan district, is a type of district. Stockport Borough could be referred to as Stockport District. It is also sometimes referred to just as "Stockport", causing ambiguity with the town - hence the recent CFD. There is a wider issue in that the editor who created the English People from Foo District categories created them all as Category:People from Foo (district), even when the district was a borough or metropolitan borough. It would be good if the People from Foo (district) categories were made consistent with the higher borough or district categories, but it would be quite a task to change them all.--Mhockey (talk) 20:36, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Grand Theft Auto clones

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: relist at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 October 10 as the discussion has not acknowledged the existence of the lead article Grand Theft Auto clone. – Fayenatic London 16:40, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Highly debatable criteria. So any open world third person game set in any remotely urban environment is a clone of GTA? Just Cause 2? JC2 is more akin to Far Cry 3 than to GTA. Also, Simpsons Hit & Run? Really? uKER (talk) 15:50, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Engineering colleges in India

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 October 10. – Fayenatic London 16:21, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Opposed speedy. Category should follow the convention of Category:Engineering universities and colleges by country. Armbrust The Homunculus 12:01, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Copy of speedy nom
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Gangsta rap artists

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Rename. If Category:Rappers is ever renamed to Category:Rap artists, this can be renamed back. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 05:32, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Opposed speedy. Category should use the same term as it's parent category (Category:Rappers) and it's various sub-categories. Armbrust The Homunculus 11:57, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Copy of speedy nom
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:White Citizens' Council

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 November 29. – Fayenatic London 08:29, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Opposed speedy. The main article of the category is Citizens' Councils. However it that is deemed ambiguous, than it can be renamed to Category:Citizens' Councils of America, the networks name after 1956. Armbrust The Homunculus 11:52, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Copy of speedy nom
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.

Volkswagen categories

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 on Category:Volkswagen vehicles (therefore keep it), rename others. – Fayenatic London 22:34, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Opposed speedy. Categories should follow the main article (Volkswagen Group and main category (Category:Volkswagen Group) of the three. Additionally most categories contain pages related to Ducati, Lamborgini... etc., which are not Volkswagen. In case of the platforms/engines/diesel engines categories the main articles use "Volkswagen Group" instead of just "Volkswagen", see: List of Volkswagen Group platforms, List of Volkswagen Group engines, List of Volkswagen Group diesel engines and List of discontinued Volkswagen Group diesel engines. Armbrust The Homunculus 11:28, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Armbrust, I understand the position, but this is a far more compicated issue we are dealing with than what's covered in your rationale.
First of all, "Volkswagen Group" which is the translation of "Volkswagen Konzern" in German, is not a legal name, and the definition (what belongs and what doesn't) is not officially published and is up to Volkswagen AG to decide/change without formal announcements (without us knowing), and if a definition is somehow established for Wikipedia Category and Article Title purposes (like Volkswagen Group is a "group of brands including A,B,C", or "group of companies including D,E,F"), commonname and disambiguation justification must be established for the defined group.
Secondly, the distinction among the group (group of companies, makers, products, brands, services, etc.), the maker (some VW vehicles are made by Toyota and other contracted makers), the brand (For WikiProject Brands, VW brand covers much broader products/services than just vehicles, e.g. oils, accessories, financial services, etc.), the company (treatment of holding company, 50%-owned subsidiary, etc.) and the vehicles (historical lineage before/after the merger/takeover, OEM, knockdown assembly, etc.) is not clear in Wikipedia category policy, convention on car maker article titles, or content policy (on what to include/exclude in what articles in a group). So "what to base grouping/categorization on" needs to be decided, where each approach (company-centric, brand-centric, product/service-centric, etc.) has pros and cons for Wikipedia purposes.
Thirdly, Porsche SE(not Porsche AG) has become the controlling owner of Volkswagen AG, so is now the top tier 'company' in the "group of companies" (so "Porsche SE Group" is logical in company-centric categorization), and is the owner of Porsche brand. This is a very rare case where the carmaker, Porsche AG, is not the owner, but is a licensee of the brand (big problem in 'brand-centric' categorization). So Volkswagen does not own the brand directly or indirectly, but Porsche AG is a subsidiary of Volkswagen AG.
I have been editing Porsche and contemplating how best to cleanly split the article into Porsche SE and Porsche AG, but the above mentioned issues/questions are enormous on this limited scope alone. As the policy/convention is not established for complicated situations, the current practice seems to handle each on case by case basis. In handling the second largest (correct?) car maker in the world, we should be ready to make decisions with at least semi-plausible reasons on most of the questions raised above, as VW case would likely be looked at as a precedent by others handling less complicated 'groups'. So I hope you could see that simply changing the categories from Volkswagen to Volkswagen Group would not solve any of the issues above, and would complicate the behemoth without some kind of general direction/destination set. If you, or anybody, are willing to work on this, let me know. I'd welcome questions, suggestions, etc. Yiba (talk | contribs) 14:29, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Copy of speedy nom
Hi RevelationDirect, I feel I might have found a good person to discuss the issue of Titles on carmaker articles. Has there been a consensus in WP:WikiProject Categories to treat carmaker/car names (like 'Toyota', 'Ferrari' 'Jaguar' or 'Volkswagen') to be 'brands', 'car brands', 'car maker' or 'company'? If so, I'd very much like to read the discussion, rationale and categorization criteria, as I am not as familiar with the project. The distinction among 'brand', "car brand", "car maker" and 'company' has become an important issue on Porsche (see its Talk page. I just summarized the issues we are facing on that article there.)
This may seem off-topic, but this distinction issue and naming convention on article titles are in the heart of the problem we are facing here (categories follow article titles, correct?). And depending on the outcome, I might even go along with your position as I do see that it may be a valid position from the Project Categories perspective. btw I am a he :) I just wish I were there when Volkswagen Group article title was created. Yiba (talk | contribs) 05:17, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Volvo Buses

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:Volvo buses, as there is no consensus for a longer name. – Fayenatic London 11:20, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose renaming Category:Volvo Buses to Category:Volvo Buses buses
Nominator's rationale: Opposed speedy. Category should follow the convention of Category:Buses by manufacturer, which is "MANUFACTURER buses". In this case Volvo Buses is the manufacturer. Armbrust The Homunculus 11:18, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Copy of speedy nom
Oppose: It may be technically correct to change, but it is not needed and to most readers will look like an error. There is no confusion with the existing naming. Warren (talk) 22:57, 17 August 2014 (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.

Scania categories

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) 01:45, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Opposed speedy. The main article and category of these categories is Scania AB and Category:Scania AB respectively. Category doesn't contain vehicles/buses/trucks used in the Swedish province of Scania. Armbrust The Homunculus 11:12, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Copy of speedy nom
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Members of the Confederate House of Representatives from Georgia

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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:08, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Opposed speedy. The category should follow the convention in Category:Georgia (U.S. state). Armbrust The Homunculus 11:07, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Copy of speedy nom
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Marathon at the Olympics

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:Marathons at the Olympics, matching the pattern of other multi-sport event categories within Category:Marathons. – Fayenatic London 16:21, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Opposed speedy. The main article of the category is Marathons at the Olympics. Also the category contains marathons by year and gender, thus making it a set category.Armbrust The Homunculus 10:56, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Copy of speedy nom
I agree. One could, in theory, move this to Category:Marathon running at the Olympics, but not only is that more wordy but also needlessly broad. As a competition category this will mainly include specific marathons, with outliers being Olympic marathon courses etc. SFB 07:07, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Roman Catholic Bishops of Pittsburgh

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 balance of opinion is slight (4:3 for renaming), and in the absence of a strong consensus I give weight to the desirability of matching all the sibling categories in Category:Roman Catholic bishops by diocese in the United States. Most of the hierarchy within Category:Bishops by diocese in North America follows this pattern ("Category:Denomination bishops of Place") with the relatively scarce exceptions of Category:Roman Catholic bishops by diocese in Canada‎ and a few that start with "Roman Catholic" within Category:Roman Catholic archbishops by diocese in the United States‎. Elsewhere within Category:Categories by diocese there are further inconsistencies, but where the denomination comes first then lowercase is predominant for the title. See also the rarely used format Category:Bishops of Liverpool (Roman Catholic) which avoids the problem. – Fayenatic London 12:55, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: In accordance with WP:JOBTITLES since this title "bishop" is being used generically and not for any particular person, also to bring this category in line with numerous other categories with the same capitalization, created and maintained without controversy for many years. Elizium23 (talk) 03:22, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • PS – there is this later cfd in Sept 2011 which does support 'bishops' (but I was the only contributor other than the nom, and I am famously unreliable). Oculi (talk) 09:32, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'd forgotten about that. But my position then has not changed. As I wrote then: "Roman Catholic Bishop of Foo" is a title. "Roman Catholic Bishops of Foo" is not a title.". Laurel Lodged (talk) 19:04, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Each of the people in the category holds (or held) the title "Bishop of Pittsburgh". None holds (or held) the title "Bishops of Piitsburgh". No such title exists. Laurel Lodged (talk) 19:07, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Re @Daniel the Monk: Daniel's position. The problem cannot arise. No two people can simultaneously hold the office of "RC Bishop of Pittsburgh". It's possible to have a coadjutor bishop in the see; he is not, however, the holder of the title of "RC Bishop of Pittsburgh" while the Ordinary lives. In an archdiocese, it's common for the archbishop to have multiple auxiliaries; none of them holds the title "RC Archbishop of Foo". Instead, each holds a titular title. Category:Auxiliary bishops of the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Dublin is an example of how to treat auxiliary bishops; you don't conflate them with the archbishops. On Daniel's other point, I disagree that the "distinction (is) between the holders of a general rank"; the nomination is for a specific title, not a title in general. And the point is that no title of "RC Bishops of Pittsburg" exists. As for the presidents of the USA or of France or of any other nation, it follows that they too are mislabled when they occur in the middle of a category name. They ought to be the subject of future CFDs. Laurel Lodged (talk) 22:45, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The flaw in that logic is that it's not about multiple holders of the office at one given moment. The category holds those articles about those who either currently hold or have held that post in the past. Were they not all equally the holders of a given office in their day? Daniel the Monk (talk) 04:27, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
More