Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 May 24

< May 23	May 25 >

May 24

Category:Sports venues in Las Vegas, Nevada

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/2010 June 1. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 00:47, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Sports venues in Las Vegas, Nevada to Category:Sports venues in the Las Vegas metropolitan area

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Most of these are not in the city and the main parent is Category:Sports in the Las Vegas metropolitan area so this is a more consistent name with the other categories. No objection if the category is later recreated if someone feels the need to populate a city only category. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:00, 24 May 2010 (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:New Wave/Post-punk revival albums

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/2010 June 1#Category:New Wave/Post-punk revival albums. — ξ ^xplicit 19:21, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:New Wave/Post-punk revival albums to Category:Post-punk revival albums

Nominator's rationale: Simpler name, matches main article, WP:SLASH. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:06, 24 May 2010 (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:Historic figures whose sexuality is debated

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 delete per many previous discussions on similarly named categories, most recently here. I don't think we need to have the same debate year after year to know that this is inappropriate categorization. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:18, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete: Appears to violate the requirements of WP:EGRS. Debatable: by whom? How much debate? ukexpat (talk) 18:24, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Creator's rationale: Keep or Rename if category name seems unclear:In answer to your questions, debated within their respective articles on Wikipedia. And, enough debate that a paragraph, a headlined section of the article, or sometimes an entirely separate article exists focusing on their sexuality. If there is enough debate about a figure that an entire section of their article focuses on later points of view of their sexuality, then the student of LGBT history will want to be able to find those articles and read the points of view found therein. A Category for figures like this, separate from people generally acknowledged to be LGB, and separate from people about whom the subject is moot (say, Ghengis Khan or Franklin D. Roosevelt), seems to be the most useful way for people to find this information.

Markwiki (talk) 18:52, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As long as a discussion is found notable for inclusion in the article, such a category would be a useful tool for finding similar articles. I can see this being a nice research tool. __meco (talk) 19:02, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. There seem to be many historical figures whose sexuality has become subject to at least some debate. I do not feel that this represents a defining characteristic and in some cases, this category may give mere speculation undo weight. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:21, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete Ripe for WP:OR and by necessity and totally unnecessary. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:02, 24 May 2010 (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:Biopiracy and bioprospecting

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/2010 June 7#Category:Biopiracy and bioprospecting. — ξ ^xplicit 22:34, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Biopiracy and bioprospecting to Category:Commercialization of traditional medicines

Nominator's rationale: To match main article on topic (renamed for WP:NPOV reasons, I gather). — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 17:03, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

comment. The article still carries a ~~POV~~ cleanup and OR warning tags. That is, we cannot be sure that it's contents will remain what they are for long. It may be renamed, it may be deleted. It's not stable enough to be used for categorization. Its name appears neutral (isn't it great when proven traditional remedies become available over the counter) but inside it carries a clear anti-industry, anti-globalist, etc. negative message. So what should fall into the category? Should it list all topics relevant to commercialized traditional medicine, like fairly uncontroversial Valerian (herb), or only the alleged "piracy"? What it is all about? East of Borschov (talk) 16:56, 26 May 2010 (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.

South African populated places

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 all. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:21, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rename Category:Cities, towns and villages in the Eastern Cape to Category:Populated places in the Eastern Cape

Rename Category:Cities, towns and villages in the Free State to Category:Populated places in the Free State

Rename Category:Cities, towns and villages in Gauteng to Category:Populated places in Gauteng

Rename Category:Cities, towns and villages in KwaZulu-Natal to Category:Populated places in KwaZulu-Natal

Rename Category:Cities, towns and villages in Limpopo to Category:Populated places in Limpopo

Rename Category:Cities, towns and villages in Mpumalanga to Category:Populated places in Mpumalanga

Rename Category:Cities, towns and villages in the North West Province to Category:Populated places in the North West Province

Rename Category:Cities, towns and villages in the Northern Cape to Category:Populated places in the Northern Cape

Rename Category:Cities, towns and villages in the Western Cape to Category:Populated places in the Western Cape

Rename Category:Cities, towns and villages founded by Afrikaners to Category:Populated places founded by Afrikaners

Rename Category:Coastal settlements in South Africa to Category:Populated coastal places in South Africa

Nominator's rationale: Rename per this discussion and this these two CfDs. - htonl (talk) 16:54, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rename all.--Mike Selinker (talk) 21:34, 30 May 2010 (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:Herman Wold

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. — ξ ^xplicit 04:29, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Eponymous. Arcfrk (talk) 15:17, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – there are plenty of valid eponymous categories but this is not one of them, as it consists of an arbitrary collection of theorems and people. (It seems unlikely that Wold is a defining characteristic of Harald Cramér for instance. I am sure we have deleted more specific categories such as 'Students of X'.) I would myself have no problem with a category such as 'Theorems by originator' (cf songs by songwriter) ... Category:Mathematical theorems could be so arranged. Occuli (talk) 16:00, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The category contains methods and theorems originated by Herman Wold. Occuli's criticism of the inclusion of Wold's collaborator (and Ph.D. advisor Harald Cramér) and of his two best known students (Peter Whittle and Karl Gustav Jöreskog) seems reasonable, so these entries were deleted. Isn't it better to state criticism on the talk page rather than jumping to deletion first? Thanks, Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 13:38, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the category could be renamed "scientific work of Herman Wold". Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 18:13, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per the guideline cited by the nominator, this isn't the type of eponymous category that is needed or encouraged. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:52, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Would you comment on my suggestion to change the name to "Scientific work of Herman Wold" (to avoid epynomy), please? Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 01:08, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if that would be a good idea. Do we have any other categories named "Scientific work of [NAME]"? I don't think we do. I don't really see a need for it, since all the articles can easily be linked-to in Herman Wold, and vice-versa. Perhaps a template would be a better idea. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:25, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply. Go ahead a delete the category if you want. Thanks Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 01:31, 2 June 2010 (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:Washington Heights (New York)

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. — ξ ^xplicit 19:21, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Washington Heights (New York) to Category:Washington Heights, Manhattan

Nominator's rationale: see name of article. Gryffindor (talk) 14:59, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Rename to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 03:58, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support rename too. (I think it should be standard to disambiguate in this manner both for categories and articles - tried doing so with changing the article page Scarborough, Ontario to Scarborough, Toronto a few months ago, but got reverted.) Mayumashu (talk) 22:53, 27 May 2010 (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.

Wildfires by year

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/2010 June 1. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 19:30, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge. There are too few members in these categories to support a by year hierarchy. for years prior to 2000 I suggest that a by decade scheme should be sufficient. I might agree to letting the 1990s categories alone, however the four categories spanning the 70s and 80s definitely ought to be upmerged. __meco (talk) 14:03, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose – as the nomination declines to address the other necessary upmerges. Eg Category:1996 wildfires has to be upmerged also to Category:1996 fires and Category:1996 natural disasters. Occuli (talk) 14:33, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I don't follow you. __meco (talk) 15:02, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your nom would take 1996–97 Australian bushfire season out of Category:1996 fires and Category:1996 natural disasters (in which it now sits via category inclusions, via the other parents of Category:1996 wildfires). Occuli (talk) 15:09, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This simply means that the category you mentioned will have to be categorized somewhat differently. That is a very standard situation. I'd be happy to leave that up to the editors who have that category on their watchlist, unless this is something that the closing admin deals with. I'm sure they're quite used to this sort of recalibration. __meco (talk) 16:13, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is the business of the nominator to deal with all aspects of the nomination. Obviously taking articles out of correct categories (as a side-effect) is not desirable. Occuli (talk) 16:54, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another problem is that there is not (yet) Category:1990s fires (or Category:1990s natural disasters, or Category:1990s disasters). Occuli (talk) 15:15, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, they are obviously going to be created. __meco (talk) 16:13, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why is there a need for Category:Fires by decade, Category:Disasters by decade, Category:Natural disasters by decade, as well as Category:Fires by year, Category:Disasters by year, Category:Natural disasters by year? How is navigation in Category:20th-century natural disasters improved by introducing decades? Occuli (talk) 16:54, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The answer to that is rather self-evident. As we move backwards in time these incidents are going to be further and further apart as far as coverage in Wikipedia articles is concerned. So when the first article on some devastating wildfire in the 18th century is written, it will probably not be prudent to put it into Category:1737 wildfires, nor in Category:1730s wildfires. Category:18th century wildfires or Category:Wildfires before 1900 is probably going to be more appropriate categories to decide on. It may however go into Category:1737 natural disasters and Category:18th-century fires. We're going to have to delimit all such categories similarly. Now or later. __meco (talk) 17:50, 24 May 2010 (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:Paralympic competitors from South Africa

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

. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:51, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Paralympic competitors from South Africa into Category:Paralympic competitors for South Africa.

Nominator's rationale: Merge. The standard term is “competitors for” (not from) for all the other subcategory countries in Category:Paralympic competitors by country Hugo999 (talk) 13:47, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This could be a speedy, category C2.C Mayumashu (talk) 22:54, 27 May 2010 (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:Nursery fires

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. — ξ ^xplicit 19:21, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Only one member. Unless there's a bunch of nursery fires that haven't been placed into the category we should keep this fire type without category for the time being. meco (talk) 13:41, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with nom. There is also the problem of ambiguity in the name. I was expecting one of fires in plant nurseries, fires in garden centres or fires in the nursery of a house (where Nanny toasts the crumpets for tea). I wasn't expecting daycare fires. For me daycare centres are not nurseries. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:28, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hah. You beat me to it. (I reworked the lede on that article yesterday.) Delete for all the reasons already given. Cgingold (talk) 23:06, 25 May 2010 (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:Fires by type

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: Withdrawn by nominator. Non-admin close. Cgingold (talk) 11:52, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn Rename to Category:Types of fire. The current name is a bit misleading in that it doesn't conform to the standard usage for Category:Xxx by type, which is understood to mean that it will contain sub-categories by type. In terms of the contents and the inferred intended use, it should properly be named simply Category:Types of fire, as each article deals with a particular type of fire. (I removed two articles that did not really conform with that use: Olympic Flame and Eternal flame. They are going to go in a new category that I am about to create.) Notified creator with {{subst:cfd-notify}} Cgingold (talk) 09:07, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I just figured out an easier solution: rather than renaming this category, it can simply be repurposed as a sub-cat of Category:Fires -- and then the articles currently listed here can all be moved into the new Category:Types of fire. Cgingold (talk) 11:49, 24 May 2010 (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:Conductors

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 all as nominated. It became evident that Fooian music conduction is ambiguous. There were also suggestions to use Fooian conductors of music, but this alternative did not receive as much support as did the nominator's suggestions. — ξ ^xplicit 22:34, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming:

Category:Conductors to Category:Conductors (music)

And its 82 subcategories

Category:18th-century conductors to Category:18th-century conductors (music)

Category:19th-century conductors to Category:19th-century conductors (music)

Category:Conductors by nationality to Category:Conductors (music) by nationality

Category:American conductors to Category:American conductors (music)

Category:Argentine conductors to Category:Argentine conductors (music)

Category:Armenian conductors to Category:Armenian conductors (music)

Category:Australian conductors to Category:Australian conductors (music)

Category:Austrian conductors to Category:Austrian conductors (music)

Category:Azerbaijani conductors to Category:Azerbaijani conductors (music)

Category:Belgian conductors to Category:Belgian conductors (music)

Category:Bolivian conductors to Category:Bolivian conductors (music)

Category:Brazilian conductors to Category:Brazilian conductors (music)

Category:British conductors to Category:British conductors (music)

Category:Conductors from Northern Ireland to Category:Conductors (music) from Northern Ireland

Category:English conductors to Category:English conductors (music)

Category:Scottish conductors to Category:Scottish conductors (music)

Category:Welsh conductors to Category:Welsh conductors (music)

Category:Bulgarian conductors to Category:Bulgarian conductors (music)

Category:Canadian conductors to Category:Canadian conductors (music)

Category:Chinese conductors to Category:Chinese conductors (music)

Category:Hong Kong conductors to Category:Hong Kong conductors (music)

Category:Colombian conductors to Category:Colombian conductors (music)

Category:Croatian conductors to Category:Croatian conductors (music)

Category:Cuban conductors to Category:Cuban conductors (music)

Category:Czech conductors to Category:Czech conductors (music)

Category:Danish conductors to Category:Danish conductors (music)

Category:Dutch conductors to Category:Dutch conductors (music)

Category:Ecuadorian conductors to Category:Ecuadorian conductors (music)

Category:Egyptian conductors to Category:Egyptian conductors (music)

Category:Estonian conductors to Category:Estonian conductors (music)

Category:Filipino conductors to Category:Filipino conductors (music)

Category:Finnish conductors to Category:Finnish conductors (music)

Category:French conductors to Category:French conductors (music)

Category:Georgian conductors to Category:Georgian conductors (music)

Category:German conductors to Category:German conductors (music)

Category:Greek conductors to Category:Greek conductors (music)

Category:Guatemalan conductors to Category:Guatemalan conductors (music)

Category:Hungarian conductors to Category:Hungarian conductors (music)

Category:Icelandic conductors to Category:Icelandic conductors (music)

Category:Indian conductors to Category:Indian conductors (music)

Category:Iranian conductors to Category:Iranian conductors (music)

Category:Iraqi conductors to Category:Iraqi conductors (music)

Category:Irish conductors to Category:Irish conductors (music)

Category:Israeli conductors to Category:Israeli conductors (music)

Category:Italian conductors to Category:Italian conductors (music)

Category:Japanese conductors to Category:Japanese conductors (music)

Category:Kazakhstani conductors to Category:Kazakhstani conductors (music)

Category:Korean conductors to Category:Korean conductors (music)

Category:South Korean conductors to Category:South Korean conductors (music)

Category:Latvian conductors to Category:Latvian conductors (music)

Category:Lebanese conductors to Category:Lebanese conductors (music)

Category:Lithuanian conductors to Category:Lithuanian conductors (music)

Category:Luxembourgian conductors to Category:Luxembourgian conductors (music)

Category:Macedonian conductors to Category:Macedonian conductors (music)

Category:Mexican conductors to Category:Mexican conductors (music)

Category:New Zealand conductors to Category:New Zealand conductors (music)

Category:Norwegian conductors to Category:Norwegian conductors (music)

Category:Paraguayan conductors to Category:Paraguayan conductors (music)

Category:Peruvian conductors to Category:Peruvian conductors (music)

Category:Polish conductors to Category:Polish conductors (music)

Category:Portuguese conductors to Category:Portuguese conductors (music)

Category:Romanian conductors to Category:Romanian conductors (music)

Category:Russian conductors to Category:Russian conductors (music)

Category:Serbian conductors to Category:Serbian conductors (music)

Category:Singaporean conductors to Category:Singaporean conductors (music)

Category:Slovak conductors to Category:Slovak conductors (music)

Category:Slovenian conductors to Category:Slovenian conductors (music)

Category:Soviet conductors to Category:Soviet conductors (music)

Category:Spanish conductors to Category:Spanish conductors (music)

Category:Catalan conductors to Category:Catalan conductors (music)

Category:Sri Lankan conductors to Category:Sri Lankan conductors (music)

Category:Swedish conductors to Category:Swedish conductors (music)

Category:Swiss conductors to Category:Swiss conductors (music)

Category:Taiwanese conductors to Category:Taiwanese conductors (music)

Category:Thai conductors to Category:Thai conductors (music)

Category:Turkish conductors to Category:Turkish conductors (music)

Category:Ukrainian conductors to Category:Ukrainian conductors (music)

Category:Uruguayan conductors to Category:Uruguayan conductors (music)

Category:Venezuelan conductors to Category:Venezuelan conductors (music)

Category:Conductors who committed suicide to Category:Conductors (music) who committed suicide

Category:Women conductors to Category:Women conductors (music)

Nominator's rationale: Conductors is ambiguous. previous discussion was closed with a clear consensus that the categories should be renamed, but no consensus of proper name. This new proposal should hpoefully be accepted. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:52, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support – seems to pass the ambiguity concerns of the previous cfd. Occuli (talk) 14:56, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to "(X) music conductors". "Conductors (music)" is unnecessarily clunky. (Too bad this isn't the German wikipedia, because "Kapellmeisters" is quite unambiguous.)--Mike Selinker (talk) 17:32, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This one was opposed las time on the grounds that it looks like its conductors of (X) music. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:29, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. OK, how about Rename to "(X) musical conductors"? I see that's suggested below as well.--Mike Selinker (talk) 21:35, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support nom's suggestion. In the last discussion, "(X) music conductors" was thought by some to be ambiguous, as it could mean "conductors of music from (X)" rather that "music conductors from (X)", so I think we should probably avoid that phrasing. Or instead of "(music)" we could just use "FOOian conductors of music" if the proposal is thought to be too clunky. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:14, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"conductors of music" would work for most of these, but as was pointed out in the previous discussion, would be probelamtic for Category:Conductors from Northern Ireland. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:29, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Northern Ireland conductors of music" would be a solution. But I'm OK with the parentheses. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 10:23, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support conductors conduct electricity, and the subcategories should match the parent. 70.29.210.155 (talk) 03:55, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm still slightly more in favor of the formulation I proposed (rather late in the day) during the last go on these categories -- "Conductors of music", etc. which avoids use of a parenthetical inclusion. However, I won't stand in the way of this proposal if the majority of other editors prefer that formulation. Cgingold (talk) 23:21, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support this particular rename if that is the most supported, though I would prefer to avoid parentheses. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:56, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support but Category:Musical conductors might be even better. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:37, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment – "Musical conductors"? As opposed to non-musical conductors? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 05:33, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I also would be more in favour of "(X) conductors of music" proposed by Cgingold. I don't like the parentheses. Argolin (talk) 00:34, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Limited s~~Support – Rename ~~only~~ Category:Conductors to Category:Conductors (music). Michael Bednarek (talk) 03:49, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for subcategories – There is no ambiguity in the current naming scheme "FOOian conductors" or in any of the subcategories of Category:Conductors", or does anyone expect a Category:Women conductors or Category: Conductors who committed suicide of the electrical kind? Michael Bednarek (talk) 03:49, 2 June 2010 (UTC) Stricken in light of Od Mishehu's explanation below (transport). But please, do not use "Musical conductors" — it invites mischief. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 07:34, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- When I first saw the category name Category:Northern Irish conductors (when handling a different mass CfR), my first thought was that this is a transportation-related category. While its self-evident that Category:Women conductors isn't about electrical conductor, it's not self-evident that it's not about Conductor (transportation). עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:57, 2 June 2010 (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:Players of American football from Alabama

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. — ξ ^xplicit 19:21, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Players of American football from Alabama to Category:American football players from Alabama

Nominator's rationale: Rename. The current form seems like an unnatural wording. I think this proposal reads better and is a bit shorter. If this one goes though, there are 49 more that will need to be nominated. In addition it follows the existing pattern of categories like Category:Baseball players from Alabama. I hope that proposed bot is working. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:46, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The reason for the adjusted wording was the fact that "American football players from FOO" could mean "players of the sport American football from FOO" or "Players of the sport football who are of American nationality from FOO", and "football" alone is ambiguous. See where these were renamed. Perhaps this problem could be made redundant if all the "football" categories could be changed to "association football", but I don't think we're there yet. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:54, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Going back to that ambiguous form doesn't make sense to me.--Mike Selinker (talk) 17:31, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as well. Though wordy, the current name removes possible misundering around the word 'football' in a global context Mayumashu (talk) 22:56, 27 May 2010 (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.

FR Yugoslavia

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/merge all. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 22:41, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Federal Republic of Yugoslavia to Category:Serbia and Montenegro
renaming Category:Presidents of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia to Category:Presidents of Serbia and Montenegro
merging Category:Federal Republic of Yugoslavia people to Category:Serbia and Montenegro people
merging Category:Federal Republic of Yugoslavia politicians to Category:Serbia and Montenegro politicians
merging Category:Federal Republic of Yugoslavia sportspeople to Category:Serbia and Montenegro sportspeople
merging Category:Federal Republic of Yugoslavia footballers to Category:Serbia and Montenegro footballers
merging Category:Federal Republic of Yugoslavia international footballers to Category:Serbia and Montenegro international footballers
merging Category:Federal Republic of Yugoslavia expatriate footballers to Category:Serbia and Montenegro expatriate footballers
merging Category:Federal Republic of Yugoslavia expatriates to Category:Serbia and Montenegro expatriates
merging Category:Federal Republic of Yugoslavia expatriates in the United States to Category:Serbia and Montenegro expatriates in the United States
delete Category:Federal Republic of Yugoslavia diaspora (will be taken care of by Category:Serbia and Montenegro diaspora if above merges take place)

Nominator's rationale: Merge/rename/delete as indicated. For a few months now, the previously separate article Federal Republic of Yugoslavia has been merged with Serbia and Montenegro. Basically, FRY existed from 1992 to 2003, when its constitution was adjusted slightly and its name was changed to Serbia and Montenegro. For most significant purposes, the state that was formerly called FR Yugoslavia was continued under the new name. Since there is no longer separate articles for the two entities and this change appears to be relatively stable, it makes sense to merge the categories now. Note that the main article for certain of these categories also uses the S M terminology: e.g., President of Serbia and Montenegro. Renaming these will go a long way to resolving much of the longstanding confusion about the various Yugoslavia categories that exist. The FR Yugoslavia and the S M categories are notoriously screwed up—probably because it makes more sense to just keep them together. (One of the problems is that the FR Yugoslavia categories are placed in the Category:Yugoslavia, but it's clear that FR Yugoslavia was not a continuation of the State SFR Yugoslavia—it was a completely new State and the old SFR Yugoslavia ceased to exist.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:38, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Consistent with article, where the change has already occurred. Munci (talk) 08:00, 24 May 2010 (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.

Eurovision songs by country

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Rename all. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:35, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming:

Eurovision songs by country (50)

Nominator's rationale: Rename all. These categories group articles together of songs entered into the Eurovision Song Contest. Just like a previous nomination regarding albums and the nationality of the artist, these songs are not necessarily British, Swedish, Spanish, etc., they were simply entered in the contest as the song that would represent a certain country—which only makes sense, considering the name of the category is Category:Eurovision songs by country. As I mentioned in the Albums by artist nomination linked above, songs can't possibly be nationalized, especially if the song was recorded in a different country than where it was intended to represent. The suggested renaming will clarify the contents of these categories. — ξ ^xplicit 02:29, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I thought that entries to the ECN specifically had to be from that country as opposed to songs by artists from any given country. Thus the present scheme would be just the right thing for these melodies. __meco (talk) 14:55, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rename – I think the artist representing foo has to be fooian but the song doesn't - eg we have Where Are You? (Imaani song), written by Scott English, who is (confusingly) American. Occuli (talk) 15:06, 24 May 2010 (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.