Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 October 10

:The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Rename. «»Who?¿?^meta 22:37, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

As per its main page, Southeast Asian Games, which has also been similarly renamed.--Huaiwei 23:51, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

• Rename Piccadilly 11:32, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
• Rename. No argument. siafu 22:20, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

:The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

:The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was No consensus (no change). Naming conventions discussion requested. «»Who?¿?^meta 22:31, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Add "Theatre in foo" as the convention for by-country subcats to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories), and rename as follows. Ganymead 23:28, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

• :Category:Ancient Greek theatre → :Category:Theatre in Ancient Greece
• :Category:Ancient Roman theatre → :Category:Theatre in Ancient Rome
• :Category:Canadian theatre → :Category:Theatre in Canada
• :Category:French theatre → :Category:Theatre in France
• :Category:Hong Kong theatre → :Cateory:Theatre in Hong Kong
• :Category:Japanese theater → :Category:Theatre in Japan
• :Category:New York Theatre → :Category:Theatre in New York
• :Category:Polish theater → :Category:Theatre in Poland
• :Category:Romanian theatre → :Category:Theatre in Romania
• :Category:Singaporean theatre → :Category:Theatre in Singapore
• :Category:U.S. theatre → :Category:Theatre in the United States

• Oppose rename, would prefer by nationality as currently. Art is more closely associated with culture/language (thus nationality) than political division (thus by country). Keep all these and make by nationality the standard. Eventually, move U.S. theatre to American theatre, but this can wait for a consensus discussion on that issue. Christopher Parham (talk) 06:28, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
• Rename all as proposed. The articles are organised on a country basis, not by culture or language so the proposed names reflect the contents. CalJW 08:23, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
• In fact, while the title of the main category is "Theatre by country," the subcategories aren't actually set up that way. They are by nationality. e.g. :Category:Jewish film and theatre, the presence of Carl Djerassi in the Austrian category rather than the American (all the work for which he appears in the category was done in the United States). There are many other examples. Christopher Parham (talk) 03:59, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
• Rename Piccadilly 11:32, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose rename, agree with Christopher Parham. - SimonP 15:53, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
• Rename all as proposed. siafu 22:21, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
• Rename all as proposed. The existing naming scheme is inconsistent with itself and, as CalJW says the new naming reflects the manner in which the category structure is set up. -Splash^talk 00:06, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
• Rename all. The proposed names reflect the parent category "Theatre by country". Dan 20:26, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
• As said above, all the content is organized by nationality, not by country, excepting the "Theatres in..." subcats. Christopher Parham (talk) 23:00, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose as per Christopher Parham. I'm all for standardization but it should be kept in proper context. Parham makes a really good argument here. Also, the proposal is not clear/intuitive (ie. proposed contents) and the naming scheme is misleading. How would :Category:Theatre in Canada differ from :Category:Theatres in Canada? --maclean25 00:19, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
• Rename all as proposed. It is quite clear to me what to expect in these categories. Carina22 09:54, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
• I'm personally more convinced by the argument that since theatre is fundamentally a cultural topic, the categories should be named according to the naming convention that applies to cultural topics. Oppose rename; just rename the :Category:Theatre by country category itself to be consistent with the cultural convention. Bearcat 18:32, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
• I buy the culturual argument. Oppose and rename :Category:Theatre by country to :Category:Theatre by nationality. -The Tom 16:32, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

:Let me throw in my two cents. The reason I oppose naming Theatre categoryies by nationality is that the names can be confusing. If someone sees the category :Category:French theatre at the bottom of an article they may ask the question "is this referring to French language theatre or Theatre in France?" Theatre in France is certainly more clear in my opinion, while maybe there should be a category for French speaking theatre as well (I'm thinking about creating a category for that). While theatre is associated with language, there are major difference when you examine the art of theatre in France compared with a French speaking country like Senegal in West Africa. Plus, what does one do with "Theatre in the United Arab Emiriates," "Theatre of Bosnia and Herzegovina" if the Nationality X policy is used. Just my two cents...Ganymead 16:45, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

::I'm not sure that "theatre in X" is really any clearer; but even so the advantage of "Nationality X" is that it makes editors more free to categorize things in the natural way. For instance, by nationality Oedipus the King clearly falls into Ancient Greek theatre; but given where its been translated, most frequently performed and criticised, etc., it could just as easily fall into a dozen other categories if we do things by country. It associates with a culture rather than with a place. I think the slight ambiguity of terms like "French" is likely good, as it allows both for things that are associated with France due to location (for instance, the subcat :Category:Theatres in France, as well as culture, for instance, the inclusion of kabuki theater in the Japanese theatre article. By what standard would you clearly associate a genre of theatre with a political entity? Christopher Parham (talk) 17:59, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose per Christopher's argument. bogdan | ^Talk 18:55, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose per Christopher's arguments. In my opinion, "French theatre" is for theatre belonging to french culture (refered mainly to french language, but also to french dramatists or actors). "Theatre in France" is for theatre represented in France, that can be, for example, Ancient Greek theatre, or Japanese theatre. (and , besides, it's easy to confuse with the building type: "Theatres in France"). This argument is for countries, so I subscrive to rename :Category:New York Theatre. --Joan sense nick 13:27, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

:The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

:The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Rename. «»Who?¿?^meta 22:23, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Correct capitalization, completeness of title jengod 21:18, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

• Comment Cat currently includes only Hiroshima-related articles (note Little Boy but not Fat Man). --Kgf0 22:22, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

:*The rest can be added later, seeings there are so few in there now, combining them won't hurt anything. «»Who?¿?^meta 22:23, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

:The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

:The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. «»Who?¿?^meta 22:18, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

A category for Prinsessakerho, a very small (14 members) exclusive Finnish club. The club itself is notable enough to merit its own article, but it doesn't deserve its own category. Particularly not when the category only consists of four pages: the club itself, two of its members (Rakel Liekki and Maria Kekkonen, curiously both former porn stars), and a template. At the very least it should be subcategorised further than directly under :Category:Finland. — JIP | Talk 18:54, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

• The category might be more usefull, if all the members get their articles. These two pornstars doesn't seem to be the only notable people in the club. The size of the club can also grow (even, if it is unlikely to grow very big, beacause of the clubs rules on taking new members). I added the template to the category while creating it to make it work automaticly, trying to avoid category being managed by hand, separately for every single article on the members. I put the category directly under Finland, because I didn't find a good place for it and hoped someone would recategorise it into a better place fast there after. Note that it is a default policy to e.g. create albums categories for artists having only one album. So I don't know, if this is any worse when the category finds it place. But I'm not sure yet, if it is good or bad to have this category, so I'm looking forward to reading further discussion on the subject. --Easyas12c 21:21, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete unless or until more articles can be found to populate the category. siafu 22:25, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Not that notable, really. In fact, even deleting the article about the 'club' would not be a huge loss. --Jonik 17:43, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

:The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

:The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Rename. «»Who?¿?^meta 22:17, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

in line with previous discussion. JW 15:14, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy rename per previous precedent. ∞Who?¿? 06:59, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

:The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

:The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Rename all. Naming conventions candidate. «»Who?¿?^meta 22:15, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Add "Railway stations in foo" as the convention for by-country subcats to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories), and rename as follows. -- Rick Block (talk) 14:38, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

• :Category:British railway stations → :Category:Railway stations in the United Kingdom
• :Category:Canadian railway stations → :Category:Railway stations in Canada
• :Category:Railway stations of Hong Kong → :Category:Railway stations in Hong Kong
• :Category:Railway stations of Japan → :Category:Railway stations in Japan (cuurrently listed as a speedy)
• :Category:Singaporean railway stations → :Category:Railway stations in Singapore
• Rename all CalJW 08:24, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
• Rename all. No argument. siafu 22:27, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
• Rename all. Neier 13:46, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

:The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

:The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Rename to :Category:Science fiction by franchise. «»Who?¿?^meta 22:14, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Not clearly defined, or really necessary. 213.122.1.233 14:27, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Piccadilly 11:32, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep -Or Rename. MakeRocketGoNow 18:36, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
• Rename to :Category:Science fiction by franchise — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Tom (talk • contribs) 22:11, 16 October 2005
• Closing note nom was not specific on deletion or renaming and k/r vote was ok with renaming. No objections raised to :Category:Science fiction by franchise. «»Who?¿?^meta 22:14, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

:The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

:The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Rename. «»Who?¿?^meta 22:11, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

"Loblaws" refers to the supermarket chain, whereas "Loblaw Companies Limited" refers to the large company that owns and operates the chain. Loblaw Companies Limited also owns and operates many other supermarket chains that have Wikipedia articles (such as Fortinos and the Real Canadian Superstore). LCL also provides services under the President's Choice label, currently contained in :Category:President's Choice. Additionally, members of the board of directors of Loblaw Companies Limited would belong in a :Category:Loblaw Companies Limited, but not in a :Category:Loblaws. "Loblaw Companies Limited" is the most accurate title for this category, given the scope it should be designed for. Kurieeto 14:13, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

• Rename Piccadilly 11:32, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
• Rename Carina22 09:54, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
• Rename --20px Spinboy 15:51, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
• The "Limited" isn't really necessary (it's actually contraindicated by Wikipedia policy on these matters); "Loblaw Companies" would suffice. Rename to :Category:Loblaw Companies. Bearcat 18:15, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
• Closing note. Rename per consensus and to match the main article title Loblaw Companies Ltd. (the unabbrv version is a redirect). «»Who?¿?^meta 22:11, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

:The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

:The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. «»Who?¿?^meta 22:09, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

• Closing note. This was a speedy, as it was not deleted when the last CFD was completed. «»Who?¿?^meta 22:09, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Should be moved to :Category:United States Supreme Court (contents already moved there, really nothing left but to delete this empty shell).  BD2412 ^talk 04:56, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete CalJW 08:24, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Good eye, BD, on another US-centric naming. --Jacquelyn Marie 16:14, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
• Erm, why is this not called :Category:Supreme Court of the United States, which is what the court and the article are titled? older≠wiser 00:59, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
• You can nominate that if you want, but the empty category should be deleted anyway. Carina22 09:54, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
• delete the empty shell Youngamerican 05:51, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete the empty category. I'd favour moving the active category title from :Category:United States Supreme Court to :Category:Supreme Court of the United States, but it's a separate question which needs a separate CFR discussion. Bearcat 18:17, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
• I certainly would not oppose :Category:Supreme Court of the United States as an alternative!  BD2412 ^talk 04:39, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

:The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

:The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Rename. «»Who?¿?^meta 22:05, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Should be simply :Category:Risorgimento, there is no need to include the name of the parent cat in the title. - SimonP 03:59, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

• Concur. Rename. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:02, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
• Rename Piccadilly 11:32, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

:The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.