Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 March 10#Superstars

: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) 02:02, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

• {{cl|Bradford Bulls rugby league players}} to {{cl|Bradford Bulls players}}
• {{cl|Castleford Tigers rugby league players}} to {{cl|Castleford Tigers players}}
• {{cl|Catalans Dragons rugby league players}} to {{cl|Catalans Dragons players}}
• {{cl|Huddersfield Giants rugby league players}} to {{cl|Huddersfield Giants players}}
• {{cl|Hull Kingston Rovers rugby league players}} to {{cl|Hull Kingston Rovers players}}
• {{cl|Leeds Rhinos rugby league players}} to {{cl|Leeds Rhinos players}}
• {{cl|Salford City Reds rugby league players}} to {{cl|Salford City Reds players}}
• {{cl|Warrington Wolves rugby league players}} to {{cl|Warrington Wolves players}}
• {{cl|Widnes Vikings rugby league players}} to {{cl|Widnes Vikings players}}
• {{cl|Wigan Warriors rugby league players}} to {{cl|Wigan Warriors players}}
• Nominator's rationale: Merge: These categories should be merged back into the original categories as it is misleading to have parallel categories for the same players. It seems that in 2008 user:Jeff79 took a dislike to the {{cl|Castleford Tigers players}} type categories I created back in 2007 and took it upon himself to create a hoard of duplicate categories instead of going through the usual process of proposing that the categories be moved, to make things worse he didn't bother to populate/depopulate most of the categories so we are left with these duplicate categories both partially populated making a right mess of {{cl|Rugby league players by club}}. The reason I believe that they should be merged back to the shorter version is that there is no need to disambiguate by adding "rugby league" in any of these teams. The only team that it is neccessary for is Harlequins Rugby League due to the existence of Harlequins rugby union. It is not normal practice for players by team categories to take the form category:club - specific sport - players as can be seen from the various examples listed below:
• {{cl|Boston Celtics players}} not {{cl|Boston Celtics basketball players}}
• {{cl|Sheffield United F.C. players}} not {{cl|Sheffield United association football players}}
• {{cl|Nottingham Panthers players}} not {{cl|Nottingham Panthers ice hockey players}}
• {{cl|London Wasps players}} not {{cl|London Wasps rugby union players}}
• {{cl|Boston Red Sox players}} not {{cl|Boston Red Sox baseball players}}

-King of the North East 23:04, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

• Support. We only need the sport when we're disambiguating, such as between college basketball teams of the same name.--Mike Selinker (talk) 23:08, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
• Support. I was just trying to get them to match the way categories for rugby league players by Australian club are named. I suppose you're going to do it properly with a bot or something to tidy up all the categories and articles. I'm not very good with bots and things so was going about it the long way. I don't feel strongly about the inclusion of "rugby league" in the categories, as long as it's consistent either way. There are some cases where it will be necessary to include the sport and I thought I'd err on the side of caution and include it for all teams whether they need it now or not in case they do someday in the future. But I suppose if they need to be changed in the future, we can cross that bridge when we come to it. However, if the ones listed above only are changed back, then that will make a mixture of some categories including "rugby league" and some not. It'd be nice if we were consistent across the board with all clubs across wikipedia.--Jeff79 (talk) 14:19, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
• Support. GordyB (talk) 20:17, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

::If enough support is gained for the categories to be merged to the shorter form and this discussion is closed, I will propose moving the other categories (except in cases where disambiguation is neccessary such as the Harlequins category). King of the North East 19:42, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

• Support. GW(talk) 21:59, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
• Support per above. As Mike noted, we only need to add the sport when a disambiguation is needed—not just for college sports teams, but also for different sports within multi-sport clubs (e.g. :Category:FC Barcelona footballers and :Category:FC Barcelona basketball players). — Dale Arnett (talk) 23:55, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

----

: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. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:26, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

:{{Lc|Crunk rappers}}

:Nominator's rationale: Delete Fails WP:OVERCAT, subjective and unnecessary overcategorization. DiverseMentality 22:39, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

That Category is to categories all the crunk rappers! Young Piece (talk) 23:46, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

• Delete - :Category:Southern rappers is sufficient. Robofish (talk) 04:22, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

----

:The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

:The result of the discussion was: Keep. Note, that if the others are to be renamed, someone needs to make that nomination.Vegaswikian (talk) 22:33, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

:Propose renaming :Category:Icelandic-language television series to :Category:Icelandic-language television shows

:Nominator's rationale: Rename. All sister categories in the parent :Category:Television programming by language (recently renamed) use "shows" rather than "series". A rename to :Category:Television programming in Icelandic in line with the parent would seem fine as well. When this finds a home, we can nominate the sister categories to match. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:04, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

• Keep, and Rename the other categories here to 'X-language television series'. 'Television series' instead of 'television show' seems to be Wikipedia standard; see :Category:Television series, of which some of these categories could be subcategories, whereas :Category:Television shows is a redirect. Robofish (talk) 04:21, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
• Keep and rename the others per Robofish; the standard in other related categories is "series" (or "program(me)s", when necessary), not "shows". Bearcat (talk) 19:20, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

----

: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: result to :Category:People from Georgia (country). Vegaswikian (talk) 22:57, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

:Propose renaming :Category:Georgian people to :Category:Georgian (country) people (or {{cat|Georgia (country) people}})

:Nominator's rationale: Rename. In light of this recent discussion it makes sense now to do this rename to cure ambiguity, and then all of the subcategories could be speedily renamed to match this renamed category. I know the proposed name is relatively inelegant, but for most of the subcategories it will be far easier to use "Georgian (country) foo" than trying to formulate a "special" naming format for the Georgian categories. I think keeping it simple yet unambiguous is the best solution here. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:49, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

• Rename to :Category:People from Georgia (country). In the UK, "Georgian" is commonly used to refer to the Georgian era (1714 to 1830), and for those accustomed to that usage, "Georgian (country) people" reads like a category or non-urban folks from that time, whera "people from Georgia (country)" is unambiguous.
  Whilst most other sub-categories of :Category:People by nationality are named "Fooian people", we do also have :Category:People from Northern Ireland, renamed at CFD in January because of terminological difficulties in Norrn Iron. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:09, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
• Of course, this option complicates things considerably. If such an approach is adopted, then for one it's inconsistent with the most recent discussion. Secondly, it means all the subcategories will require full CfDs to change the naming format: they will not qualify under speedy criterion #6. I can state right now that I'm probably not going to do those full nominations (too many scars from :Category:Victoria (Australia)), though I would be willing to nominate them all for a speedy change if my suggestion were adopted. That is one reason I stated we should try to keep it simple yet unambiguous: adopting this rename will probably result in (1) this parent category being renamed, (2) with one subcategory already being renamed to "Georgian (country)", and (3) the rest not being changed at all. A big mess, in other words—just like {{cat|People from Northern Ireland}}, which still has many subcategories that use "Northern Irish" because the nomination was not followed up on and carried to its logical conclusion as applying to all subcategories. (Though I acknowledge that apparently even "Georgian (country)" is ambiguous, so my simple solution to this problem may not be a "good" one.) What about using {{cat|Georgia (country) people}} à la {{cat|Dominica people}}, {{cat|Republic of the Congo people}}, etc.? This would permit the changes to still be made speedily rather than slogging through a complete CfD that reformulates the name for every one. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:04, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
• Reply. Thanks for the pointer on my talk to your comment. The concern seems to be solely that the follow-up work cannot be speedied (though I'm not clear why), which seems to be a poor reason for choosing any option. Better, surely, to get things right? If this CFD settles on the :Category:People from Georgia (country) option, I will make the necessary cleanup nominations. Nite that in any case the subcats of {{cl|Georgian people}} use a variety of formats: {{cl|People by city in Georgia (country)}} (which already uses my suggested format), {{cl|Ethnographic groups of Georgian people}}, and several "Georgian fooers" categories. These will in any case need separate attention. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:28, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
• That's fine if you are willing to nominate the others. My only remaining observation would be that these are nationality categories, and someone can be of Georgian nationality and not be "from" Georgia. But that's probably a minor point not to be too worrisome. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:56, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
• Rename to :Category:People from Georgia (country) per BHG's explanation. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:58, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
• Rename to :Category:Georgian (nationality) people. Mayumashu (talk) 02:44, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
• Rename to :Category:People from Georgia (country) per BHG's explanation. Kittybrewster ☎ 11:21, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
• Support Rename to :Category:People from Georgia (country) per BHG's explanation. This is consistent with the practice of disambigating the Caucasus country from the US State. However the name change would need to be made to numerous subcategories. Can I assume that will follow? Peterkingiron (talk) 23:59, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
• I don't see this as necessary; the adjective "Georgian" would and could never be applied to a subcategory pertaining to the US state. Bearcat (talk) 19:24, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

----

:The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

:The result of the discussion was: rename to :Category:Transiting extrasolar planets. I know there was discussion on whether to use "exoplanets" or "extrasolar planets", but the main difference of opinion had to do with the size of the category name, nothing more. I went with "Extrasolar planets" because that's what WP seems to use on the various articles I read. In addition, I didn't go with "detected by", because as was pointed out in the discussion, that can mean to read "first detected by". Kbdank71 14:18, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

----

I proposed renaming the :Category:Transiting planets to :Category:Transiting exoplanets because it is more specific because this category is only used for exoplanet articles. Transiting planets can also occur in our solar system, which are the planets Mercury and Venus can transit the Sun as seen from Earth. BlueEarth (talk | contribs) 21:44, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

• Comment it's only a two planet difference, why not also contain Mercury and Venus? 76.66.201.179 (talk) 04:32, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
• :Mercury and Venus are not important for transiting planets, this category is provided only for exoplanet articles that were transiting their stars as detected by transit method. BlueEarth (talk | contribs) 21:50, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
• ::Then it should be renamed {{cl|Exoplanets detected by the transit method}}, which is a far different animal, because several exoplanets detected by other methods are also transitting planets. That is not your rename rationale, and not the implied content of the suggested new name. 76.66.201.179 (talk) 04:01, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
• :::I say that renaming to {{cl|Exoplanets detected by the transit method}} that you came up with is really good idea, which is even better than {{cl|Transiting exoplanets}}. So we are going for {{cl|Exoplanets detected by the transit method}}. BlueEarth (talk | contribs) 23:29, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
• ::::Note that the main articles in the area of extrasolar planets use "extrasolar planet" rather than "exoplanet" in the titles (e.g. Extrasolar planet, List of extrasolar planets). If it is felt necessary to perform this move, the destination should be :Category:Transiting extrasolar planets. Icalanise (talk) 23:13, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
• :::::So the modified version would be {{cl|Extrasolar planets detected by the transit method}} then... 76.66.201.179 (talk) 05:14, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
• :::::subcategorize with {{cl|Extrasolar planets detected by the transit method}} seems like the way to go, which would make a exoplanet by discovery method cat, and keep a planet cat by property/orientation category. (and would keep Mercury and Venus as members, since a two planet difference isn't big enough for me to exclude solar planets) 76.66.201.179 (talk) 05:18, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
• ::::::I think that exoplanets detected by transit method (without 'the' between by and transit) would be better since it takes up less space in the category bar than extrasolar planets detected by the transit method. BlueEarth (talk | contribs) 21:42, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
• Comment I'm not sure the "detected by" bit is helpful, as it may imply "first detected by". Some planets were first detected by transit and followed up by radial velocity later, some were detected by radial velocity and found to be transiting later. "Transiting extrasolar planets" is more concise without sacrificing the grammar as "extrasolar planets detected by transit method" does. Icalanise (talk) 08:52, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
• :I'm going for this format, but instead of transiting extrasolar planets, we should go for transiting exoplanets as I originally going to rename to this as per my first comment just below this section title. As transiting extrasolar planets is a long category text with three words, transiting exoplanets has only two words and take up less space in the category bar. BlueEarth (talk | contribs) 19:15, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
• I'm still unconvinced that breaking format with the main article titles, or :Category:Extrasolar planets is a good idea. Icalanise (talk) 23:52, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
• :An another reason why I chose transiting exoplanets because I’ve been finding transiting exoplanets as a text more frequent in websites outside of Wikipedia than transiting extrasolar planets. BlueEarth (talk | contribs) 22:49, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

----

: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 most per nom.

(I'll be deleting the 2 brass band categories boldly, an action which should not be considered part of this closure, even though the action was suggested by the nominator here. Therefore G4 should not apply to recreation in these 2 specific cases.)

As this group nom intends to deal with setting/preserving a "standard" naming convention amongst like categories, I checked the parents of the ones which would be changed beyond the City, State rename - the primary concern of the nominator as he states below, and which also seems supported by others' comments.

Based upon that. the following would seem to require further discussion, and so are excluded from the Rename result, and should instead be considered No consensus:

• :Category:Los Angeles art - per the parent :Category:American art.
• :Category:Pittsburgh novels - per the subcats of :Category:American cities in fiction.

• The entire "music in x" section, due to a lack of a standard in the parent: :Category:Music by city.

• And while most of the sub-categories of :Category:American musical groups by state follow the proposed standard, :Category:American hip hop groups does not. So excluding those from this closure as well.

• And finally, while going forth with the rename for :Category:Philadelphia R&B and Soul musicians, I don't see any other category like this, and its further existence may warrant further discussion as well.

To be clear, this closure does not preclude these exceptions being immediately relisted for further discussion. (I honestly expect that they probably will be.) And that includes those which the nominator suggested for deletion, but which were really not much discussed. - jc37 07:39, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

----

• Actors:

:Propose renaming :Category:Actors from Chicago to :Category:Actors from Chicago, Illinois

:Propose renaming :Category:Actors from Cincinnati to :Category:Actors from Cincinnati, Ohio

:Propose renaming :Category:Omaha actors to :Category:Actors from Omaha, Nebraska

:Propose renaming :Category:Actors from Pittsburgh to :Category:Actors from Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

• Arts and artists

:Propose renaming :Category:Artists from Cincinnati to :Category:Artists from Cincinnati, Ohio

:Propose renaming :Category:Artists from Miami to :Category:Artists from Miami, Florida

:Propose renaming :Category:Artists from Pittsburgh to :Category:Artists from Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

:Propose renaming :Category:Los Angeles art to :Category:Arts in Los Angeles, California

• Cultural structures:

:Propose renaming :Category:Fountains in Kansas City to :Category:Fountains in Kansas City, Missouri

:Propose renaming :Category:St. Louis music venues to :Category:Music venues in St. Louis, Missouri

:Propose renaming :Category:Restaurants in Tampa to :Category:Restaurants in Tampa, Florida

:Propose renaming :Category:Theatres in Kansas City to :Category:Theatres in Kansas City, Missouri

:Propose renaming :Category:Theatres in Omaha to :Category:Theatres in Omaha, Nebraska

• Creative works:

:Propose renaming :Category:Films set in Chicago to :Category:Films set in Chicago, Illinois

:Propose renaming :Category:Lancaster, Pennsylvania in film and television to :Category:Films set in Lancaster, Pennsylvania (preferably delete)

:Propose renaming :Category:Philadelphia in film and television to :Category:Films set in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (see below)

:Propose renaming :Category:Pittsburgh in film and television to :Category:Films set in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania (see below)

:Propose renaming :Category:Films set in San Diego to :Category:Films set in San Diego, California

:Propose renaming :Category:Films set in San Francisco to :Category:Films set in San Francisco, California

:Propose renaming :Category:Films set in Tampa to :Category:Films set in Tampa, Florida

:Propose renaming :Category:Films shot in Los Angeles to :Category:Films shot in Los Angeles, California

:Propose renaming :Category:Films shot in New Orleans to :Category:Films shot in New Orleans, Louisiana

:Propose renaming :Category:Pittsburgh novels to :Category:Novels set in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

:Propose renaming :Category:Television shows set in Chicago to :Category:Television shows set in Chicago, Illinois

:Propose renaming :Category:Theatre in Minneapolis to :Category:Theatre in Minneapolis, Minnesota

• Music:

:Propose renaming :Category:Music in Denver to :Category:Music in Denver, Colorado

:Propose renaming :Category:Music of Detroit to :Category:Music in Detroit, Michigan

:Propose renaming :Category:Lexington, KY Music to :Category:Music in Lexington, Kentucky

:Propose renaming :Category:Music in Omaha to :Category:Music in Omaha, Nebraska

:Propose renaming :Category:St. Louis music to :Category:Music in St. Louis, Missouri

:Propose renaming :Category:Songs about New Orleans to :Category:Songs about New Orleans, Louisiana

• Musical groups:

:Propose renaming :Category:Boston, Massachusetts musical groups to :Category:Musical groups from Boston, Massachusetts

:Propose renaming :Category:Buffalo, New York musical groups to :Category:Musical groups from Buffalo, New York

:Propose renaming :Category:Fort Lauderdale musical groups to :Category:Musical groups from Fort Lauderdale, Florida

:Propose renaming :Category:Indianapolis, Indiana musical groups to :Category:Musical groups from Indianapolis, Indiana

:Propose renaming :Category:Jacksonville, Florida musical groups to :Category:Musical groups from Jacksonville, Florida

:Propose renaming :Category:Los Angeles musicians to :Category:Musical groups from Los Angeles, California

:Propose renaming :Category:Louisville musicians to :Category:Musical groups from Louisville, Kentucky

:Propose renaming :Category:Miami musical groups to :Category:Musical groups from Miami, Florida

:Propose renaming :Category:Nashville bands to :Category:Musical groups from Nashville, Tennessee

:Propose renaming :Category:New Orleans musical groups to :Category:Musical groups from New Orleans, Louisiana

:Propose renaming :Category:Omaha musical groups to :Category:Musical groups from Omaha, Nebraska

:Propose renaming :Category:Orlando, Florida musical groups to :Category:Musical groups from Orlando, Florida

:Propose renaming :Category:Philadelphia musical groups to :Category:Musical groups from Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

:Propose renaming :Category:Pittsburgh musical groups to :Category:Musical groups from Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

:Propose renaming :Category:San Diego musical groups to :Category:Musical groups from San Diego, California

:Propose renaming :Category:San Francisco musical groups to :Category:Musical groups from San Francisco, California

:Propose renaming :Category:San Jose musical groups to :Category:Musical groups from San Jose, California

:Propose renaming :Category:Seattle musical groups to :Category:Musical groups from Seattle, Washington

:Propose renaming :Category:Tacoma musical groups to :Category:Musical groups from Tacoma, Washington

:Propose renaming :Category:Tampa musical groups to :Category:Musical groups from Tampa, Florida

:Propose renaming :Category:Los Angeles musical groups to :Category:Musical groups from Los Angeles, California

:Propose renaming :Category:Louisville music groups to :Category:Musical groups from Louisville, Kentucky

:Propose renaming :Category:Detroit hip hop groups to :Category:Hip hop groups from Detroit, Michigan

:Propose renaming :Category:San Francisco Bay Area hip hop groups to :Category:Hip hop groups from the San Francisco Bay Area

:Propose renaming :Category:New Orleans brass bands to :Category:Brass bands from New Orleans, Louisiana (preferably delete)

• Musicians:

:Propose renaming :Category:Musicians from Cincinnati to :Category:Musicians from Cincinnati, Ohio

:Propose renaming :Category:Musicians of New Orleans to :Category:Musicians from New Orleans, Louisiana

:Propose renaming :Category:Omaha musicians to :Category:Musicians from Omaha, Nebraska

:Propose renaming :Category:Philadelphia musicians to :Category:Musicians from Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

:Propose renaming :Category:Pittsburgh musicians to :Category:Musicians from Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

:Propose renaming :Category:Detroit hip hop musicians to :Category:Hip hop musicians from Detroit, Michigan

:Propose renaming :Category:New Orleans jazz musicians to :Category:Jazz musicians from New Orleans, Louisiana

:Propose renaming :Category:New Orleans brass band bandleaders to :Category:Brass band bandleaders from New Orleans, Louisiana (preferably delete)

:Propose renaming :Category:Philadelphia R&B and Soul musicians to :Category:R&B and soul musicians from Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

:Propose renaming :Category:Baltimore rappers to :Category:Rappers from Baltimore, Maryland

:Propose renaming :Category:Rappers from Los Angeles to :Category:Rappers from Los Angeles, California

:Propose renaming :Category:Rappers from Memphis to :Category:Rappers from Memphis, Tennessee

:Propose renaming :Category:New York City rappers to :Category:Rappers from New York City (this is an overwrite)

:Propose renaming :Category:Rappers from Philadelphia to :Category:Rappers from Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

:Propose renaming :Category:St. Louis rappers to :Category:Rappers from St. Louis, Missouri

:Propose renaming :Category:San Francisco Bay Area rappers to :Category:Rappers from the San Francisco Bay Area

• Non-profit organizations:

:Propose renaming :Category:Non-profit organizations based in Cincinnati to :Category:Non-profit organizations based in Cincinnati, Ohio

:Propose renaming :Category:Non-profit organizations in Jacksonville, Florida to :Category:Non-profit organizations based in Jacksonville, Florida

:Propose renaming :Category:Non-profit organizations in Louisville, Kentucky to :Category:Non-profit organizations based in Louisville, Kentucky

• Writers:

:Propose renaming :Category:Writers from Chicago to :Category:Writers from Chicago, Illinois

:Propose renaming :Category:Writers from Cincinnati to :Category:Writers from Cincinnati, Ohio

:Propose renaming :Category:Philadelphia writers to :Category:Writers from Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

:Propose renaming :Category:Writers from Pittsburgh to :Category:Writers from Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

:Nominator's rationale: For conformance with "city, state" parameters, and general cleanup. There's a lot here, but once I started pulling categories from :Category:American culture by city, it was hard to stop. I'll save the Religion, Media, and "in fiction" subcategories for another day. Some specific notes:

:*The "brass bands" category contains only the "brass band bandleaders" category, which contains only one person; I would delete those.

:*I recommend changing the L.A. art category to "Arts" so it can go in the "Arts by city" tree.

:*All other non-profit categories contain the word "based."

:*The Lancaster film/TV category contains only one film, Witness, and is probably unlikely to contain another any time soon; I would delete that.

:*Finally, I moved all of the TV shows out of :Category:Philadelphia in film and television and :Category:Pittsburgh in film and television, so those should now only contain films set in those cities.--Mike Selinker (talk) 20:24, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

• Rename all per nom and support the tireless dedication of Mike Selinker to this Augean task. Occuli (talk) 20:30, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
• If only I could divert a river...--Mike Selinker (talk) 21:09, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

::* I agree with Bearcat's remarks below about removing 'occupation-from-city' cats but they need a double upmerge. Suggest an initial rename per nom and relist the city/occupation ones. Occuli (talk) 21:56, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

• Comment Is there a concensus established for this format somewhere? If not, can we work on building one on a project page? A number of these categories were just changed from the "-Occupation- from -city-" to the "-City- -occupation-" format 6 months ago. Changing this every 6 months seems like a bit of a waste of time. dissolve^talk 20:54, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
• Huh. I didn't know that. That does seem worth discussing.--Mike Selinker (talk) 21:09, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
• There was eg this cfd, 25 Jan 2009. Occuli (talk) 21:10, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
• I'm not at all wedded to the "City/occupation" format, and was just trying to get the state out of the middle of the category. But I'm fine with "City/state/occupation" as well, though I think it's a bit clunkier. The nomination Occuli quotes does support "Musicians from City, State," though.--Mike Selinker (talk) 21:09, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
• I haven't heard any more support for this, so I'll reaffirm my original suggestion of "Musician from City, State" format. I think we can consider the merits of deleting some of these categories in another nomination, so I'd suggest this be closed on the merits of the state addition.--Mike Selinker (talk) 22:32, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
• Delete anything "occupation-from-city" rather than renaming; these constitute an unnecessary WP:OCAT intersection. Keep anything that's already in conformance with the "match category name to the article title" rule; i.e. if the city's article is at Chicago rather than Chicago, Illinois, then its categories are correctly named as "X from Chicago", not "X from Chicago, Illinois". Rename only categories that aren't covered by those considerations. Bearcat (talk) 19:29, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
• Rename per nom. --Kbdank71 14:59, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

----

:The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

:The result of the discussion was: no consensus. Kbdank71 13:52, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

----

:Propose renaming :Category:Towns with cathedrals in the United Kingdom to :Category:Towns and villages with cathedrals in the United Kingdom

:Nominator's rationale: Rename. This was originally for all cathedral towns in the UK (which according to one of the sources surprised even me where contained them). However, i've noticed that there were a couple of villages that had cathedrals and I feel a separate category would not justify this so this is to expand the scope. Simply south (talk) 18:39, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

• Comment – which are the villages? There is :Category:Settlements in the United Kingdom but not :Category:Towns and villages in the United Kingdom. Occuli (talk) 20:17, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
• This category is not to include cities. Villages which include cathedrals (apparently) include Windlesham and Clogher from what i have found so far. I also wonder if Lismore, Scotland counts? Btw the sources used for this and the main category have been the list, the various cathedral categories and City status in the United Kingdom. Simply south (talk) 20:54, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

::* Thanks. Occuli (talk) 21:05, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

• Keep Anywhere that had a medieval or CE/CofS/RC cathedral was a town at the time, eg Old Sarum. However should not this be restricted to major denominations? There are some odd cathedrals of minute groups that currently are not in the category and should not be. A rename to the traditional phrase :Category:Cathedral towns in the United Kingdom would probably be preferable. Johnbod (talk) 20:39, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
• Your suggestion makes sense but what would count as major and what as minor?

::*One could just go for Anglican/Church of Ireland/Scotland/Wales (the usual meaning of "cathedral towns") or add RCC ones - that's it for major denominations with large cathedrals in the UK. Johnbod (talk) 21:22, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

• I was thinking what to do with historical places and places with runied cathedrals. Maybe there should be :Category:Former cathedral towns in the United Kingdom. Simply south (talk) 20:59, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
• Listify and delete the category by its terms excludes places with city status, which article tells us that city status carries no official distinction. Since that is the case, the category here is a triple intersection of (a) a town or village without city status; (b) has a cathedral (any demonination, perhaps); and (c) in the UK. Since the article shows that (a) isn't much of a distinction, this is overcat. All cathedral towns can be listified and the can be sourced as perhaps tabled with data such as when the diocese was established, the current cathedral building was dedicated, which denomination it adheres to, when it broke from Rome (if at all), and current (arch)bishop. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:53, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per Carlos, listify if wanted. This seems like overcategorization for a place. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:13, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. Kittybrewster ☎ 23:24, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

----

: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. Kbdank71 16:59, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

----

:{{Lc|Spaced repetition software}}

:Nominator's rationale: Delete Category is small with no likelihood of expansion unless many non-notable flash-card applications gain advertising/spam articles that aren't deleted. Carlh (talk) 17:57, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

• Keep. SR flashcard programs are quite conceptually distinct from regular flashcard programs, and there are at least 2 indisputably notable and non-spammy ones (SuperMemo for originating it and for its coverage over decades, and Mnemosyne for the research). Seems like enough for a category to me. Not paper, after all. --Gwern (contribs) 03:30 11 March 2009 (GMT)
• Delete (listify if wanted) - Categorising by the method the software presents information? I don't see anything close to this in :Category:Educational software. ANd I just shudder at starting this as a trend... - jc37 11:21, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

----

: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. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:23, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

:{{Lc|Malls built by Edward J. DeBartolo Corporation}}

:Nominator's rationale: Delete We don't seem to have a precedent for this, so this is mostly a test-the-waters nomination. Edward J. DeBartolo Corporation doesn't even have an article, and I think it's kind of silly to categorize by that which does not exist; it's putting the cart before the horse. Also, there doesn't really seem to be a precedent for "Malls built by foo", as shopping malls can often be built by multiple developers at once (case in point, Ashland Town Center which was developed by DeBartolo, Crown American and Glimcher Realty Trust). Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 17:43, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

• Comment – there are however Edward J. DeBartolo, Sr. and Edward J. DeBartolo, Jr.. 'Developments by developer' doesn't seem wholly unreasonable ... I await other views. There is :Category:Ships built by William H. Webb but some other phrasing might be used (eg :Category:Richard Rogers buildings). Occuli (talk) 18:11, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

:*I still think it's a bit of a grey area. It's entirely possible that Edward J. DeBartolo could've been the leasing agent while another company actually built the mall, and it could be hard to verify who did what. Either way, I'm not big on parentless categories like this. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 18:35, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

::* :Category:Shopping malls in the United States is a parent, assuming these are all US. And the company merged into Simon Property Group. So there is a possible blue link. Occuli (talk) 20:20, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. This a variant of the categories deprecated at WP:OC#PERF, and it is particularly problematic in application to buildings, many of which are built by consortia, or by a prime contractor which sub-contracts all the actual work, or by a client which directly contracts a range of contractors for the different phases of construction. Just how much of the work does a business have to do to for a structure to end up in a "built by" category?
  There would be no theoretical problem with including a list at Edward J. DeBartolo Corporation, if anyone ever writes the article. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:15, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
• Delete performer by performance; although I note that we do movies by director and buildings by architect, which second may be quite similar to this category - although less high brow, perhaps. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:55, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
• Keep, rename to :Category:Edward J. DeBartolo Corporation, and reparent to :Category:Shopping malls by management company. Attempting to apply performers by performance to real estate development is a misapplication of the guideline. There's little chance that categorizing by developers would lead to category bloat. The category aids in the understanding of the company's impact on the landscape and historical role. - Eureka Lott 05:26, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
• Keep - rename per Eureka Lott. It is a stretch to shoehorn this into performer by performance. It is arguably a subcat of :Category:Simon Property Group. As to inclusion one would need a sentence, preferably sourced, such as 'this shopping mall was built/owned/managed by XXX' and most of the articles satisfy this criterion. Occuli (talk) 12:22, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - while I agree that the analogy to performer by performance is weak, categorizing property on the basis of who owns it is in the long run unworkable because property changes hands. Taking just the first mall in the category, Alderwood Mall, it's been owned and/or operated by Bartolo, the New York State Common Retirement Fund, Simon Property Group and General Growth Properties. So that's potentially four categories in the malls by owner/operator scheme, sitting in a clutterful list at the bottom of the page and not making any sense to anyone. A list which can include dates of ownership/operation is the far superior way to capture this sort of information should anyone actually be interested in it. Otto4711 (talk) 16:50, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

:*I agree 100% with what Otto said. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 21:20, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

• Delete per nom, and per the arguments above. I agree that it seems odd to have a category here when an article on the corporation doesn't yet exist, but the very concept of the category seems problematic as well. Robofish (talk) 04:14, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

----

: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. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:27, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

:{{Lc|Superstars}}

:{{Lc|Superstars competitors}}

:Nominator's rationale: Delete - the category for the show is small with no likelihood of expansion. The competitors category is performer by performance overcategorization. The competitors category was nominated for deletion once previously (at which time I argued for its retention; I've changed my mind) and closed as no consensus. If retained the show category should probably be renamed per possible ambiguity with for instance Warhol superstars. Otto4711 (talk) 17:36, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

• Delete per nom; if retained, the :Category:Superstars should be renamed as most would assume some POV based collection of high end actors, sportspeople, or singers, who are more than mere "stars". Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:57, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
• Delete both, per nom. Robofish (talk) 04:12, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

----

: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. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:32, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

:Propose renaming :Category:Labor disputes in Ireland to :Category:Labour disputes in Ireland

:Nominator's rationale: Rename to conform to the Irish spelling of "Labour", rather than the ugly vowel-starved version favoured by transpondians.

:This renaming was suggested at a CFD discussion on renaming a similar category for the United Kingdom BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:55, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:56, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
• Rename indeed per nom. Occuli (talk) 15:37, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
• Rename per proper Hiberno-English spelling. ww2censor (talk) 16:12, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
• Well I'm not a "transpondian" but why not if some countries now use labour Hugo999 (talk) 20:30, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
• Speedy rename, standard to use the relevant national variety of English. Timrollpickering (talk) 15:00, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

----

: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.