Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 July 31

: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:Compilation albums of number-one songs - jc37 21:00, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

:* Propose renaming :Category:Number ones compilation albums to :Category:Albums of number-one hits by artist :Category:Compilation albums of number-one songs

:Nominator's rationale: Rename. This failed a recent CFD, but the category is still oddly named, so here is my suggestion. Maybe a better one can be determined by consensus. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 23:36, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

• Rename, suggest :Category:Albums of number-one songs by artist following :Category:Lists of number-one songs (which I have added as a head cat). The national sub-cats have a mixture of lists of number-one "hits", "singles" and "songs", and the head category is :Category:Number-one singles, but I suggest that "songs" would be best. "By artist" is quite clever; it's not what we normally mean by "by foo" i.e. a group of sub-cats by foo, but it makes it clear enough that each album in the category must be by a single artist. – Fayenatic London 18:37, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
• Rename to :Category:Albums of number-one hits. The "by artist" is misleading; that term is normally reserved for container categories.--Mike Selinker (talk) 03:44, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
• Rename to :Category:Compilation albums of number-one songs and revise scope. The category's current scope—compilation albums of number-one songs by a single artist—is needlessly narrow. We should expand its scope to include any compilation album of number-one songs.
  If we are to retain the single-artist bit, then we need to consider three factors: (1) we should indicate that the albums categorized are compilation albums (see :Category:Compilation albums); (2) we should use number-one songs instead of the more ambiguous number-one hits; and (3) we must indicate that the category includes only albums of songs by a single artist. And, thus, we are left with: :Category:Compilation albums of number-one songs by a single artist. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 22:00, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
• :I like Black Falcon's suggestions. No reason to exclude something that actually fits the criteria. "Songs" is probably better than "hits". --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 00:15, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
• Rename, sure. But do not fiddle with the scope - the category is there for the specific phenomenon of number-ones albums by a single artist initiated by the Beatles' #1 album in 2000. How about :Category:Compilation albums of number-one songs by a single artist? If you then feel the need to have :Category:Compilation albums of number-one songs by various artists, you can add it. ProhibitOnions ^(T) 07:46, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
• :Not likely to be greatly populated either way. --19:58, 16 August 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk • contribs)
• :I'd like to ask, earnestly and without any hint of sarcasm: What's special about compilation albums of number-one songs by a single artist? (I note my motivation only because I know how text can be misconstrued and how difficult it is to convey tone in written form.) Is this a distinct, recognized (by reliable sources) topic of interest? -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 20:38, 16 August 2012 (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: reverse merge: :Category:United States soccer logos into :Category:American soccer logos. As noted by choster, the use of 'American' to mean 'of the United States' is an established practice across Wikipedia, and we would need a strong consensus, which is not present in this discussion, in order to justify an exception. :Category:United States soccer logos would be appropriate if the overall convention of :Category:Association football logos was changed from Fooian ... logos to Foo logos (e.g. :Category:German football logos to :Category:Germany football logos). -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 21:42, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

:* Propose merging :Category:American soccer logos to :Category:United States soccer logos

:Nominator's rationale: Two categories covering identical fields with different names, sadly a problem of my own making over four years ago. I suggest using United States soccer logos as American soccer logos is an ambiguous name. Malpass⁹₃! (what I've been ^up to/_drop me a ^___) 15:49, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

• Support Notwithstanding the MoS on this issue, I have a weak preference for calling the merged category USA soccer logos, as the proposed name might imply that the category is for logos directly relating to U.S. Soccer. But this merge is better than the status quo. —WFC— 18:23, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support - I think this suggested title is fine, since the "soccer" starts with a lower case letter, so the resemblance to US Soccer is minimised. – PeeJay 06:29, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
• Reverse merge to :Category:American soccer logos. American is the universal demonymic adjective in Wikipedia for topics relating to the United States of America— as this usage happens to be the almost exclusive use of the term in any variety of the English language— and there is no reason why this category should be different from [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3APrefixIndex&prefix=American&namespace=14|all the others].- choster (talk) 23:05, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
• Reverse merge we use American as the denonym in almost all cases (the acceptions relate to actual connection to the government of the United States).John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:32, 3 August 2012 (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: Speedy rename C2B. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:22, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

:* Propose renaming :Category:Elevators of the world to :Category:Individual elevators

:Nominator's rationale: Rename. This seems to be the normal naming for grouping individual examples of something. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:13, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

• Rename per nom. Tim! (talk) 05:59, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
• Speedy rename C2B. – Fayenatic London 18:40, 1 August 2012 (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.