Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 November 24

< November 23 November 25 >

November 24

Category:Utopia 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: Rename. Timrollpickering (talk) 13:59, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per Utopia (band). See also Utopia (Unexpect album), Utopia (Axxis album), and the Belinda album Utopía. This was objected to on Speedy.-- Mike Selinker (talk) 19:11, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per main (Original nominator) —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:14, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all per respective main articles – I hope someone is going to put all the similar ones on this page together. Oculi (talk) 19:16, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would rather not. There was an objection on Speedy that these should be considered individually. If they all pass, then we'll see about going back to a single rule.--Mike Selinker (talk) 19:24, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep Useless and incorrect renames. It's unambiguous that "Utopia albums" are albums of a band "Utopia", not albums of a country, of albums of a video game, or whatever nonsense concepts I could invent here. The category name doesn't need to be disambiguated. Moreover, the title "Utopia (band) albums" suggests that these are albums of a band literally named "Utopia (band)". Such band does not exist: the band is called "Utopia". --LimoWreck (talk) 19:38, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename the primary meaning of Utopia is not about this band, so there is no reason to assume people will understand what the name means unless we rename.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:52, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename not about Utopia, these are not albums about utopia. -- 70.24.250.26 (talk) 05:23, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename Having the albums cat match the band cat is a sensible convention, especially when Utopia (disambiguation) lists 13 muscial uses for the word. --Qetuth (talk) 02:14, 29 November 2012 (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:UFO EPs

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. Timrollpickering (talk) 14:00, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per UFO (band) and Category:UFO (band) albums. This was objected to on Speedy.-- Mike Selinker (talk) 19:11, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per main (Original nominator, also created cat.) —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:14, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per main article and long sequence of precedents at cfd. Oculi (talk) 19:34, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep, oppose rename: rename proposal is incorrect, see nomination above --LimoWreck (talk) 19:42, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. UFO has another primary meaning, and so without the disambiguator people will assume this is connected with that meaning.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:53, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • upmerge not UFOs, these are not albums about UFOs. there's only one entry so upmerge to Category:UFO (band) albums -- 70.24.250.26 (talk) 05:23, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename Having the albums cat (or its subcats) match the band cat is a sensible convention. Distinguishes it from EPs by UFO (musician). --Qetuth (talk) 02:18, 29 November 2012 (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:Magma 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: Rename. Timrollpickering (talk) 14:01, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per Magma (band). This was objected to on Speedy.-- Mike Selinker (talk) 19:09, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per main (Original nominator) —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:14, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per main article and long sequence of precedents at cfd. Oculi (talk) 19:34, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep, oppose rename:"Magma (band) albums" suggests the band is literally called "Magma (band)", which is not the case: the band is "Magma". Also, disambiguation is not needed, as only a band has album, no other uses of Magma have albums.
  • Rename per nom. There is another primary meaning of Magma. Disambiguating in this way does not suggest the name is Magma (band), only that we have to be clear we are refering to a band with this name.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:54, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • invalid argument: only a band has album. Magma as "molten rock" doesn't release music albums. --LimoWreck (talk) 21:54, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename not Magma, these are not albums about magma -- 70.24.250.26 (talk) 05:24, 25 November 2012 (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:Faze 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: Rename. Timrollpickering (talk) 14:05, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose renaming Category:Faze albums to Category:Faze (musician) albums
  • Propose renaming Category:Faze video albums to Category:Faze (musician) video albums
Nominator's rationale: Per Faze (musician). This was objected to on Speedy.-- Mike Selinker (talk) 19:08, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per main (Original nominator) —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:14, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per main article and long sequence of precedents at cfd. Oculi (talk) 19:34, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep, oppose rename: rename proposal is incorrect, see nomination above --LimoWreck (talk) 19:42, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom to match form of the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:55, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename not about faze, these are not albums that wikt:faze people -- 70.24.250.26 (talk) 05:25, 25 November 2012 (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:Fair Warning 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: Rename. Timrollpickering (talk) 14:05, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per Fair Warning (band). See also Fair Warning (Van Halen album). This was objected to on Speedy.-- Mike Selinker (talk) 19:07, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per main (Original nominator) —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:14, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per main article and long sequence of precedents at cfd. Oculi (talk) 19:34, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep, oppose rename: rename proposal is incorrect, see nomination above --LimoWreck (talk) 19:42, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom to match form of the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:55, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • rename not albums about giving fair warning -- 70.24.250.26 (talk) 05:26, 25 November 2012 (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:Explorers Club 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: Rename. Timrollpickering (talk) 14:05, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per Explorers Club (band). This was objected to on Speedy.-- Mike Selinker (talk) 19:07, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per main (Original nominator) —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:14, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per main article and long sequence of precedents at cfd. Oculi (talk) 19:34, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep, oppose rename: rename proposal is incorrect, see nomination above --LimoWreck (talk) 19:42, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:56, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to category:Explorers Club (metal band) albums, because it will likely be mixed up with The Explorers Club (band), and this is about Explorers Club (band). Categories should not be excessively ambiguous. -- 70.24.250.26 (talk) 05:29, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sounds like good subjects for article renaming.--Mike Selinker (talk) 17:33, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Explorers Club (metal band) albums assuming the lack of an article is enough to make a disambiguation clear does not seem wise.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:48, 27 November 2012 (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:Cactus Jack 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: Rename. Timrollpickering (talk) 14:05, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per Cactus Jack (band). This was objected to on Speedy.-- Mike Selinker (talk) 19:05, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per main (Original nominator) —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:14, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per main article and long sequence of precedents at cfd. Oculi (talk) 19:34, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep, oppose rename: rename proposal is incorrect, see nomination above --LimoWreck (talk) 19:42, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:56, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • rename it's not Cactus Jack, nor albums about Cactus Jack -- 70.24.250.26 (talk) 05:30, 25 November 2012 (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:Bada 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: Rename. Timrollpickering (talk) 14:05, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per Bada (singer). This was objected to on Speedy.-- Mike Selinker (talk) 19:04, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per main (Original nominator) —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:14, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per main article and long sequence of precedents at cfd. Oculi (talk) 19:34, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep, oppose rename: rename proposal is incorrect, see nomination above --LimoWreck (talk) 19:42, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:56, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • rename not about Bada or many other Bada (disambiguation). -- 70.24.250.26 (talk) 05:31, 25 November 2012 (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:Back Street Crawler 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: Rename. Timrollpickering (talk) 14:05, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per Back Street Crawler (band). This was objected to on Speedy.-- Mike Selinker (talk) 19:02, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per main (Original nominator) —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:14, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per main article and long sequence of precedents at cfd. Oculi (talk) 19:34, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep, oppose rename: rename proposal is incorrect, see nomination above --LimoWreck (talk) 19:42, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:57, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename highly ambiguous. This could collect articles about various versions of Back Street Crawler (album) -- 70.24.250.26 (talk) 05:33, 25 November 2012 (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:Autograph (band) 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: Rename. Timrollpickering (talk) 14:05, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per Autograph (American band). See also Autograph (Russian band) and John Denver's Autograph (album). This was objected to on Speedy.-- Mike Selinker (talk) 19:02, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per main (Original nominator) —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:14, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per main article and long sequence of precedents at cfd. Oculi (talk) 19:34, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep, oppose rename: rename proposal is incorrect, see nomination above --LimoWreck (talk) 19:42, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Response What? Why? What are you talking about? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:50, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply is this just a formulaic opinion without reading the nomination? -- 70.24.250.26 (talk) 05:33, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename this one. Some sort of disambiguation is required here as there are two bands with the same name, even if the Russian band doesn't have any articles for its albums. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 20:23, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. This is ambiguous on too many levels to believe we could ever keep the current name.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:58, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename highly ambiguous, this will just collect articles at random. -- 70.24.250.26 (talk) 05:33, 25 November 2012 (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:Atmosphere video 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: Rename. Timrollpickering (talk) 14:05, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose renaming Category:Atmosphere video albums to Category:Atmosphere (music group) video albums
Nominator's rationale: Per Atmosphere (music group). See also Atmosphere (Eloy Fritsch album) and Atmosphere (Sevenglory album). This was objected to on Speedy.-- Mike Selinker (talk) 19:01, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per main (Original nominator) —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:14, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per main article and long sequence of precedents at cfd. Oculi (talk) 19:34, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep, oppose rename: rename proposal is incorrect, see nomination above --LimoWreck (talk) 19:42, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per main article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:58, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename this isn't a collection category for various white noise or rain/wind/etc albums -- 70.24.250.26 (talk) 05:34, 25 November 2012 (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:Arcturus 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: Rename. Timrollpickering (talk) 14:05, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per Arcturus (band). This was objected to on Speedy.-- Mike Selinker (talk) 19:00, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per main (Original nominator) —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:14, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per main article and long sequence of precedents at cfd. Oculi (talk) 19:34, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep, oppose rename: rename proposal is incorrect, see nomination above --LimoWreck (talk) 19:42, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. There is no reason to not match the disambiguation of the main article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:59, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is type of category name where there is absolutely no possible ambiguity. Arcturus may be ambiguious but a category for albums by Arcturus are not. I understand the rationale for wanting to change it but I see absolutely no reason how someone would not get what was in here or supposed to be put in here. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 01:04, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • In many contexts, it does help users to have the name of a thing (a band) be the same in category names as it is in the article about the thing. The rename will accomplish that. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:56, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename this isn't about Arcturus or albums about it. -- 70.24.250.26 (talk) 05:35, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • If there was even one of those, I might agree with you here. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 07:53, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's a category, not an article, so will collect things and need maintenance, which is why categories should not be ambiguous. We cannot predict what articles people will write and then categorize improperly because people don't read category descriptions when using HotCat or something else. -- 70.24.250.26 (talk) 06:15, 26 November 2012 (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:Aqualung 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: Rename. Timrollpickering (talk) 14:05, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per Aqualung (musician). See also Aqualung (Jethro Tull album). This was objected to on Speedy.-- Mike Selinker (talk) 18:40, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per main (Original nominator) —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:14, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per main article and long sequence of precedents at cfd. Oculi (talk) 19:34, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep, oppose rename: rename proposal is incorrect, see nomination above --LimoWreck (talk) 19:42, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:59, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • rename this isn't about scubadiving albums -- 70.24.250.26 (talk) 05:36, 25 November 2012 (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:Anorexia Nervosa 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: Rename. Timrollpickering (talk) 14:05, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per Anorexia Nervosa (band). This was objected to on Speedy.-- Mike Selinker (talk) 18:39, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per main (Original nominator) —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:14, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per main article and long sequence of precedents at cfd. Oculi (talk) 19:34, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep, oppose rename: rename proposal is incorrect, see nomination above --LimoWreck (talk) 19:42, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • rename this isn't about albums about anorexia. -- 70.24.250.26 (talk) 05:36, 25 November 2012 (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:The Answer 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: Rename. Timrollpickering (talk) 14:05, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per The Answer (band). See also Gloria Gaynor's The Answer (album). This was objected to on Speedy.-- Mike Selinker (talk) 18:38, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per main (Original nominator) —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:15, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per main article and long sequence of precedents at cfd. Oculi (talk) 19:34, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep, oppose rename: rename proposal is incorrect, see nomination above --LimoWreck (talk) 19:42, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:59, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • rename this isn't about categorizing various versions of The Answer (album) -- 70.24.250.26 (talk) 05:37, 25 November 2012 (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:Ania 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: Rename. Timrollpickering (talk) 14:05, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per Ania (singer). This was objected to on Speedy.-- Mike Selinker (talk) 18:37, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per main (Original nominator) —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:15, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per main article and long sequence of precedents at cfd. Oculi (talk) 19:34, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep, oppose rename: rename proposal is incorrect, see nomination above --LimoWreck (talk) 19:42, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:00, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • rename this isn't about albums about ania (flowers or moths, etc) -- 70.24.250.26 (talk) 05:38, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all of the above nominations. There is no good reason given for an album category not to match the performers article name - the "it sounds like the actual name of the band includes (band)" argument seems rather frivolous when (band) is included in the far more important article name and this is due to a standard wikipedia naming convention, and the "no disambiguation is needed, albums must be for a band" argument is outright wrong when several of the above nominations DO have other uses on their disambiguation page which could have albums, including other musicians, video games, movies etc. It does not feel like much thought has been put into these opposes. --Qetuth (talk) 02:39, 29 November 2012 (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:Andra 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: Rename. Timrollpickering (talk) 14:05, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per Alexandra Govere. This was objected to on Speedy.-- Mike Selinker (talk) 18:35, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per main (Original nominator) —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:15, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per main article and long sequence of precedents at cfd. Oculi (talk) 19:34, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep, oppose rename: rename proposal is incorrect, see nomination above --LimoWreck (talk) 19:42, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply you do know that this is nomination is quite different from the others? It isn't just adding a disambiguatory term to the title -- 70.24.250.26 (talk) 05:39, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:00, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per name of article but for not having much of a musical career as "Andra" to date. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 00:55, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per main article. --Qetuth (talk) 02:51, 29 November 2012 (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:Hawaiian philanthropists

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:Kingdom of Hawaii philanthropists.---Mike Selinker (talk) 18:16, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename Category:Hawaiian philanthropists to Category:Philanthropists of the Kingdom of Hawaii
  • Nominator's rationale we avoid the adjectival form with people from states, thus we would have Category:Philanthropists from Hawaii. However all four articles in this particular category are one people who were subjects of the Kingdom of Hawaii, 3 of them dieing while that kingdom still existed and the fourth clearly connected with it even though she lived after its end. This category could then be made a subcat of Category:People of the Kingdom of Hawaii.John Pack Lambert(talk) 19:01, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The category is currently a subcat of Category:Philanthropists by nationality which suggests that the intention is to have it be for people of Hawaii when it was a seperate nation, so the more clear name would be helpful. This was how it was placed when created in Febuary of 2009.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:03, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - reveal the territorial entity. ChemTerm (talk) 00:23, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose proposed format. If changed, it should be Category:Kingdom of Hawaii philanthropists since the scheme is "FOOian philanthropists". Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:06, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Except we have Category:People of the Kingdom of Hawaii. It seems there is a view that it is just too odd to put Kingdom of Hawaii directly with an adjective, so we have in general done the form in the opposite order.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:44, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • That category does not need to stay named that way. To follow the standard format, it should be Category:Kingdom of Hawaii people. I don't think it's odd at all, considering the other similarly named categories out there. I can't see that it's actually been discussed before, so I'm not sure where you are getting your assessment that "there is a view" that such a rename would be "too odd." Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:58, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • The vast majority of categories for both kingdoms and empires use the form People of x place. I think this is a much better form, and it is the form we use. See Category:People of the Mughal Empire, Category:People of the Ottoman Empire and many others.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:05, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • You have claimed that (in your first sentence) before, but it simply is not true. There are as many—if not more—that use the "FOO people" or "FOOs" format. Currently there is no consistency with those countries that include the word "Empire" in the name. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:08, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Kingdom of Hawaii philanthropists. The current name will not work, we no more do Hawaiian categories than we do Utahn categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:00, 1 December 2012 (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:Native Hawaiian Latter Day Saints

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:Kingdom of Hawaii Latter Day Saints.--Mike Selinker (talk) 18:18, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename Category:Native Hawaiian Latter Day Saints to Category:Latter Day Saints of the Kingdom of Hawaii
  • Nominator's rationale We have a whole system of Category:Latter Day Saints by nationality which this category was created to be part of (I know, I created it under the name Category:Hawaiian Latter Day Saints). We do not have any other categories that would be part of Category:Latter Day Saints by nationality. As it is the most notable person in this category, Jonathan Napela, does not fit in it with its current hierarchy, because he is not an American, since he lived his entirely life as a citzen of the Kingdom of Hawaii. This works as part of Category:People of the Kingdom of Hawaii and Category:Christians of the Kingdom of Hawaii.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:52, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - reveal the territorial entity. ChemTerm (talk) 00:22, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - per WP:SMALLCAT; there are only three entries in the current category, two of whom would not be appropriately categorized by the new category, as they were born long after the demise of the Kingdom of Hawaii, so the new category would contain only one member (and are there really that many other LDS who lived in Hawaii during the period prior to American annexation?) Dezastru (talk) 10:10, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Small cat rules suggest this cat as it is should be deleted, it is not part of any schema. If renamed it would be part of a large scale schema that would allow its existence even with only one article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:51, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • If kept, rename to Category:Kingdom of Hawaii Latter Day Saints. The standard convention is "FOOian Latter Day Saints", with "FOO Latter Day Saints" being used when there is no acceptable adjective. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:10, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not people by religion by former country, please. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 07:03, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge: Category is too narrow pbp 18:04, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Where would you merge it? How is this any more narrow than any other by nationality Latter Day Saints category?John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:39, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am willing to accept deletion of this category. Napela is now in the Kingdom of Hawaii people category, and the other two should be in the American Latter Day Saints category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:00, 11 December 2012 (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.

People associated with Macquarie Island

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: purge and merge to Category:Macquarie Island. There's no consensus for a "from" category given the lack of population, but some of these Macquarie-related articles have to go somewhere.--Mike Selinker (talk) 22:34, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename Category:People associated with Macquarie Island to Category:People from Macquarie Island
  • Nominator's rationale This will make it a natural child cat of Category:People from Tasmania.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:41, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Nobody is from Macquarie Island in the sense of being born, having spent a significant part of their life, or being permanently resident there, certainly not Lachlan Macquarie after whom the island was named. It seems to me that the current category name is more accurate than the proposed one. Maias (talk) 22:57, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support and remove Lachlan Macquarie. George Washington would end up in dozens of categories "..associated with" if name-giving would be used for categorization. ChemTerm (talk) 00:20, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Usually I would be all for ditching 'associated' categories, but 'from' makes no sense when its article claims 0 population. --Qetuth (talk) 02:59, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:People associated with Cottingham, East Riding of Yorkshire

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: merge and purge.--Mike Selinker (talk) 22:35, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Category:People associated with Cottingham, East Riding of Yorkshire to Category:People from Cottingham, East Riding of Yorkshire
  • Merge Category:People associated with Ibiza to Category:People from Ibiza
  • Nominator's rationale from is a more versatile term than some seem to think. If someone's connection with these places is of such a nature that it is worth categorizing, it would generally fit within an accepted use of the term "from".John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:33, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suppport and then rename "from" to "of". ChemTerm (talk) 00:18, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support then purge of any associates who were not from there. Oppose change to "of": "from" is usual for such categories. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:02, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:People associated with the Tiwi Islands

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:Tiwi Islands people and purge. The general form of these is "(X) people."--Mike Selinker (talk) 22:38, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename Category:People associated with the Tiwi Islands to Category:People of the Tiwi Islands
  • Nominator's arationale of is a clearer and better way to phrase this.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:28, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is the nom opting for 'of' in some cases and 'from' in others? Oculi (talk) 19:19, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment At some level I am not convinced these are different. I have gone with from and of in some cases because there are clear examples of sisters that use one or the other form. This category I did not see any easy to identify sisters, so I went with of since the current category seems to include people who only have an association with the place, but I would be perfectly happy with either form as the eventual name.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:03, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Why change the name of a category to a narrower and less inclusive one? The people after whom the islands were named never went there, though they do have a valid association with them. It seems to me that the current category name is more accurate than the proposed one. Maias (talk) 23:02, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • By naming logic George Washington would end up in dozens of categories for places he never has been. Please no. ChemTerm (talk) 00:11, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support short form. Both names are vague. ChemTerm (talk) 00:11, 25 November 2012 (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.

People of Spain by autonomous community subcats

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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 22:41, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename Category:Andalusian people to Category:People from Andalusia
  • Rename Category:Aragonese people to Category:People from Aragon
  • Rename Category:Asturian people to Category:People from Asturias
  • Rename Category:Balearic people to Category:People from the Balearic Islands
  • Rename Category:Canarian people to Category:People from the Canary Islands
  • Rename Category:Castilian-La Mancha people to Category:People from Castile-La Mancha
  • Rename Category:Castilian-Leonese people to Category:People from Castile-Leon
  • Rename Category:Catalan people to Category:People from Catalonia
  • Rename Category:Extremaduran people to Category:People from Extremadura
  • Rename Category:Madrilenian people to Category:People from Madrid (autonomous community)
  • Rename Category:Murcian people to Category:People from Murcia (autonomous community)
  • Rename Category:Riojan people to Category:People from La Rioja
  • Rename Category:Navarrese people to Category:People from Navarre
  • Rename Category:Valencian people to Category:People from Valencia (autonomous community)
  • Nominator's rationale This is one of only two subcats of Category:People by first-level administraive subdivisions of countries that does not use the from form. It is also problematic becuase in the articles on some of these terms they are described as ethnic identifiers, and yet here we are using them to identify people by their place of origin. After the renaming it might be wroth while to recreate some of these categories as ethnic categories as well.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:22, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Use "People of/from Fooplace" everywhere. ChemTerm (talk) 00:13, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - as I'm sure the proposer is well aware, Spain, the UK, Belgium, and a few other political states composed of different nationalities, are very special (and topical) cases. Unless and until a more cogent proposal can be produced, leave well alone. Incidentally, I note that the Spanish (Castillian)-language Wikipedia names these cats: Category:Catalans (Categoría:Catalanes), etc. --Mais oui! (talk) 05:08, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. These are nationalities, and the accepted form for nationalities is "FOOian people". Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:57, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support being Madrilenian is a nationality? BS! There is no procedure to change one's "nationality" from one of these places to another, unlike changing from being Spanish to being Belgian. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 07:06, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just because a nationality is not currently recognized in international law does not mean that it is not a nationality, especially when one considers the views of those who claim and self-identify with the nationality. By your logic, "English", "Scottish", and "Welsh" are also not nationalities. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:05, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose (if only for now), as it goes against naming convention Mayumashu (talk) 21:53, 29 November 2012 (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:Aragonese Empire people

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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 22:44, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename Category:Aragonese Empire people to Category:People of the Aragonese Empire
  • Nominator's rationale This will match such forms insimilar categories as Category:People of the Ottoman Empire. The current form is extremely hard to disect, and arguably would be better as Imperial Aragonese people than it currently is, but the suggested target seems the best formation.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:58, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I also suspect that we maybe should remove this as a subcat of Category:Aragonese people since that is part of Category:People by autonomous community in Spain, but that is a mess I am not sure can easily be solved.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:58, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. "People of Foo Empire" everywhere. ChemTerm (talk) 18:12, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. "FOOian people" (or simply "FOO people" when there is no decent adjectival version) is the standard for people of/from particular countries, not "People of FOO", so we should be moving things in the opposite direction. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:27, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Except with empires, the form used is almost always "people of x empire".John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:09, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • That is simply not true, from what I can see. There seems to be no consistency one way or the other. But even if it were true, I'm not convinced it should be that way, which is my point. And I see a large percentage of those are the result of unilateral out-of-process moves and other such shenanigans. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:15, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose -- Most of the articles seem to be on ruling counts of Aragon; indeed "crown of Aragon" is a parent. I am not clear what the scope of this category is supposed to be. Presumably it is intended to cover Aragon and possessions of that kingdom, such as Naples, but this ought to be done by having somethign that is primarily a container category. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:07, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • New Proposal The main aritcle is actually at Crown of Aragon. Maybe we should rename this to Category:Crown of Aragon people, there are also a few bio articles at Category:Crown of Aragon that could then be moved here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:19, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Suggest Category:Rulers of Aragon - which would cover both counts and kings. To the extnet that there are other members of the ruling family in the category, we may also need Category:Ruling family of Aragon. In theory this may be too vague, but I suspect that in practice we will only ever have articles on queens and countesses and infants/infantas, so that the difficulty will not actually arise. Courtiers and officials are probably better categorised under the province or provinces where they operated. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:32, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Actually, several of the people currently in the category are daughters of the Royal Family of Aragon who were Queens Consort of other places. However Crown of Aragon is about a domain. Category:Crown of Aragon has an article on Roger of Lauria for example who was an admiral in the service of the Corwn of Aragon when its domians also included much of southern Italy.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:46, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:People associated with Gloucester

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: merge Category:People associated with Gloucester to Category:People from Gloucester.--Mike Selinker (talk) 22:48, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename Category:People associated with Gloucester to Category:People of Gloucester
  • Rename Category:People from Gloucester to Category:People of Gloucester thus merging these two.
  • Nominator's rationale The reason for the first category seems to be that some people are "of" the place without being "from" the place. There may be some people in this category and its subcats who fit such an argument. However none of the subcategories are likely to only have people who only have a connection to the place without meeting the definition of being from there. I am not sure there is a good explanation for the difference between there terms, but it seems some people assume "from" requires having been raised in a place. I think this is just too find a distinction, and I think we can reasonably describe everything we want to with "of", so I think we should go to that one category with that as the clear name.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:38, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Even from is not precise: 'I just arrived "from Liverpool"'. ChemTerm (talk) 18:05, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – leave the second one alone. We have the fully-fledged system Category:People by city or town in England and I see no reason whatever to introduce an 'of' into it. (Not many editors have seen any point to Category:People associated with places so the first could be deleted without great loss.) Oculi (talk) 19:12, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose changing the second one per Oculi. I could also see deleting the first one. Category:People associated with places has only a weak justification for existence. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:24, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Category:People from Gloucester and Merge Category:People associated with Gloucester to Category:History of Gloucester Mayumashu (talk) 21:58, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think that would make things worse. We generally avoid putting biographical articles into history cats.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:15, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Category:People associated with Gloucester into Category:People from Gloucester. The "from" form is well-established for categories. Bishops, abbots, mayors, Rugby players for the city team are all "from" there, even if they never left. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:11, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • New Vote I think that merging Category:People associated with Gloucester into Category:People from Gloucester is probably the best move at this point.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:25, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:People associated with the Dutch Gold Coast

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:Dutch Gold Coast people.--Mike Selinker (talk) 22:49, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename Category:People associated with the Dutch Gold Coast to Category:People of the Dutch Gold Coast
  • Nominator's rationale Of is a more clear and concise way of expressing connection. This will follow the precedent of Category:People of British India and Category:People of the Dutch East Indies.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:29, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. ChemTerm (talk) 18:05, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alternative - merge into / create Category:History of the Dutch Gold Coast Mayumashu (talk) 21:59, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Dutch Gold Coast people to match naming convention. Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:00, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • New Vote rename to Category:Dutch Gold Coast people.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:08, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:People associated with Gibraltar

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: merge and purge. There's no clear direction on whether to merge the target category with Category:Gibraltarian people, but that might make sense.--Mike Selinker (talk) 22:52, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The target category was reverse merged to Category:Gibraltarian people in a CfD started after this one, so I have altered the deal to merge to that category. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:46, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Category:People associated with Gibraltar to Category:People from Gibraltar

or possibly rename both to Category:People of Gibraltar.

  • Nominator's rationale We go for strong and clear words like "from". We use this for people who lived in a place and became notable for their association with the place, whether or not they were born there. There may however be an argument that in the case of Gibraltar the term "of" will better convey this.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:25, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. Also support for standardizing on "of". Even "from" is not precise: 'I just arrived "from Liverpool"'. ChemTerm (talk) 18:06, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose changing "from" to "of". "from FOO" is a long-standing categorization naming convention and should not be changed in a few categories here and there just to satisfy a pedantic precision. Change them all or don't change any of them. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:08, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • The problem is that Gibraltar is not at the same level as most praces that we use "from" with. We use "of" with a lot of places that are quasi-national, we have categories like Category:People of British India and Category:People of the Dutch East Indies. Of seems a much better form for quasi-national places.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:14, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Gibraltar is not "quasi-national". The sole reason "of" might work with colonies is that it may be said that not everyone "of" there is actually "from" there—the home country sends a lot of government workers to the colony, etc. In any case, I would not generally support the "of" form, even for colonies. It would be much better to just use Category:British India people and the like to avoid the issue altogether. But anyway, Gibraltar is not a colony in the same way British India was. It is an overseas British territory. Most of the people "of" Gibraltar are indeed "from" Gibraltar. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:19, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge to Category:People from Gibralter as there does not seem to be a distinction between the two categories and their content and 'from' is what WP uses for political entites of all kinds. Hmains (talk) 05:42, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question I just noticed we also have Category:Gibraltarian people. Is that actually different enough from Category:People from Gibraltar to have both, or should we merge this category into Category:Gibraltarian people? I really am not sure.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:18, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all into Category:People from Gibraltar, which can adequately cover residents, expatriates, etc. "People from" is a well-establsihed category form. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:13, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:People associated with the Two Scicilies

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:Kingdom of the Two Sicilies people.--Mike Selinker (talk) 22:54, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename Category:People associated with the Two Sicilies to ;Category:People of the Two Scicilies
Scicilies - spelling mistake? (Remove this question when changed)ChemTerm (talk) 18:11, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nominator's rationale This will make it match most of its child articles, which use the of form, and such sister cats in Category:People of former countries that have forms like Category:People of the Ottoman Empire.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:18, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Possibly rename to "Category:People of the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies" per Kingdom of the Two Sicilies. ChemTerm (talk) 18:10, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Kingdom of the Two Sicilies people. The general practice is to tack people on the end of such category names.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:07, 7 December 2012 (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:Months of the Afghan calendar

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. Timrollpickering (talk) 14:10, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. This is a subcategory to Category:Months of the Solar Hijri calendar. There is no special Afghan calender. Furthermore there are also Afghan Dari names: Solar Hijri calendar#Month names. ChemTerm (talk) 13:54, 24 November 2012 (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:Nip/Tuck templates

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: Merge. Timrollpickering (talk) 14:09, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: per WP:OC#SMALLCAT. Alternatively it could be renamed to Category:Nip/Tuck navigational boxes per C2C. Armbrust The Homonculus 12:04, 24 November 2012 (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.

Prison Break

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/Rename. Timrollpickering (talk) 14:08, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose deleting Category:Prison Break templates (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: WP:OC#SMALLCAT. Upmerging of the episodes subcategory isn't necessary. Armbrust The Homonculus 12:00, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose renaming Category:Prison Break episodes templates to Category:Prison Break episodes navigational boxes
Nominator's rationale: Every member of the category is a navigational box. Armbrust The Homonculus 11:59, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete virtually empty category. rename other category -- 70.24.250.26 (talk) 04:52, 25 November 2012 (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:24 (TV series) templates

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: Merge. Timrollpickering (talk) 14:07, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: per WP:OC#SMALLCAT. Alternatively it could be renamed to Category:24 (TV series) navigational boxes per C2C. Armbrust The Homonculus 11:51, 24 November 2012 (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:Canadian Football League on television templates

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: Merge. Timrollpickering (talk) 14:07, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: per WP:OC#SMALLCAT. Alternatively it could be renamed to Category:Canadian Football League on television navigational boxes per C2C. Armbrust The Homonculus 11:45, 24 November 2012 (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:Gilmore Girls navigational boxes

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: upmerge.--Mike Selinker (talk) 07:54, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose deleting Category:Gilmore Girls navigational boxes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge to all parents. WP:SMALLCAT, only three entries (I've also nominated all three templates to be merged together into one template). 70.24.250.26 (talk) 06:54, 24 November 2012 (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 World Communications television stations

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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 19:09, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category seems superfluous; most of the stations being categorized here are already mentioned in the main New World Pictures article or mention New World ownership in article text, the company itself is twelve years defunct, and the stations mentioned in the category were de facto thought of in the public at the time as effectively owned by Fox with the only ones caring about ownership being broadcast enthusiasts and the FCC. A case of overcategorization. Nate • (chatter) 03:52, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: If w:Category:Metromedia exists, then this category might have merit. If you delete this, you would also have to delete that one. Or rename this to New World Communications. Fairly OddParents Freak (Fairlyoddparents1234) 19:59, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Metromedia was part of a lineage going back to DuMont. This had a lineage coming out of a bunch of random stations liquidated by private equity and had no real impact in the broadcasting industry beyond Trojaning Fox into more homes. I see no reason for this category to be needed and again, all of the stations are listed in the NWP article already. Nate • (chatter) 20:54, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment'' Do you have to be strict or can we just rename the category to list all assets held by New World? Fairly OddParents Freak (Fairlyoddparents1234) 23:23, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, the past is as important as the present. Common misconceptions do not belong here. Rich Farmbrough, 23:39, 14 December 2012 (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:Users who have a lot of links on there UserPage

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. Timrollpickering (talk) 14:06, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose deleting Category:Users who have a lot of links on there UserPage (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: This seems unneeded. At the very least, I believe it should be renamed with the "Wikipedians who X" schema (or whatever it is that is used). Killiondude (talk) 01:12, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete Categorizes one person's user page, so it seems more a comment on that rather than a genuine category. Obviously "a lot of" is an imprecise standard, and I don't see how collecting any who nebulously qualify does anything towards the project. Mangoe (talk) 02:55, 24 November 2012 (UTC) I entirely agree on renaming. I think it is too lengthy. Evoogd20 (talk) 02:57, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Could we add more pages or also have Wikipedia articles? Evoogd20 (talk) 03:00, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete—Not a category that is conducive to improving the encyclopaedia. There is also the problem of what "a lot" precisely means along with the spelling of "their". Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:35, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete For the incorrect spelling of "their". Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 10:31, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not helpful in collaboration. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:16, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this is not helpful for collaboration.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:07, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: What the fu*k?! Lamest. Category. Ever. Really unnecessary. Fairly OddParents Freak (Fairlyoddparents1234) 16:48, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As stated on its page, a lot means 100+.Evoogd20 (talk) 03:20, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete not a useful thing to categorize. --Qetuth (talk) 03:12, 29 November 2012 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_November_24&oldid=1136102943"