Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 July 15

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, without prejudice to creating a new category as suggested by the nominator. I will move the sub-cat up. Here is a link to the diffs, to facilitate populating the replacement. – Fayenatic London 09:06, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Girl_Scouts_of_the_USA_members to Category:Girl Scouts of the USA people or Category:People associated with the Girl Scouts of the USA

Nominator's rationale: We shouldn't have a broad category of anyone who was a girl scout. Instead we should rescope this to cover people who worked for or were closely associated with the girl scouts. After renaming it will need to be purged accordingly. A similar category is at Category:People associated with the Boy Scouts of America--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:26, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete not defining - Category:Girl Scouts of the USA leaders might be. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:32, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete We do not have similar categories for membership in other youth organizations. Category:Eagle Scouts might be seen as similar, but since the eagle is the top rank in the organization, that requires a significant commitment of both membership time and personal resources, it is more than just membership, and so not comparable. Whether we really should have that category is probably debatable, but it is a different issue than this one.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:23, 26 July 2014 (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.

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. They are all inat least one of the other categories mentioned, so no merge is needed. – Fayenatic London 09:28, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Palestinianist groups (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: I'm not sure what this category is for. This seems like a subset of Category:Palestinian militant groups (non-militant groups?). This is parallel to Category:Palestinian organizations and organizations is the naming convention, not groups. Ricky81682 (talk) 19:47, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- They all look like militant groups to me. If any are non-militant they belong in the organisations category. We do not need a third one. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:10, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per User:Peterkingiron.Also because "Palestinianist" is not a word. (Is it based on "Islamist"? Does it mean anything other than Palestinian nationalist?)
  • Query: If this category is disbanded, who performs the act of reassigning its member pages to either of the existing categories mentioned in the Nominator's rationale? Presumably this requires assessing the page to determine whether the group is militant (supporting armed action to achieve its ends) vs. a non-militant nationalist organization? -- Deborahjay (talk) 07:26, 31 July 2014 (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.

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 to Category:Fictional female detectives, also to the other parent Category:Fictional amateur detectives just in case. – Fayenatic London 17:34, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Fictional girl detectives (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  to Category:Fictional female detectives

Nominator's rationale: Not a needed split. JDDJS (talk) 17:16, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• merge per nom. No need to separate the women from the girls as it were.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:17, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the notion of the "girl detective" exists apart from adult female detectives. The fact that the girl detective is both female and not an adult is key to the genre. Since many of the popular girl detectives are adolescent girls, the entire genre can be considered as allegorical of the transition from child to adult female and the mysteries as a displacement for the protagonist's inability to publicly express her sexual maturity due to the mores of the time. Nigel Pap (talk) 21:05, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It all depends on how you define adult. Nancy Drew was re-written to be 18, and in later works she goes off to college. Any of the contents of this category will also need to be in the parent, so it's rather pointless just to separate out the ones who are sometimes written a bit younger. Is Daphne from scooby doo a girl, or a woman? We only rarely have age-specific categories, we only have a few in Category:Children by occupation, but here we're dealing with fictional characters, whose categories already blossom like crazy, so I see little value in separating further here.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:40, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The idea of the "girl detective" is the basis of many scholarly papers. Is that not enough to establish the validity of a category? Nigel Pap (talk) 22:34, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't put the quotes in right. The actual results for "girl detective" is far fewer and almost half of those are about Nancy Drew, which as Obi-Wan said, is debatable whether or not to even include. JDDJS (talk) 23:39, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for fixing the quotes. I think 1,160 results proves my point even if half of them were about Nancy Drew. And Obi-Wan Kenobi is very very wrong about Nancy Drew. (By the way, that series of books now goes by the title Girl Detective.) Nigel Pap (talk) 02:38, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Only 53 have girl detective in the title. If it's not in the title, it's probably not the basis of the paper. JDDJS (talk) 13:56, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that is a fair assumption, but if Google Scholar lists 53 papers with the phrase "girl detective" in the title, that demonstrates that it is a known and studied term. What else do you want? What is the harm that this category is causing? Nigel Pap (talk) 14:25, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I want evidence of a significant diference between women detectives and girl detectives that proves that we need separate them. JDDJS (talk) 23:17, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The trouble is that "girl detectives" are a distinct type of "amateur detective" not a special type of "women detective". Adult male and female detectives have much more in common than either does with girl detectives (or boy detectives). You do not seem to understand the genre differences, yet you wish to delete the category based on your ignorance. If the evidence already found is not convincing you, what would? Nigel Pap (talk) 03:27, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep "girl detective" and "boy detective" are subgenres of detective fiction, stereotypically exemplified by the Hardy Boys and Nancy Drew. They once frequently appear in cartoons. So fictional characters of these types should be a distinguishing characteristic. -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 05:34, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge do Nancy Drew stories after she turns 18 move into another genre (or whatever is the age or adulthood in your jurisdiction)? Hardly, Boys. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:34, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You mean like in Girl Detective? No, she is still a girl detective. Nigel Pap (talk) 04:05, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – It's unclear why there should be this subcategory and not a counterpart Category:Fictional boy detectives. And if we're to differentiate child characters from adult characters, then Category:Fictional female detectives will need to renaming to "mature females" or "women". The same will be true for the boys and men (and I'm not sure about the elderly). I don't see how any of that would really serve the project. The only compelling academic argument for any such subdivision is to separate juvenile literature from adult. A new Fictional Detectives subcat of Category:Detectives in youth fiction (or some equivalent) seems to be what's needed. SteveStrummer (talk) 02:43, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge The fact that Nancy Drew has been written to be 18 and then later go off to college shows that this is not a permanent trait of the characters involved. Beyound this the upper definition of "girl" will vary with location, time and other factors, so we are best to just avoid it all together.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:45, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge - while the definition of "girl" is a non-issue (for example, Nancy Drew would be defined as a girl based on modern United States), I think that Johnpacklambert's first reason is correct. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:01, 1 August 2014 (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.

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. – Fayenatic London 19:12, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Girl detectives (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale:Only contains subcat. Makes no sense. JDDJS (talk) 17:07, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• delete useless cat with no contents and no parents.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:17, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment This category is the parent of Category:Fictional girl detectives. If and when there real life girl detectives are identified, they will be added to this category. Nigel Pap (talk) 20:58, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per WP:CRYSTAL we do not keep cats that might one day have content. JDDJS (talk) 23:32, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • It seems logical to me to have this as a container for the sub-category, but if that doesn't count as content in itself then I have no objection to this being deleted. Nigel Pap (talk) 02:34, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete presumably, being a real detective is confined to those who are no longer children. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:35, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete We do not need real parents for all fictional categories. Until we have articles on real people who are notable for being detectives prior to the age of 18 or so, I think we should not have this category. Even if we get someone who is notable for something else, but was in some way a "detective" before age 18, we should refrain from creating the category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:41, 22 July 2014 (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.

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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:26, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Fictional women engineers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale:Not needed subcat. Most articles are already in parent category Category:Fictional engineers and it's not crowded, and there is no significant difference between a male and a female engineer. JDDJS (talk) 16:41, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep because this does not only have one parent as mentioned in the nomination; it is also a sub-cat of Category:Women in engineering and Category:Fictional females. If the pages are also in Category:Fictional engineers, that's probably because this is a WP:non-diffusing category; see also WP:EGRS. As explained on the category talk page, I believe there was sufficient consensus to create this as a split from Category:Fictional women scientists at the recent discussion Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 May 1#Category:Fictional women scientists. – Fayenatic London 21:21, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• delete in this case it violates the final rung rule - there are no diffusing siblings and thus this will tend to keep women engineers separated from the parent. The 'real' category is much more developed and can support a gender breakdown.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 00:14, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Obi-Wan Kenobi, are you saying that the fictional women would be treated unfairly by being "segregated", but that women (real women) should be split off in the category that contains non-fictional people? Nigel Pap (talk) 14:32, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Since we do not split fictional engineers by nationality, we way to avoid separation of these people by gender. While I am not convinced that avoiding unwanted separation by gender is as bad in fictional categories as those for real people, there are still reasons to avoid it, especially when we are dealing with real occupations. We also seem to separate fictional engineers less by engineering specialty, but even with real engineers, we seem to do a fairly bad job at separation by specialty. This is odd because civil, mechanical, chemical and electrical engineers as well as other sub-fields have little in common. To make things more fun, there is also some group of engineers who are such because they supervise the running of engines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:02, 22 July 2014 (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.

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 as re-creation of deleted category without change in consensus. – Fayenatic London 09:32, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Characters that appear in the Marvel Cinematic Universe (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Similar to deleted category: Category:Marvel Cinematic Universe characters TriiipleThreat (talk) 16:17, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge or delete overlap. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:36, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per the above. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:29, 20 July 2014 (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.

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: relist at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 August 15, tagging the target as well. – Fayenatic London 21:14, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I propose merging:

• Category:Municipalities of Italy to Category:Communes of Italy

The majority of Categories for Italian municipalities as well as Category:Communes of Italy uses the Italian term commune for the name of the category. A small number of municipalities however uses municipalities. I guess that this is just caused by the preference of the user who created the category. To avoid confusion about the difference of terminology the categories should be renamed to commune. Inwind (talk) 10:14, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Reverse merge: according to the lead article Comune, 'municipality' seems to be the regular English translation of the Italian word 'comune' (with only one 'm'!) and 'commune' is just a wrong translation. I'm not the expert here, so please correct me if I'm wrong. But if I am correct, it would be more logical to name all of them 'municipalities'. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:17, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to match the format agreed at Talk:List of communes of the Province of Agrigento#Requested_move, where the consensus was to use the English-language translation "communes". This was the rationale at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_May_1 (which I closed) for renaming the "comunes" categories to "communes". Note: there are more sub-cats of former municipalities yet to be nominated. – Fayenatic London 09:43, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Apologies upfront, I don't want to be the play the role of the bad guy here, especially not since I'm not even speaking Italian, but we should be honest with each other about the fact that in these previous discussions 'municipality' has not been discussed as a viable alternative, while this is exactly what the current discussion is about. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:24, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fair point. I have pinged BrownHairedGirl who took the lead in those discussions, not meaning to WP:CANVASS but because she is an experienced contributor with an interest in this matter. – Fayenatic London 19:38, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Thanks for the ping, Fayenatic L.
  I have little knowledge of the Italian language or of Italian local government. My involvement in this arises solely from trying to get some standardisation in article and category titles for WP's terminology for the Italian word "comune/comuni", initially at Talk:List of communes of the Province of Agrigento#Requested_move. That discussion was closed with a consensus to use the literal translation "communes", which I accepted and used as the basis for Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 May 1#Category:Comunes_of_Italy.
  Neither discussion appears to have included anyone with significant expertise, so we were all a little in the dark. I think that Marcocapelle has raised a valid concern, but it is one which I have no way of answering, and the abysmally poor sourcing of the head article comune gives us little help. I suggest that there are two questions, where some expert advice would help:

1. What translation of the Italian word "comune" is most commonly used in English-language reliable sources?
2. Does the same terminology apply to all comuni? It occurs to me that there may a sub-type or variant of "comune" which is more appropriately labelled a "municipality".

FWIW, my suggestion is to start by improving the head article, and find the reliable sources which could answer these questions, before a followup CFD based on whatever answers arise these. There is a general consensus on the principle that categories should follow the head article, but the current head article is not robust enough to follow. And sorry, despite my suggestion I don't have the time or energy to do the necessary research myself :( --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:13, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks a lot for your problem analysis! By the way, I've been trying to involve Italian Wikipedians in this discussion but without any success so far. I'll try to think of other ways in the next week. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:24, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reverse merge. The term "municipalities" is a term that is wider used in English than "communes", which is basically a verbatim translation of the Italian term. Gryffindor (talk) 18:32, 11 August 2014 (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.

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. – Fayenatic London 10:04, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I propose renaming:

• Category:Milwaukee, Wisconsin to Category:Milwaukee

Rationalle: Per the main article, Milwaukee, which has been stable at that name since 2008. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:25, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – it was decided some time back over many cfds to use the 'city, state' format in category names, regardless of the article name. Eg New Orleans. Oculi (talk) 09:48, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consensus can cahnge, and it appears o be shifting in this direction, as it appears in the list at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 July 22#Category:Chicago, Illinois, it appears to be shifting in the direction of matching the category to the article. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:02, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Oculi comment. Thank you-RFD (talk) 10:22, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is it possible to provide a link to the latest discussion(s) about this? I'm curious to know how the discussion went along with regards to cities in other countries. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:31, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about other countries, but here is a compilation of discussions about US cities. Kennethaw88 • talk 02:43, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Renames There is no 'city, state' standard, as seen at Category:London, Category:Paris and Category:New York City. Throughout the world, we manage to match category titles for places to their corresponding article titles. It's well past time that we followed this sensible standard across the board for all such articles, instead of creating needless inconsistency. Alansohn (talk) 04:08, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• keep as is renames such as this are little more than local boosterism and totally unwanted and unhelpful to all the less-than-totally-all-knowing readers of WP Hmains (talk) 04:25, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Boosterism"? "Unwanted"? "Unhelpful"? The proposal is to match the unambiguous title of the parent article and creating greater consistency across the world for categories corresponding to place names. IDNOTLIKEIT is a poor justification to perpeuate arbitrary discrepancies from international standards. Alansohn (talk) 02:21, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep we have an international readership, and familiarity cannot be assumed. (I should mention I would support full qualified city names for all case, even NYC. DGG ( talk ) 16:12, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support rename, as I begin to understand that the suggested 'standard' does not cover non-USA cities so it's actually not a standard at all. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:00, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  The standard set over many cfds is for the names of categories of US cities (to avoid needless inconsistency); the main instigator was Mike Selinker. Most countries don't use the 'city, state' format and many lack states altogether. Many past cfd discussions are linked within the discussion for Chicago in July 2013. Oculi (talk) 00:51, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  See Category:New York City. The needless inconsistency is with the rest of the world. Alansohn (talk) 02:21, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Categories should be less ambiguous than the articles. Kennethaw88 • talk 02:43, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • This "Categories should be less ambiguous than the articles" is just your own arbitrary opinion. As Rick says, "We'll always have Category:Paris". And we'll also have Category:Bangkok, Category:Beijing, Category:Bogotá, Category:Buenos Aires, Category:Cairo, Category:Delhi, Category:Dhaka, Category:Guangzhou, Category:Istanbul, Category:Jakarta, Category:Karachi, Category:Kolkata, Category:Lagos, Category:London, Category:Manila, Category:Mexico City, Category:Moscow, Category:Mumbai, Category:New York City, Category:Osaka, Category:Seoul, Category:Shanghai, Category:Tianjin and Category:Tokyo, all of which follow the rather simple standard of matching the title of the parent article. How is that we manage throughout the world despite the ambiguity of not including a state, province or district for any of these cities or tens of thousands of other such places? Alansohn (talk) 21:14, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Entirely agree, a standard naming convention should be a standard that is applicable all over the world.Marcocapelle (talk) 07:07, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- I thought the American convention was city, state. It does not necessarily apply elsewhere. This is more necessary for categories than articles Milwaukee (disambiguation) shows there are other places using the name. The classic case is Birmingham whose categories are at Birmingham, West Midlands to provent the category picking up articles relating to Birmingham, Alabama. It is a long tiem ago that we settled on that solution. This may be less necessary for a big city like Milwarkee, but better leave as is. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:23, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If no other Milwaukee is notable enough to challenge the one in Wisconsin for ownership of the article title, then no other Milwaukee is notable enough to challenge the one in Wisconsin for ownership of the category name either. Category names never require a higher level of disambiguation than their matching articles do. Bearcat (talk) 05:07, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• • For the Birmingham case, I think it would make more sense to name them Birmingham, UK and Birmingham, USA. Generally, I would prefer the format: city((, countrypart), country) where the brackets in this case denote the optional addition only in case of multiple cities with the same name. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:54, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would also like to point out that in evrfy category wit the word "Milwaukee", the word refers to this city, possibly with its immediate area - categories about the city, its sports teams, the the county by the same name whicj includes part of te city, Milwaukee metropolitan area, etc. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:23, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename Milwaukee is unambiguous. In fact, one might venture to say that London (the one in Ontario has 360,000 people) is more so. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:40, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• The actual standard that applies to cities' eponymous categories is that they need to match the same level of disambiguation used in the article title. There is no rule that city categories must always be dabbed by state, province or country regardless of the article's dab status — and there is no valid reason why a dab-mismatch situation can ever actually be necessary, either. If Milwaukee is unambiguous enough to be the article title then it's unambiguous enough to be the category name, and if it's not unambiguous enough to be the category name then it's not unambiguous enough to be the article title — the only way that an article title and its associated category name can ever need to be disambiguated differently than each other is if one decision or the other is being based on incorrect reasoning and needs a rethink. Support nom. Bearcat (talk) 05:07, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Milwaukee is not ambiguous enough to warrant the state expansion on the category. The other three places that could potentially cause confusion are very obscure to me and personally I would be very surprised to hear many editors hear had heard of them before looking at the disambiguation page. SFB 20:54, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – A primary topic in article space is only designated that way to facilitate ease of searches: it's not an eclipse of all the other topics. There is no compelling reason to alter an unmistakably clear name which, when abridged, may easily be conflated with a competing term like Milwaukee County or anything else from the lengthy dab page. The city/state form provides logical structure for all readers, and harmonizes with virtually all the other US entries. SteveStrummer (talk) 04:00, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Milwaukee County? Since that's also in Wisconsin, adding the ", Wisconsin" doesn't disambiguate the city from the county. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 15:56, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose The City, state format is almost universally followed with US articles. No good reason to deviate from it here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:04, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia is worldwide, not just about US. That's a very good reason. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:24, 22 July 2014 (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.