Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 September 8 Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2010_September_8

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. — ξ^xplicit 06:25, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Tasmania legislation to Category:Tasmanian legislation

Nominator's rationale: Same as Tasmania law - unused in common speech by the inhabitants - always 'Tasmanian' SatuSuro 23:19, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I named it "Tasmania" for consistency with the only state legislation cat then in existence, which was Category:Victoria (Australia) legislation. It says "Victoria" rather than "Victorian", so I named the other seven state and territory cats consistently. Feel free to move them, but the consistency will lost (although I suppose categories titles are subject to the same common usage provisos as article titles). You might also want to consider "Legislation of Tasmania", which avoids the adjective thing altogether. Dethroned Buoy (talk) 00:26, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

* Ugh, what a mess - keep as is for now in lieu of a broader discussion of naming conventions for law by country and sub-national division. No reason to make this inconsistent. Other English-speaking countries that have the equivalent of state-level categories use "Foo law" rather than "Fooian law" although there is diversity among the country-level cats. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 08:55, 9 September 2010 (UTC) Struck comment of indef-blocked sockpuppet. QuAzGaA 16:58, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• South Australia law, Western Australia law, South Australia legislation, Western Australia legislation - is all patently absurd and I believe would bring wikipedia into disrepute as something created by non-native speakers of english, I do not know how such usage can be considered kosher - no-one in those jurisdictions use the terms in that way - foo or no foo - it is not usage that readers would be expected to find or refer to SatuSuro 12:34, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom, & do the others too. Johnbod (talk) 20:34, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom as the start of cleaning up this part of the tree. Vegaswikian1 (talk) 05:24, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

:* Isn't it generally better not to do a rename in isolation like this? Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 20:43, 15 September 2010 (UTC) Struck comment of indef-blocked sockpuppet. QuAzGaA 16:58, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Not to see if there is consensus. If there is, then the others can be nominated. If this fails, then this may not be the way to go. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:38, 17 September 2010 (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:  Relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 October 2#Category:Tasmania law. — ξ^xplicit 06:25, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Tasmania law to Category:Tasmanian law

Nominator's rationale: This term as is is unused - it is always possessive - 'Tasmanian law' SatuSuro 23:17, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Aaroncrick ^TALK 23:39, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. The other subcategories of Category:Australian law by jurisdiction don't use the possessive format—Category:Western Australia law, eg, rather than Category:Western Australian law. I'm not sure if it's a good idea to bring inconsistency into the category tree or not. Whatever is done, a category redirect should appear on the other version. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:12, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply I believe the usage in Australia is possibly that they dont like an open 'a' as an ending for these items SatuSuro 12:36, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

* Ugh, what a mess - keep as is for now in lieu of a broader discussion of naming conventions for law by country and sub-national division. No reason to make this inconsistent. Other English-speaking countries that have the equivalent of state-level categories use "Foo law" rather than "Fooian law" although there is diversity among the country-level cats. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 06:53, 9 September 2010 (UTC) Struck comment of indef-blocked sockpuppet. QuAzGaA 01:12, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Category:Law of Tasmania 76.66.200.95 (talk) 04:29, 15 September 2010 (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: rename. — ξ^xplicit 20:44, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Epic Sony Record games to Category:Epic/Sony Records games

Nominator's rationale: Rename - for grammar purposes and to match the name of the Epic/Sony Records article. GVnayR (talk) 23:09, 8 September 2010 (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. — ξ^xplicit 20:44, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Notable street people to Category:Street people

Nominator's rationale: Merge. "Notable" goes without saying with all WP categories. To categorize an article in Category:Street people pre-supposes that they are notable. Were it not so, no article would exist for them. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:12, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Yep, if they're here, they're notable. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:23, 11 September 2010 (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:  Relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 October 2#Category:Igbo fiction writers. — ξ^xplicit 06:25, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Igbo fiction writers to Category:Igbo novelists

Nominator's rationale: Category:Igbo fiction writers has two subcategories, each of which has a single member -- and it's the same article both times. Category:Igbo novelists has numerous pages. I suggest eliminating the two subcategories of Category:Igbo fiction writers and putting their one article in the merged category, where it fits just fine, but -- forgive me -- I'm a little new to these protocols, I don't quite know how. Artemis-Arethusa (talk) 21:47, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge – this will make the 2 subcats into subcats of Category:Igbo novelists, but will not 'eliminate' them. I think 'novelist' and 'fiction writer' are the same thing. Occuli (talk) 15:12, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - do not merge - I almost skipped over this one, but it's a good thing I came back and took a look. I've added both a new parent cat and a new sub-category, and I think it should now be apparent why this proposal should not be carried out. Cgingold (talk) 09:38, 14 September 2010 (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: rename. — ξ^xplicit 20:44, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Pilots within series to Category:Television pilots within series

Nominator's rationale: Rename - for clarity and to match parent category. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 21:25, 8 September 2010 (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. — ξ^xplicit 20:44, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Producers' Showcase episodes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete - single-entry category that has remained so since it was created a year ago. Should additional individual episode articles turn out to be notable then this can be re-created but for now it's not needed. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 21:08, 8 September 2010 (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 all. — ξ^xplicit 20:44, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Shipyard associates of The Wire to Category:The Wire (TV series) characters

Propose merging Category:Police of The Wire to Category:The Wire (TV series) characters

Propose merging Category:Drug dealers of The Wire to Category:The Wire (TV series) characters

Propose merging Category:School characters of The Wire to Category:The Wire (TV series) characters

Propose merging Category:Politics of The Wire to Category:The Wire (TV series) characters

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Like we did some time ago with the TV series Oz, these characters do not need this fine a division. I only know of two series where we've given this much rope: Category:Star Trek characters and Category:Doctor Who characters, both of which have been around for more than four decades, and in multiple incarnations. Note that the "Politics" category refers to politicians.--Mike Selinker (talk) 18:36, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Upmerge all - per nom. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 20:06, 9 September 2010 (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 latter to former. Granted, neither are tagged, but these are speedy candidates, so no need to relist for needless bureaucracy. — ξ^xplicit 20:44, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:1976–77 domestic association football leagues (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:1976-77 domestic association football leagues (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Merge. --Pascal⁶⁶⁶ 17:38, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to the en-dash version per most in Category:Domestic association football league seasons by year and make the dash version into a redirect. (Neither cat is tagged.) Occuli (talk) 19:11, 8 September 2010 (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 latter to former, same as above. — ξ^xplicit 20:44, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:1981–82 domestic association football leagues (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:1981-82 domestic association football leagues (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Merge. --Pascal⁶⁶⁶ 17:38, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to the en-dash version per most in Category:Domestic association football league seasons by year and make the dash version into a redirect. (Neither cat is tagged.) Occuli (talk) 19:11, 8 September 2010 (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 former to latter, same as above with tagging issue. — ξ^xplicit 20:44, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wiener Neustadt-Land district (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Wiener Neustadt-Land District (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Merge. --Pascal⁶⁶⁶ 17:38, 8 September 2010 (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 latter to former, same as above with tagging issue. — ξ^xplicit 20:44, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Neunkirchen District (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Neunkirchen district (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Merge. --Pascal⁶⁶⁶ 17:38, 8 September 2010 (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 latter to former, same as above with tagging issue. — ξ^xplicit 20:44, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Populated places in the Municipality of Loška dolina (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Populated places in the Municipality of Loška Dolina (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Merge. --Pascal⁶⁶⁶ 17:38, 8 September 2010 (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 latter to former, same as above with tagging issue. — ξ^xplicit 20:44, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Australian energy templates (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Australian Energy templates (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Merge. --Pascal⁶⁶⁶ 17:38, 8 September 2010 (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 former to latter, same as above with tagging issue. — ξ^xplicit 20:44, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedia Featured Picture contributors (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Wikipedia Featured picture contributors (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Merge. --Pascal⁶⁶⁶ 17:38, 8 September 2010 (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:  Relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 October 2#Royal houses. — ξ^xplicit 06:25, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:British royal houses to Category:British royal families

Propose renaming Category:English royal houses to Category:English royal families

Propose renaming Category:Scottish royal houses to Category:Scottish royal families

Propose renaming Category:Belgian royal houses to Category:Belgian royal families

Propose renaming Category:Bulgarian royal houses to Category:Bulgarian royal families

Propose renaming Category:Hawaiian royal houses to Category:Hawaiian royal families

Propose renaming Category:Houses descended from the Chakri Dynasty to Category:Royal families descended from the Chakri Dynasty

Propose renaming Category:Royal Houses of Caucasian Albania to Category:Royal families of Caucasian Albania

Nominator's rationale: Rename. A followup change from this recent rename which switched "noble houses" to "noble families". Per the subcategories of Category:Royal families, this appears to be primarily a European affectation. I don't know enough about Albania to know whether that one should just be Category:Albanian royal families or not.--Mike Selinker (talk) 15:32, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• comment why then are most subcats of Category:European royal families still named 'houses'. They are not included in this nom either. If we are going to have both 'houses' and 'familities' in the category names, someone is going to have write up whatever it is that distinguishes one from the other. Hmains (talk) 22:20, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm interested in seeing consistency between the "royal families"/"royal houses" categories for now. If this passes, we can talk about the many subcategories of these categories.--Mike Selinker (talk) 12:55, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep At least for England/Scotland/British. The House of Stuart consisted of the reigning monarchs of that dynasty. Royal family includes non-reigning relatives. Category:European royal families needs renaming back to Category:Royal Houses in Europe or something like that. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:33, 30 September 2010 (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. The sole parent is Category:Hylinae, of which the contents is already categorized under. Merging would create redundancy. — ξ^xplicit 20:44, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Scarthyla (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Single article category with no prospect of expanding. Dawynn (talk) 12:44, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge this and following noms, subject to the appropriate projects' policy on taxa categories, and considerations of navigability. Rich Farmbrough, 15:29, 12 September 2010 (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. — ξ^xplicit 20:44, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Itapotihyla (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Single article category with no prospect of expanding. Dawynn (talk) 12:44, 8 September 2010 (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. — ξ^xplicit 20:44, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Nyctimantis (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Single article category with no prospect of expanding. Dawynn (talk) 12:43, 8 September 2010 (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. — ξ^xplicit 20:44, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Corythomantis (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Single article category with no prospect of expanding. Dawynn (talk) 12:43, 8 September 2010 (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. — ξ^xplicit 20:44, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Anotheca (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Single article category with no prospect of expanding. Dawynn (talk) 12:41, 8 September 2010 (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.