Category talk:Culture by city

Untitled
half of these should be renamed for consistency's sake (all of them should be either "X city culture" or "culture in X city). – Alensha 寫 词 18:17, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

RFC: Naming conflicts

 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should the naming convention for this tree be "Culture of City" or "Culture in City"? My understanding was always that consensus had been established as "of", but after reviewing this category and the various country-specific subcategories in, I'm finding a much closer split than I expected — there are 305 ofs, 238 ins, and a handful of outliers that will have to be renamed either way because they're using non-standard formats like "City culture". (There was also one case, and I'm surprised not more, where "Culture of city" and "Culture in city" both existed for the same city — given the circumstances, I've temporarily merged them both into the form that was otherwise the "norm" in its own country, although obviously it can be renamed the other way if consensus settles on the other form.) Bearcat (talk) 15:40, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Survey

 * Culture of city Having read s explanation below, I find that it makes sense to me. Since culture isn't always a tangible thing, let's do "culture of". -- I dream of horses If you reply here, please ping me by adding to your message (talk to me) (My edits) @  03:07, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Pictogram voting support.svg Culture of city per I dream of horses's and Bearcat's explanations. It covers a more broad scope which is what we should be aiming for in this type of category. &mdash;Skyllfully (talk &#124; contribs) 02:26, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

 * Personally, my own preference is "of" — generally speaking, for intersected "subject by location" topics like this we try to observe a distinction between in for things that are better understood as "literally physically located in this location" vs. of for things that are better understood as having a sense of "belonging to this location" (for example, restaurants are normally categorized as being in cities as they literally have specific physical locations, while music is normally categorized as being of cities since it has both physical and intangible aspects) — and to me, "culture" carries the latter sense more than the former, since it's not a tangible physical thing per se (even if some aspects of it are, many other aspects and the overarching concept aren't). But obviously I'm not going to arbitrarily impose my own personal preferences without input from others. Bearcat (talk) 15:50, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Why not keep it as Culture by city? Sorry if I'm not picking up on something, but I don't see a reason to move as it seems fine as it is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skyllfully (talk • contribs) 02:31, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The name of this category isn't the issue: it's the names of all the individual city subcategories that are a jumble of "culture in" and "culture of" (as well as a few outliers of the "[City] culture" or "Culture and media in [City]" variety.) The discussion was just posted to this talk page because it's the most central location for a discussion that could potentially impact hundreds of categories. Bearcat (talk) 02:35, 26 October 2016 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.