Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Category:London Districts

The following discussion comes from Categories for deletion. This is an archive of the discussion only; please do not edit this page. -Kbdank71 19:54, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Category:London Districts
Badly capitalised categories. Susvolans (pigs can fly) 17:24, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Oppose - these were amongst the first-created categories and (personally - ymmv) and just as there is the 'London Borough of xxx' I feel that this word order better reflects usage and meaning. --Vamp:Willow 23:35, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * While we do tend to prefer the older category if they are both equally good, this is clearly not the case here (unless "District" is somehow a proper noun, but in the category description it is not). If not part of a proper name, words in a category or article title are not capitalized. See Naming conventions. -Aranel (" Sarah  ") 00:44, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I agree; a capital D does not fit Wikipedia's downcase style. "Borough of Foo" is a proper noun, and thus must be capitalized. In this case, "districts" is not part of a proper noun. -- Beland 05:04, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Rename to Category:London districts; Category:London Rivers is miscapitalized and should be renamed to either Category:Rivers in London or Category:London rivers is ok, but it would be best to try to match prevalent convention. --ssd 16:22, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Agree: Rename to Districts of London - the word London is not an adjective. Saga City 09:19, Dec 25, 2004 (UTC)
 * Agree, but London is an objective because it is frequently used as one, even if some people think it is an incorrect usage.
 * I am now inclined to prefer Category:Districts in London to match the Japanese district categories. See for example Category:Districts in Aichi Prefecture. -Aranel (" Sarah ") 02:21, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Sigh. I agree. Sadly, though, a couple of months back I modelled the New Zealand city district categories on the London one, so you're also going to want to look at Category: Auckland urban districts, Category: Wellington urban districts, and Category: Christchurch urban districts.  Grutness|hello? [[Image:Grutness.jpg|25px|]] 22:58, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Following is discussion from "To be emptied or moved"; I moved it here because the original cat was deleted, which would make this all moot.
 * Category:London Districts -> Category:London districts
 * This should probably be done by bot. (There are nearly 400 articles.) I suggest Category:Districts in London instead of Category:London districts. -Aranel (" Sarah ") 00:43, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * RedWolf created a Districts in London category and transferred one article out of 381 to it (yes, that many). I have reversed this. It is a British category, so it should be named in British English, and that means Districts of London. All the votes for Districts in London are from non-British users. If the articles can be "transferred by bot" to Districts of London that will be very well. Otherwise please leave it as it is unless you are prepared to make the 381 transfers required to implement this petty semantic adjustment yourself. Philip 00:08, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * On a more careful review of the voting, I am now of the opinion that no consensus has been reached and the transfer of the category to this section was illegitimate. The voting is as follows:


 * No change - 1 vote
 * In agreement that the existing capitalisation, but no preference for a new name stated - 2 votes (these might be taken to be votes for "London districts", but certainly not for "Districts in London")
 * Preference for Districts of- 2 votes (to which I add mine, making 3 votes)
 * London districts - 1 vote
 * Districts in London - 1 vote


 * Philip 03:09, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * As I explained on my talk page, I created the category and then found out that the latest Wikimedia software upgrade broke bot changes (at least for me). I did a manual move just to see if there was a wiki problem. As I look at London Districts discussion under Dec 22, I see 3 votes for Districts in London, not 1. 3 > 1. IIt really is not that big of a deal to me if it's "of" or "in". I'm not about to debate semantics of British vs non-British English usage. The work will likely be done by a bot which won't care. RedWolf 06:53, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't understand why you keep saying there were three votes for your preferred option when there were not. The only vote for it was from user:Aranel. You must be assuming that unspecific votes were in your favour, but that is mere guesswork. Philip 02:34, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)