Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 April 22



Category:Religion in Canada by provinice or territory

 * 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: speedy delete (author request). BencherliteTalk 00:26, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * religion in canada by provinice or territory


 * Nominator's rationale: Speedy delete. Typo, spelling error. --Kevlar (talk • contribs) 22:10, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Blank the page and add the {db-author} template and it will be done speedily. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:36, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * 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.

Useless plant cats created by Bot, Episode V

 * 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: per nom. Kbdank71 13:22, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Nominator's rationale: Some more plant categories created by User:Polbot which are genera that either contain only a couple species or are obsolete. Detailed reasons to follow. - IceCreamAntisocial (talk) 20:56, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

-Thanx. Cheers, IceCreamAntisocial (talk) 21:00, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Category:Lasiococca - genus contains only 3 species. Delete and upmerge to Category:Euphorbiaceae (family).
 * Category:Meineckia - genus contains only 3 species. Delete and upmerge to Category:Phyllanthaceae.
 * Category:Podadenia - genus contains only 2 species. Delete and upmerge to Category:Euphorbiaceae.
 * Category:Monadenium - obsolete genus is now a synonym of another. Delete and upmerge to Category:Euphorbiaceae.
 * Category:Pseudoglochidion - obsolete genus is now a synonym of another. Delete and upmerge to Category:Phyllanthaceae.
 * Category:Securinega - obsolete genus is now a synonym of another. Delete and upmerge to Category:Phyllanthaceae.
 * Delete all as usual Can we get a bot to do this? Johnbod (talk) 13:57, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Upmerge to respective higher taxa.-- Lenticel ( talk ) 09:16, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * 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:Tokyopop titles

 * 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. Kbdank71 14:21, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Suggest merging Category:Tokyopop titles to Category:Tokyopop
 * Nominator's rationale: Unclear category that includes the same mix of titles as the main Tokyopop category. Merge and then consider splitting, if needed, into manga, OEM, etc. Collectonian (talk) 20:34, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep The problem is not with the category, which is in line with comic project category structure - see Category: Comics titles by company. The problem is the category is underused - most of the titles should be moved from Category: Tokyopop into it but it is a big job and I've been doing what I can. I agree that that in the future it'd be worth having categories for the different types of titles but these should be children of Category:Tokyopop titles, so the first step would either to move everything across to the titles and then sort them out or create the children and sort them straight into them. Either way "Tokyopop titles" shouldn't be deleted. (Emperor (talk) 20:41, 22 April 2008 (UTC))


 * Why? Why have everything in Tokyopo moved to Tokyopop titles? If anything, dumb this and if someone feels the main Tokyopop category should be renamed, then we can discuss that. For reference, though, while it may be inline with the comics, with the anime/manga project we have just been using the company name, with subcategories, as needed, to sort a companies manga, anime, etc releases. "Tokyopop titles" as a subcategory of "Tokyopop" is not in keeping with the categorization we've been using at all. Collectonian (talk) 00:12, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * See my longer explanation below. The thing is that OEM, manhwa, etc. are covered by the comics project (as the manga/anime project decided they were outside of the definition of manga they were working to) and manga is ultimately a child of comics (as one branch of Asian comics) so if the manga categories aren't conforming to the broader way comics are dealt with then this is an issue that needs addressing with the other categories not with this one (which does conform to broader comic categorisation). (Emperor (talk) 03:42, 23 April 2008 (UTC))


 * Keep and move everything (but Tokyopop and the List of Tokyopop publications) from Category:Tokyopop to Category:Tokyopop titles to keep it in line with Category: Comics titles by company. Similar manga categories include Category:CMX titles, Category:Seven Seas Entertainment titles and Category:Viz Media manga.--Nohansen (talk) 01:48, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Category:Viz Media manga is a publication type category. It would be more appropriate to have a manga, manwha, etc characters for Toykopop and sort the items from the main Tokyopop title. Otherwise, just shoving everything but two links from Category:Tokyopop to Category:Tokyopop titles is just excessive subcategorization. Collectonian (talk) 02:08, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * If everything but the two articles are moved, Category:Tokyopop should be deleted. In other words, my suggestion is the opposite of your suggestion: merge Category:Tokyopop to Category:Tokyopop titles. Afterwards, what doesn't belong (i.e. Tokyopop and the List of Tokyopop publications) will be removed.--Nohansen (talk) 03:13, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, again why? Category:Viz Media manga is under Category:Viz Media, not a standalone item. While Seven Seas has titles, and CMX does, the rest do no. Category:Geneon, Category:A.D. Vision (which has the subcats of Category:ADV Films and Category:ADV Manga. Why drop the established category for a newer less useful one. Or do you want to completely overhaul the entire anime and manga company categorization (which would of course be beyond the scope of this all together)Collectonian (talk) 03:16, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't see how it is excessive subcategorisation - it is exactly what is done elsewhere and there is virtually no difference between that and the Viz Media manga category as nearly everything is cleared out of the higher level category: Category:Viz Media (and most of those remaining should be moved) - that is the nature of such higher level categories. Keeping Tokyopop there allows for flexibility - there should probably be a "Tokyopop anime" category (as there is in the Viz Media category). So again the problem isn't with either the titles category or its parent - it is that they aren't being used properly and the fix is not to get rid of either category but to properly categorise everything that is in there or should be in there - taking your example as Category:Viz Media (even though it needs a bit of tidying up it is a reasonable example of what should be aimed for). If you want to make categories for Tokyopop manga, manhwa and OEM then they can be made under the "Tokyopop titles" category and it'd be less work to move them directly from Tokyopop to these sub-categories. (Emperor (talk) 03:42, 23 April 2008 (UTC))
 * Why can't the manga, manhwa, et all just be under the already existing and in use Category:Tokyopop rather than some extraneous subcategory? So we can make people waste an extra click for no reason? Collectonian (talk) 04:08, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Merge per nom. There really is no difference between the two. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 03:42, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * That though is because the categories are not being used properly - not that there is anything actually wrong with the categories per se. It just means people have to roll up their sleeves and get stuck in (or we could assign a bot to do the work). The category "Tokyopop anime" could then be added and the structure would actually start working as it should. (Emperor (talk) 03:52, 23 April 2008 (UTC))
 * Exactly. There's no difference because editors are using them wrong. Question: Does Tokyopop release anime? I thought they only handled printed media.--Nohansen (talk) 03:59, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, though rarely. They released the lengthy Marmalade Boy anime. Only title I can think of off the top of my head though. Collectonian (talk) 04:19, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * According to what it says here Tokyopop. Unless the wording is misleading or I've misunderstood, I suppose. This suggest they do, as does this.
 * The important point though is that it all slots into a large category structure. Category:Tokyopop titles is a child of Category: Comics titles by company - you cannot have Tokyopop itself as a child of this and merging down into titles adds things to the category which don't work with the parent categories. This structure works just fine with dozens of other companies and the only difference I can see here is that the articles aren't in the right categories, not that the categories themselves are wrong. (Emperor (talk) 04:26, 23 April 2008 (UTC))


 * Comment but who will format it like Category:Viz Media, which has an anime and a manga sub-cat? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 05:44, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I will. And if the deletion goes through, the bot can always undo me. --erachima talk 04:01, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Don't forget all of the titles with articles in List of Tokyopop publications. Collectonian (talk) 04:07, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd love someone to explain why Category:Tokyopop is not good enough, but no one is demanding that Category:Viz Media be renamed to Category:Viz Media titles and Category:Geneon to Category:Geneon titles and so on and so forth. Or suggest deleting Category:Tokyopop if somehow this one is so much better, as it is still completely redundant. Collectonian (talk) 04:07, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep (or split into manga/anime versions, if necessary) as part of a larger category structure, and fix the Tokyopop supercat, which is apparently where the problem lies. --erachima talk 03:29, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep per Emperor and erachima; a category which, by design, contains nothing other than titles licensed and published by a company should follow the category structure and naming conventions used by categories for other companies in the field. Without the inclusion of the titles, Category:Tokyopop has a total of three (maybe even two) articles in it, which is far too little to require a category.  This means that, should this close as "keep", the other "manga by publisher" categories should be rolled up into a CfR to append the word "titles".  —TangentCube, Dialogues 04:49, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll also add that "they've always been in such-and-such category" doesn't tell anyone why they should be in that category, as opposed to the one with the clearer purpose; see also the nominator's rationale at the Category:Lists of anime and manga characters CfD. —TangentCube, Dialogues 06:38, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment I finished populating the category. --erachima talk 03:31, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


 * 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:Mario Bros. locations

 * 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. Kbdank71 13:21, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Suggest merging Category:Mario Bros. locations to Category:Nintendo locations
 * Nominator's rationale: Upmerge This category contains one entry. It is marked with Popcat, but there simply aren't any articles to fill the category, nor are there likely to be for notability concerns. Even Mushroom Kingdom was merged into another article.  Pagra shtak  17:41, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Upmerge per nom.-- Lenticel ( talk ) 13:07, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Support merge, single entry category, can be spun out again later if more articles are written to go in it. --erachima talk 16:18, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge per nom, no need for this category. Terraxos (talk) 23:00, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


 * 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:Don Schlitz songs

 * 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. Kbdank71 13:20, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


 * don schlitz songs


 * Nominator's rationale: Overcategorization. Schlitz has hardly ever recorded any songs, and is almost exclusively a songwriter. There is already Category:Songs written by Don Schlitz for the many songs he has written. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 17:39, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom - this doesn't seem a necessary category. Terraxos (talk) 22:59, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


 * 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:Cedar Hill noteables

 * 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. Kbdank71 14:01, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Propose renaming Category:Cedar Hill noteables to Category:Burials at Cedar Hill Cemetery (Hartford, Connecticut)
 * Category:Burials at Cedar Hill Cemetery to Category:Burials at Cedar Hill Cemetery (Hartford, Connecticut)
 * Nominator's rationale: Rename. It was pointed out to me (as I created the category) that the title of the category may be misleading, and that the proposed title would be much more specific and not cause any confusion. Chrissypan (talk) 14:34, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Rename per nom. Ward3001 (talk) 16:27, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - where one is buried is in most cases not a defining characteristic and the Cedar Hill Cemetery doesn't strike me as being particularly significant so as to warrant a category for burials there. And before anyone points out that there are many other burials categories, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a particularly persuasive argument and the existence of the category structure doesn't mean that every cemetery needs one. Otto4711 (talk) 17:09, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment:Obviously in many cases, notability is a matter of opinion. I consider this cemetery to be more notable than most because of the notability of the people buried there, including actress Katharine Hepburn, financier J.P. Morgan, founders of two colleges/universities, and other noteables. Ward3001 (talk) 18:04, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Notability on Wikipedia is not a matter of opinion. Otto4711 (talk) 00:10, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * So everything is black and white, and never any gray areas??? Simply looking at what is written in this cfr is ample evidence that there are differing opinions. If there's never any opinion involved, why do we have so many debates about notability? Why do we have the process of consensus? Or are you saying that it's not a matter of anyone else's opinion, just your own? I disagree. Ward3001 (talk) 16:23, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Look. Read the link. "Notable" has a specific definition in the context of Wikipedia, which is that the topic has been the subject of "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." Black and white? No. But definitely very dark grey and eggshell. Regardless, neither the notability of the cemetery nor the notability of any or all of the people with Wikipedia articles buried in it are relevant to a discussion of the category. Notability is not the standard for categorization, otherwise every article on Wikipedia would have its own eponymous category. The standard is, are the people who are buried in this cemetery defined by their burial there? No, they are not. In very few instances is someone's final resting place defining. Poets' Corner? Sure, that's pretty defining because of its relationship to the notability of those buried there. But some cemetery that has little or nothing to do with what made those buried there notable in life? Not at all a defining characteristic. Otto4711 (talk) 18:37, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * "The standard is, are the people who are buried in this cemetery defined by their burial there": Are you saying that's a policy statement, written down in Wikipedia? Or is that your interpretation? Very few people, places, or events are defined by their categories. Give me a direct quote that a cemetery is notable only if those who are buried there are defined by their burial there. Ward3001 (talk) 21:11, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * (reset indent) No, I don't need to show you a direct quote about the notability of cemeteries because, as I have explained more than once, notability is not the issue here. Notability is the standard for articles and this is a category. The notability of the topic of a category is not relevant to whether the category should exist, so you really need to stop trying to argue the notability of the cemetery (which, since the article is utterly devoid of sourcing, is unconfirmed at this time) as a reason for keeping the category. As for defining being the standard, I give you WP:Categorization which states in a nutshell Categories are for defining characteristics, and should be specific, neutral, inclusive and follow certain conventions. And applying a little common sense, consider Katharine Hepburn, who is currently in 18 different categories. Is anyone, when thinking of the things that define Miss Hepburn, going to put "buried in Cedar Hills Cemetery" in the top 18? In the top 50? No. Because where she is buried, which for all we know from her article she had no say in, does not define her as a person and does not in any way relate to why she is notable. Or consider J. P. Morgan, currently in 15 categories. Does "buried in Cedar Hills," which again from his article we have no way of knowing whether he even wanted to be buried there, fall within the top 15 things that define who he was as a person or relate in any way to his notability? Absolutely not. Turning again to WP:CAT: An article will often be in several categories. Restraint should be used as categories become less effective the more there are on any given article. And turning to Overcategorization: In general, categorize by what may be considered notable in a person's life, such as his or her career, origin and major accomplishments. In contrast, someone's tastes in food, their favorite holiday destination, or the number of tattoos they have may be considered trivial. You have yet to refute my contention, backed by multiple citations of relevant guidelines, that where the people in this category are buried in any way defines them as people. Otto4711 (talk) 21:38, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * If notablility, in one form or another, is not the issue, we have a moot point. And I disagree with much of your interpretation of what constitutes an acceptable category. So I will "stop trying to argue notability", not because you brazenly assumed the position of wikiboss and ordered me to stop, but because this discussion between you and me is pointless. Let's see where this cfr goes and where the consensus goes. That will be the deciding factor, not your opinions. My last word on the matter. Ward3001 (talk) 21:46, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Rename per nom. This seems to be the sort of biographical fact (if known and cited) by which a person can be suitably categorised (whether defining or not). And there are 20 or so in this category, a goodly number, and many more (some with wikipedia articles) are listed at the website. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 18:12, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * To belatedly answer the latter half of your point (the former is I think adequately addressed above), that there are articles that would fit in a particular category does not in and of itself serve as justification for that category. Hundreds of articles could go into Category:Star Trek actors but we don't have such a category just because it could be populated. We have at least three articles for people who died in the bathroom, but no Category:People who died in the bathroom. There has to be a better reason for a category than "things can go in it." Otto4711 (talk) 19:18, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Once again, it's your opinion that this category has no more basis than "things can go in it." Your opinion. Nothing more. Not black-and-white, iron-clad, rules that prohibit this category. Just your opinion. And based on the comments so far, other opinions outweigh yours. Ward3001 (talk) 19:37, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I have cited several relevant guidelines. You have refuted none of them. Besides, wasn't the above your "last word on the matter"? Otto4711 (talk) 02:29, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You have interpreted guidelines. Consensus trumps your interpretation of guidelines. As for whether something is my "last word": (1) you raised another issue; and (2) as much as you think you can, you don't decide how I express my opinions. Ward3001 (talk) 04:09, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I think you have some misconceptions about how consensus works on Wikipedia. CFDs are decided on the strength of the arguments, not on the basis of how many people happen to chime in with "rename" without citing any reason for keeping the category. I have no interest in how you choose to express your opinions; rather, I am amused (as I always am) when people adamantly claim that they have spoken their last word on a subject and then return and speak additional words about it. I for one am still waiting for you, amongst your series of last words on this particular subject, to offer some rationale to support your contention that this category should be kept beyond what amounts to saying that you don't agree. Cite the policies and guidelines that support your position. Cite the policies and guidelines that refute mine. Whenever you're ready, go right ahead. I'll be here. Otto4711 (talk) 05:49, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I am quite aware of how consensus works. Don't put words in my mouth. I never described consensus as "how many people" express an opinion. As for my expressing my rationale, I (and others) have done so above; you don't see it that way simply because our rationales do not conform to your interpretation of guidelines. I also am quite amused that you assume your opinions carry more weight than the opinions of others. So let's see whether this category is still around in a week or so, and we'll see whether your understanding of consensus and guidelines is any more superior to how others see it. Ward3001 (talk) 15:55, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * So...just not planning on answering my citations of guidelines with any of your own then? All righty. Otto4711 (talk) 17:27, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * So...just continuing to ignore all other rationales and assume that your opinions are superior? All righty. Let's see how things look in a week or two. Ward3001 (talk) 17:38, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * As if, in disagreeing with me, you are not assuming that your opinion is superior. I can only conclude that your failure to refute even a single one of my cites, which you demanded that I provide, means that you are unable to offer up your own cites to support your own view. This leads me to the inevitable conclusion that there are no cites for you to provide because guidelines and policies don't support your position. The only thing that you've offered in defense of this category is that there are other categories like it, which is not a legitimate argument, and that there are famous people buried in this particular cemetery, which is also not a legitimate argument. Otto4711 (talk) 21:01, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Again, you're putting words in my mouth. I have never said or assumed that my opinion is superior to anyone's, just equal. And you can "conclude" anything you wish, just as you can have and express your opinions, neither of which makes any of your conclusions or opinions true. Ward3001 (talk) 22:27, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Rename per nom. When I first saw the category listed, I had no idea what it meant. The proposed title will make that abundantly clear. That there are over 30 notables buried here makes this a fairly meaningful category, one of many such categories for individuals interred at particular cemeteries. Alansohn (talk) 18:16, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * And again, the notability of the people buried in the cemetery and even the number of them is not relevant, because the notability of those buried there is in no way connected to the cemetery. Otto4711 (talk) 21:01, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * And again, Otto, your opinion carries no more weight than other opinions, no matter how many times you repeat it. Believe it or not, Wikipedians are smart enough to understand what you said the first time you said it, and smart enough to know that your saying it over and over doesn't make it true. Ward3001 (talk) 22:18, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I can think of at least one Wikpidean who isn't smart enough to understand, despite the repeats. Your "argument" in favor of this category basically amounts to nuh uh, which is about the level of a four year-old. Shock the world, offer up some substantial support of your opinion. Otto4711 (talk) 02:04, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You're skating on thin ice, Otto. Read WP:NPA. Consider this a warning. Ward3001 (talk) 03:07, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Oooh, a warning. If I were wearing boots, I'd be shaking in them. Otto4711 (talk) 08:28, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I responded on your Talk page. Please leave any future personal comments on user talk pages rather than this discussion page. Ward3001 (talk) 15:30, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Rename per nom & Keep per precedent of the two previous widely discussed debates: and . There are tons in  Category:Burials.  Johnbod (talk) 21:13, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. I added a second existing category to the nomination.  Vegaswikian (talk) 00:08, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Rename both per existing consensus. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:10, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Consensus can change. Otto4711 (talk) 02:04, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * No sign of that here though, is there? Johnbod (talk) 02:47, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Hope does spring eternal that a passing admin will recognize that no real defense of the category has been offered. Otto4711 (talk) 16:21, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, the way I see this now, the only choice for an admin is to rename. There does not appear to be a consensus to delete this category.  May I suggest that after the rename, if consensus remains behind that action, that you nominate this or any other related category and see if there is consensus for deleting any of these.  I would not recommend a group nomination since these would need to be considered on a case by case basis. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:39, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't see it myself: 6 renamers (nom included), 1 deleter, and even Otto admits precedent is against him. Why would a re-run be any different? The one 2 days ahead is a little different. Johnbod (talk) 02:49, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't believe I've admitted that precedent is against me. Since CFD is not a vote, the numbers on each side are rather irrelevant. I have still yet to see any refutation of my arguments as supported by our guidelines beyond what amounts to "nuh-uh" so, again, I would hope that whatever admin closes this takes that into account. Otto4711 (talk) 13:41, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Well it certainly is against you, whether you admit it or not. Johnbod (talk) 15:18, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * What is not irrelevant, Otto, are the other opinions, regardless of the numbers. As much as you imagine others' opinions to be irrelevant, it is the weight of all opinions, not just your own, that will decide this cfr. And, of course, you'll respond for about the tenth time that no one has refuted your opinions about the guidelines. Ward3001 (talk) 15:32, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I never said that your opinion is irrelevant. Wrong, ill-thought-out, poorly articulated and unsupported by policy or guideline, but not irrelevant. And if someone would just refute my citation of the several relevant guidelines, I wouldn't have to keep repeating myself. Otto4711 (talk) 17:04, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * As predicted. Ward3001 (talk) 17:16, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


 * 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:Birmingham, England

 * 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. Kbdank71 13:19, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Propose renaming Category:Birmingham, England to Category:Birmingham
 * Nominator's rationale: Rename. If the article about the city is at Birmingham then there is no earthly reason for the category to be disambiguated. The same goes for all its subcategories. Necrothesp (talk) 14:21, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Rename: There is a Birmingham in USA, but it is small in comparison the Birmingham, England. This category can be renamed to "Birmingham", the same as the en wiki article. Snowman (talk) 14:24, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep This was discussed in the cfd of 17 Feb 2008 and closed as keep. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 14:29, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. I really don't agree with the closer's comments. If keeping the category name was clearer then we'd also rename the article to Birmingham, England - we haven't done. It's a much larger city than the one in Alabama and the second city of England and I fail to see why the rationale applying to the article name shouldn't apply equally to the category name. It is utterly illogical to have one rule for one and another rule for the other. Also note that there was not a particular consensus to keep the category names in that discussion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:26, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually the root problem here is the various locality naming conventions. WP:DISAMBIGUATION and WP:PRIMARYUSAGE seem to say that if not clear, then the topic should be dabbed.  However many editors of articles seem to say that a country naming convention should overrule other guidance. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:19, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per all of my comments on the last CFD. There is potential for confusion between Birmingham, England and Birmingham, Alabama and when in doubt clarity for the reader should be paramount. Whan I think "Birmingham" I think Alabama first, because I am in the US. To assume that everyone in the world will automatically associate "England" with "Birmingham" is Aglo-centric POV. The relative sizes of the two cities is irrelevant to the naming of their category structures. That the article resides at Birmingham while the category and its dozens of subcats reside at Category:Birmingham, England is an argument for renaming the article, not the category. Otto4711 (talk) 17:14, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. So do you think that London should be renamed London, England to avoid confusion with London, Ontario or Paris to Paris, France to avoid confusion with Paris, Texas? Of course the size and importance of the city is significant with regard to article titles - this has long been established on Wikipedia. As to "Anglo-centric POV", take a look at where Boston redirects you - there's one in England too! Using your argument, isn't that Americanocentric POV? You also have to take into consideration the fact that Americans routinely add the state to the end of city names. Most Americans would say "Birmingham, Alabama" in any case, but no British person would say "Birmingham, West Midlands" - it's just Birmingham. -- Necrothesp (talk) 21:28, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * If you believe that Boston should disambiguate between the American and English Bostons, then make the proposal. Same for Paris, London and any others you care to propose. Most Americans would not say "Birmingham, Alabama" in casual conversation; they would simply say "Birmingham." Which is why disambiguation is so important here. Otto4711 (talk) 12:23, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't. That's my whole point. Even most British people (unless they actually lived in Boston, Lincolnshire!) would think of Boston, Massachusetts first. As to your second point, most Canadians would just say "London" if they meant London, Ontario (I once had a long discussion completely at cross purposes with a Canadian on a message board for this very reason - we were talking about different Londons and didn't realise it for some time) - does that mean that London should be at London, England? No, of course it doesn't. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:57, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Birmingham in the US will cause most people to associate it with Alabama. Except for seeing it in a history book, most Americans probably don't think of a city in the UK.  When Americans talk about cities, they generally leave off the state since there is an assumed context.  We accept that and maybe that is why we find this type of rename unreasonable.  Clearly it is making an assumption about context that does not exist around the word.  We have shown that we are very willing to avoid the problem on the encyclopedia and don't understand why others object to clarity. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:48, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Rename. If the main article is so named, that should be the name used for the category. Bastin 17:14, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * To maximise potential confusion? Otto4711 is quite right - it's the article name that is unclear. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 21:00, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Rename to match main article. Lugnuts (talk) 18:19, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep to minimise any possibility for confusion and per the quite recent CFD. I personally think the styling of city without any further geographical information for articles and categories should be reserved only for capital cities that do not share a name with any other place in the world, e.g., Category:Ouagadougou. It would be nice to develop some sort of overarching standard for these articles and categories, but that's likely a pipe dream considering the divergent opinions on these matters. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:34, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * keep as is; rename main article instead. WP is not the place for preening by local supporters who think their locality is so special it needs no explanation; instead, WP is to help the reader not invite ambiguity.  All cities should be identified by their state/county/country etc to help readers 'place' them in their minds.  Hmains (talk) 02:15, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. A rather insulting comment. Also a very Americanocentric view. Most people in the world do not feel the need to add a qualifier to major city names unless absolutely necessary. Only in America, with a plethora of cities named after other (usually much larger) cities in Europe, will you hear "Paris, France", "London, England" or "Rome, Italy"! Most other people in the world know which city they're talking about. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:49, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * America is not the only place in the world that has adopted names from elsewhere. There are many duplicate names in the world in a variety of places. It's not centric-anything to ask for a disambiguating term. Rather the opposite — to assume that everyone knows what you are talking about when you use a one-word place name is centric of that place. If that's insulting for Europeans or anyone else who feels they have the primary claim on the name, that's something that they just need to get over, I imagine. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:08, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You misunderstand me. I don't think anyone has a primary claim on the name except the most important city that bears it. It seems sensible to me that Rome in Italy, known by many millions, has a greater claim to the name than some small town called Rome, population 873, in the rural United States. I'm also perfectly happy to accept that when people think of Boston they think of Boston, Massachusetts, not the small town it's named after in England. This has nothing to do with Europeans being insulted and everything to do with the primary use of the name. Birmingham, England is the second city of a very populous nation, has a population of over one million and was at one time regarded as the greatest industrial city on earth; Birmingham, Alabama is a mid-sized city among many other mid-sized cities in the United States. Big difference. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:57, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Objectively, yes, but it still doesn't help the person who subjectively thinks of the "non-primary" city when s/he hears the name. For such a person, "Birmingham, England" is more helpful. For those who assume "Birmingham" means "Birmingham, England", nothing changes, because the DAB term merely serves to confirm their own subjective thought tendency. Thus, to add "England" helps some and hurts none. But to leave it off hurts some. You said that "there is no earthly reason for the category to be disambiguated", but this is a reason, and it's the basis for my opposition to the change. Good Ol’factory (talk) 11:27, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that what you really oppose is the long-established WP principle of primary usage and you are trying to claim that categories do not need to abide by it, which to me merely creates inconsistency and greater confusion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:00, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * No, I don't disagree with the principle, but you're right that it currently only applies to articles, not categories. Incidentally, I disagree that "Birmingham, England" is confusing for anyone, as stated above. Good Ol’factory (talk) 12:04, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * And is it logical that it should only apply to articles and not categories? I can see no justification for double standards, which is what creates inconsistency and confusion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:59, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Because redirects do not work the same way in categories per Mayumashu's comment below. You keep referring to confusion but have yet to demonstrate why "Birmingham, England" on a category is confusing for anyone. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:49, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * How does the most important city automatically become the primary use? How would one determine most important?  It is also clear that contrary to what appears to be a European opinion, the first city to use a name is not the primary use because it was the first.  Clearly a dab should be used when there is any question about primary use.  Vegaswikian (talk) 22:39, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * No, nobody has said that at all; I have clearly stated with Boston that the American city, not the English town, should be the primary usage. Misrepresentation does not help discussion. Primary usage depends on size and relative importance, and in this context the British Birmingham is clearly the primary usage. It is much larger, it is the second city of England, and it was for decades one of the most important industrial cities in the world. Birmingham, Alabama is...well, it's a city in Alabama! -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:16, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep as the city in Alabama has its own category page (ie. is big enough to) and category pages do not redirect in the same automatic way as article pages do Mayumashu (talk) 15:27, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep as is. This is not the world's only Birmingham, even if is the most common usage. The similarly named city in Alabama is significant enough to justify preventing any confusion. Alansohn (talk) 18:18, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


 * 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 from Rome (city)

 * 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. Kbdank71 13:14, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Suggest merging Category:People from Rome (city) to Category:People from Rome
 * Nominator's rationale: Merge, I have no idea why this name was used in the first place. Rome is the title of the article on the city and there's no reason to disambiguate the name with a "(city)". If it's to prevent confusion with people from Ancient Rome as a state I don't really think it's necessary, since there's already a clear category Category:Ancient Romans and Ancient Romans born in Rome are already in Category:People from Rome (city). -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:09, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Keep to keep the two, province and city clear, both of which have a significant population. The ancient state and their Romans have had no part to play in the presentation of this disambiguation. Mayumashu (talk) 15:20, 23 April 2008 (UTC) keep and see about getting any loose naming standards in line so that they absolutely support this direction. Hmains (talk) 04:09, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. The naming style is used to distinguish/DAB it from Category:People from the Province of Rome. Category:People from Rome should really be a DAB category for the city and the province, not just a redirect to the city. The current naming formats are more clear, since many users who may be classifying articles may not even realise there is a Province of Rome. Note: Over a year ago, there was no consensus to change this in an identical proposal. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:28, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. Exactly. Most people don't realise there is a Province of Rome, so what's the burning need to disambiguate? When the word "Rome" is mentioned I would suspect that pretty much everyone in the world thinks of the city. Only four people contributed to the previous discussion, so I think it definitely deserves wider discussion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:51, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * If people don't know about the province, they might see a statement in an article that says, "she is from Rome". The word "Rome" might link to the province, but they don't check that because they only know of one Rome. Then they classify the person in the category "People from Rome". But the person is not from the city of Rome; violà, miscategorisation complete. It's not too difficult to imagine what the problem is. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:05, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh come on. If an article states "she is from Rome" then 99 times out of 100 it's going to mean "she is from the city of Rome"! How many links to Rome should actually be to the Province of Rome do you think? I'm guessing a tiny number, if any. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:59, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * So we ignore the 1%? The way it's structured now, the 1% problem is essentially solved. To change it as proposed creates a problem for the 1% and solves no problem, really. It's moving backwards, not forwards. Good Ol’factory (talk) 11:24, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * That's why we have redirects, to redirect the 1% to the 99%, not vice versa! Basic WP principles of primary usage and use common name. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:05, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * That works for articles. Not so well for categories since only soft redirects can be used. That sums up the underlying point well — the two situations for article and category are distinct, which is why the names of the category / article are distinct. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:47, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * 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:Honorary British knighthoods

 * 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 on april 29. Kbdank71 14:18, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Propose renaming Category:Honorary British knighthoods to Category:Recipients of honorary British honours
 * Nominator's rationale: Rename. First, it is not a category for honorary British knighthoods, but for recipients of honorary British knighthoods. Second, contrary to what some seem to believe, dames are not knights and this renaming allows for both male and female recipients. Thirdly, it also allows for recipients of lower awards than knighthoods. I suggest that subcats for each honour are then created within the cat and the cat for the appropriate honour to avoid double categorisation (e.g. instead of adding Category:Knights Commander of the Order of the British Empire and Category:Honorary British knighthoods to the Steven Spielberg article we could just add Category:Honorary Knights Commander of the Order of the British Empire). -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:57, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Rename to Category:Recipients of Honorary British Knighthoods. Honorary British honours would bring in a lot of other awards and change the nature of the category. I have never heard the word "Damehood", but Dames are the female equivalent of knights, and I do not think it is stretching things too far to include them. I do not think honorary awards are usually made for other British orders of knighthood. The possible exception is the award of "additional" garters to foreign monarchs, which is somewhat different. This thus only concerns KBE and DBE awarded to non-British subjects. It should not be a large category. The fact that Dames are stricly not knights can be adequately dealt with by added a headnote to the category page. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:27, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. All British orders of knighthood and chivalry at all levels can be and are awarded honorarily, not just the Order of the British Empire. See List of honorary British Knights (itself a rather poorly named article) for a long list of honorary knights who were not KBEs. It is potentially a very large category - there have been hundreds if not thousands of honorary knighthoods conferred over the centuries, many of them predating the creation of the Order of the British Empire in 1917. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:24, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * 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:Alabama 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. Kbdank71 13:12, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Propose renaming Category:Alabama albums to Category:Alabama (band) albums
 * Nominator's rationale: The band's article is Alabama (band). Their songs are in Category:Alabama (band) songs. Therefore, I think that this category should be moved to match the band article name. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 12:08, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Rename people might think that the category holds albums from Alabama.-- Lenticel ( talk ) 12:18, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Rename to match Alabama (band) and Category:Alabama (band) songs. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 13:38, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose. No need to disambiguate.  We wouldn't move Alabama discography to Alabama (band) discography.  The same principle should apply to the categories.  Move the song cat to Category:Alabama songs instead. Flowerparty ☀  14:03, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Rename for consistency with the other cats. Although remote, there is the possibility that someone might think this is a category for albums about Alabama rather than by the band Alabama, so why not alleviate that and match it up with the article and other cats? Otto4711 (talk) 17:18, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * 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 from Kano, Lagos

 * 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 Lagos, merge Kano to Category:People from Kano State. Kbdank71 14:14, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Propose renaming


 * Category:People from Kano to Category:People from Kano (city)
 * Category:People from Lagos to Category:People from Lagos (city)
 * Nominator's rationale: To avoid confusion with Category:People from Kano State, Category:People from Lagos State. This style of naming is found commonly enough (eg. Category:People from Rome (city)) Mayumashu (talk)


 * Why is Category:People from Rome a redirect? The article's at Rome, not Rome (city). Flowerparty ☀  07:14, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. The articles on the cities are at Lagos and Kano, which are far better known than the states of that name. I've also proposed the merging of the Rome category above. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:15, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Rename per nom for clarity. This is typically what is done when there are states/provinces and cities of the same name in the same country. Many editors classifying articles don't always realise there are locales that have identical names, and miscategorisations often result without these types of categories which are more explicitly clear. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:11, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. I am not sure about Lagos, but I do know something about Kano. It might be more appropriate to delete Category:People from Kano and put the few people there into Category:People from Kano State. It is a rough distinction in any event as people from Kano usually have strong links to a village outside the city. --Bduke (talk) 01:19, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I d support this suggested merger Mayumashu (talk) 07:24, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


 * 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.