Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 February 24



Category:Titular Sees of the Coptic Orthodox Church

 * 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: listify and delete. User:Erik9/Titular Sees of the Coptic Orthodox Church can be moved to the main namespace when an appropriate introduction is added. Erik9 (talk) 00:26, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * titular sees of the coptic orthodox church


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete WP:OC Molrr (talk) 22:35, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * You haven't really provided a rationale for deletion. Why do you feel that it's WP:OCAT? Cgingold (talk) 22:50, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Listify and delete. Unlike every other subcategory of Category:Religious sees the category does not contain articles about sees; rather it contains "cities, countries or continents that figure in the names of the titular sees," which mixes ecclesiastical and civil jurisdictions in an unhelpful way. It's like tagging Los Angeles in Category:Anglican dioceses and Category:Roman Catholic dioceses, misleading anyway because either diocese extends over far more territory than the City of Los Angeles.-choster (talk) 00:29, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per Choster. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:58, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Listify & Delete per Choster; hardly defining for "Africa", the "Near East" or "France". Johnbod (talk) 05:02, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Listify & Delete per Choster. I must confess I had no idea what a titular see might be, and a little research turned up Category:Titular sees (which seems just as shaky as the Coptic cat of sees, although Segermes (titular see) seems aptly categorised) and List of titular sees (which seems fine apart from a lack of references and its name, which needs to include 'Roman Catholic Church'). Occuli (talk) 10:28, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep we have Category:Titular sees for the Roman Catholic ones, no reason to discriminate against the Coptic Orthodox Church. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:46, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The problem is not with the concept, but with the content. The only article in the Coptic titular sees category that belongs there is Darnis; all the others are just settled places the sees were named after. The Catholic Category:Titular sees needs some cleanup as well, but the majority of articles there are validly categorized.-choster (talk) 23:57, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Also none of the Catholic ones link to articles on the places (now almost all disappeared or named differently) but to articles on the sees themselves, for which they are clearly defining. Not so with these ones. Johnbod (talk) 00:59, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Listify and delete per Choster. The links are not to articles on the sees, but to articles on the places they are named after.  Futhermore, I suspect that some of these are substantive (rather than titular) sees, though I do not know.  Alternaively listify then purge of all articles on places and keep the little that remains.  Peterkingiron (talk) 00:24, 26 February 2009 (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.

Pharmacology

 * 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: procedural close.  Not a lot of support, but then again, no opposition. Kbdank71 14:29, 4 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Recently I began a discussion regarding the categorization of pharmacology articles at WT:PHARM:CAT. To-date there has been a good amount of discussion concerning the proposed category scheme; however, I wanted to post it for review by the general wikipedia community in case anyone else has helpful feedback.  Therefore, if avaliable, I would ask for your review of WT:PHARM:CAT. (note: before posting here I confirmed the appropriateness of this thread) kilbad (talk) 18:59, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment – as a non-pharmacologist I had a glance through the discussions, which look fine to me. I think it's an excellent idea to discuss category structure before implementation; much traffic at cfd would be avoided if this practice was followed more generally. You could create the top structure first before implementing the subcats and see if it works out as expected. Occuli (talk) 10:04, 25 February 2009 (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.

Restaurants

 * 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 except for Las Vegas (applies to other renames on this page). Kbdank71 14:27, 4 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Propose renaming Category:Restaurants in Chicago to Category:Restaurants in Chicago, Illinois
 * Propose renaming Category:Restaurants in Cincinnati to Category:Restaurants in Cincinnati, Ohio
 * Propose renaming Category:Restaurants in Denver to Category:Restaurants in Denver, Colorado
 * Propose renaming Category:Restaurants in Detroit to Category:Restaurants in Detroit, Michigan
 * Propose renaming Category:Restaurants in Kansas City to Category:Restaurants in Kansas City, Missouri
 * Propose renaming Category:Restaurants in Las Vegas to Category:Restaurants in Las Vegas, Nevada
 * Propose renaming Category:Restaurants in Nashville to Category:Restaurants in Nashville, Tennessee
 * Propose renaming Category:Restaurants in New Orleans to Category:Restaurants in New Orleans, Louisiana
 * Propose renaming Category:Restaurants in Philadelphia to Category:Restaurants in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
 * Propose renaming Category:Restaurants in San Francisco to Category:Restaurants in San Francisco, California
 * Propose renaming Category:Restaurants in Seattle to Category:Restaurants in Seattle, Washington
 * Nominator's rationale: Appending state as per many nominations of this type, and in conformity with other members of Category:Restaurants by city in the United States.--Mike Selinker (talk) 15:58, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * rename It is the job of an encyclopedia to inform people, not let them guess and not assume they have knowledge that we have. Proper and complete names help in all such cases.  Hmains (talk) 03:14, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Rename per nom except for Category:Restaurants in Las Vegas to Category:Restaurants in the Las Vegas metropolitan area. Only one of these is in the city and the metro area category covers the broader area.  No objection to including a city category as a subcategory.  Vegaswikian (talk) 06:54, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe better as Category:Restaurants in Clark County, Nevada, then. Or maybe we need a special rule for Las Vegas that categories using the term "in Las Vegas" can include the parts of the Strip that are in Paradise and Henderson.--Mike Selinker (talk) 15:05, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The metro area is Las Vegas for most people. Personally it is better to leave it as Las Vegas, but in the past there was no support for doing that. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:25, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree. In the case of businesses on the Strip, they are only outside Las Vegas for tax reasons. They share the same police force, for example. So I'd leave it as Las Vegas too.--Mike Selinker (talk) 23:42, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Match category to article name Support for articles where "City, State" is used, but NOT where only "City" is used as per the AP stylebook, such as San Francisco. --Joowwww (talk) 15:10, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The AP style book is for headlines where there is the context of a city. Otherwise the city only is ambiguous.  So following the article produces ambiguous results unless the target is to city, state and the category only contains article within the city. Vegaswikian (talk)
 * Comment while matching the cat to the article is good, are these articles specific to a city's limits useful. One editor has proposed that it isn't in the case of Las Vegas. And in how many of these shall McDonald's belong - as there are probably McDonald's restaurants in all these cities. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:49, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Moreover, San Francisco, not San Francisco, California, is where the article currently is, so in that case (perhaps, others?) the rename would un-match the cat to the article and therefore be bad even if the overall proposal would be adopted. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:52, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually San Francisco is ambiguous, albeit less so then Los Angles. Note that the companion category is at Category:Food and dining in the San Francisco Bay Area and some of the parents for this category are Category:Buildings and structures in San Francisco, California and Category:Companies based in San Francisco, California. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:37, 25 February 2009 (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.

Churches

 * 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 14:24, 4 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Propose renaming Category:Churches in Baltimore to Category:Churches in Baltimore, Maryland
 * Propose renaming Category:Churches in Chicago to Category:Churches in Chicago, Illinois
 * Propose renaming Category:Churches in Cleveland to Category:Churches in Cleveland, Ohio
 * Propose renaming Category:Churches in Denver to Category:Churches in Denver, Colorado
 * Propose renaming Category:Churches in Miami to Category:Churches in Miami, Florida
 * Propose renaming Category:Churches in Milwaukee to Category:Churches in Milwaukee, Wisconsin
 * Propose renaming Category:Churches in Minneapolis-St. Paul to Category:Churches in Minneapolis-St. Paul, Minnesota
 * Propose renaming Category:Churches in Nashville to Category:Churches in Nashville, Tennessee
 * Propose renaming Category:Churches in New Orleans to Category:Churches in New Orleans, Louisiana
 * Propose renaming Category:Churches in Omaha to Category:Churches in Omaha, Nebraska
 * Propose renaming Category:Churches in Philadelphia to Category:Churches in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
 * Propose renaming Category:Churches in Pittsburgh to Category:Churches in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
 * Propose renaming Category:Churches in St. Louis to Category:Churches in St. Louis, Missouri
 * Nominator's rationale: Appending state as per many nominations of this type, and in conformity with other members of Category:Churches in the United States by city.--Mike Selinker (talk) 15:58, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * rename It is the job of an encyclopedia to inform people, not let them guess and not assume they have knowledge that we have. Proper and complete names help in all such cases.  Hmains (talk) 03:14, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Match category to article name Support for articles where "City, State" is used, but NOT where only "City" is used as per the AP stylebook, such as San Francisco. --Joowwww (talk) 15:10, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Why the AP Stylebook? I don't have access to the AP Stylebook, and I doubt most Wikipedians do either, so how are we supposed to know which ones are the exception to this rule? And don't these AP rules just apply to headlines and bylines anyway? Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:36, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * AP style specifically applies to datelines. It's a weird thing to expect Wikipedia editors to understand, in my opinion. I don't think even Wikinews uses it.--Mike Selinker (talk) 17:21, 2 March 2009 (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.

Skyscrapers

 * 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 14:23, 4 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Propose renaming Category:Skyscrapers in Atlanta to Category:Skyscrapers in Atlanta, Georgia
 * Propose renaming Category:Skyscrapers in Charlotte to Category:Skyscrapers in Charlotte, North Carolina
 * Propose renaming Category:Skyscrapers in Chicago to Category:Skyscrapers in Chicago, Illinois
 * Propose renaming Category:Skyscrapers in Cincinnati to Category:Skyscrapers in Cincinnati, Ohio
 * Propose renaming Category:Skyscrapers in Cleveland to Category:Skyscrapers in Cleveland, Ohio
 * Propose renaming Category:Skyscrapers in Dallas to Category:Skyscrapers in Dallas, Texas
 * Propose renaming Category:Skyscrapers in Denver to Category:Skyscrapers in Denver, Colorado
 * Propose renaming Category:Skyscrapers in Detroit to Category:Skyscrapers in Detroit, Michigan
 * Propose renaming Category:Skyscrapers in Jersey City to Category:Skyscrapers in Jersey City, New Jersey
 * Propose renaming Category:Skyscrapers in Las Vegas to Category:Skyscrapers in Las Vegas, Nevada
 * Propose renaming Category:Skyscrapers in Louisville to Category:Skyscrapers in Louisville, Kentucky
 * Propose renaming Category:Skyscrapers in Memphis to Category:Skyscrapers in Memphis, Tennessee
 * Propose renaming Category:Skyscrapers in Miami to Category:Skyscrapers in Miami, Florida
 * Propose renaming Category:Skyscrapers in Miami Beach to Category:Skyscrapers in Miami Beach, Florida
 * Propose renaming Category:Skyscrapers in Minneapolis to Category:Skyscrapers in Minneapolis, Minnesota
 * Propose renaming Category:Skyscrapers in Mobile to Category:Skyscrapers in Mobile, Alabama
 * Propose renaming Category:Skyscrapers in Nashville to Category:Skyscrapers in Nashville, Tennessee
 * Propose renaming Category:Skyscrapers in New Orleans to Category:Skyscrapers in New Orleans, Louisiana
 * Propose renaming Category:Skyscrapers in Omaha to Category:Skyscrapers in Omaha, Nebraska
 * Propose renaming Category:Skyscrapers in Philadelphia to Category:Skyscrapers in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
 * Propose renaming Category:Skyscrapers in Pittsburgh to Category:Skyscrapers in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
 * Propose renaming Category:Skyscrapers in Providence to Category:Skyscrapers in Providence, Rhode Island
 * Propose renaming Category:Skyscrapers in San Francisco to Category:Skyscrapers in San Francisco, California
 * Propose renaming Category:Skyscrapers in Seattle to Category:Skyscrapers in Seattle, Washington
 * Propose renaming Category:Skyscrapers in Tampa to Category:Skyscrapers in Tampa, Florida
 * Propose renaming Category:Skyscrapers in Winston-Salem to Category:Skyscrapers in Winston-Salem, North Carolina


 * Nominator's rationale: Appending state as per many nominations of this type, and in conformity with other members of Category:Skyscrapers by city.--Mike Selinker (talk) 15:58, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * rename It is the job of an encyclopedia to inform people, not let them guess and not assume they have knowledge that we have. Proper and complete names help in all such cases.  Hmains (talk) 03:13, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Rename per nom except for Category:Skyscrapers in Las Vegas to Category:Skyscrapers in the Las Vegas metropolitan area. Only a few of these are in the city and the metro area category covers the broader area.  No objection to including a city category as a subcategory.  Also the LV cat appears to be for Nevada and not New Mexico. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:58, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Cuz I'm an idiot. I fixed the Nevada one. Anyway, see above: maybe "Clark County" or a special rule allowing the Strip to be included?--Mike Selinker (talk) 15:06, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Match category to article name Support for articles where "City, State" is used, but NOT where only "City" is used as per the AP stylebook, such as San Francisco. --Joowwww (talk) 15:11, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Why the AP Stylebook? I don't have access to the AP Stylebook, and I doubt most Wikipedians do either, so how are we supposed to know which ones are the exception to this rule? And don't these AP rules just apply to headlines and bylines anyway? Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:35, 1 March 2009 (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.

Theatre companies

 * 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 14:21, 4 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Propose renaming Category:Theatre companies in Boston to Category:Theatre companies in Boston, Massachusetts
 * Propose renaming Category:Theatre companies in Chicago to Category:Theatre companies in Chicago, Illinois
 * Propose renaming Category:Theatre companies in Cincinnati to Category:Theatre companies in Cincinnati, Ohio
 * Propose renaming Category:Theatre companies in Minneapolis to Category:Theatre companies in Minneapolis, Minnesota
 * Propose renaming Category:Theatre companies in San Francisco to Category:Theatre companies in San Francisco, California
 * Propose renaming Category:Theatre in Atlanta to Category:Theatre in Atlanta, Georgia
 * Propose renaming Category:Theatre in Boston to Category:Theatre in Boston, Massachusetts
 * Propose renaming Category:Theatre in San Francisco to Category:Theatre in San Francisco, California
 * Propose renaming Category:Theatres in Atlanta to Category:Theatres in Atlanta, Georgia
 * Propose renaming Category:Theatres in Chicago to Category:Theatres in Chicago, Illinois
 * Propose renaming Category:Theatres in Cincinnati to Category:Theatres in Cincinnati, Ohio
 * Propose renaming Category:Theatres in Cleveland to Category:Theatres in Cleveland, Ohio
 * Propose renaming Category:Chicago opera companies to category:Opera companies in Chicago, Illinois
 * Nominator's rationale: Appending state as per many nominations of this type, and in conformity with similar categories. Note that these are slightly different subjects, but I felt they could be treated as a group.--Mike Selinker (talk) 15:58, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Rename all but note that the article on San Francisco is currently not disambiguated, so there may be some pushback on that score. --Stepheng3 (talk) 17:22, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose making these renames on a piecemeal basis. There should be a general discussion on this topic. In particular, Chicago is not disambiguated, nor are a large number (half?) of its categories. --Eliyak T · C 20:45, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * In the case of Chicago, the parent category is Category:Chicago, Illinois. Similarly on Category:San Francisco, California. I think the right way to have that discussion is to propose renaming those to Category:Chicago and Category:San Francisco. (I don't support that, mind you, but that's what I would do if I felt these categories should be city-only.)--Mike Selinker (talk) 05:07, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Rename all (and all the similar noms on this page) per many precedents for category names. Occuli (talk) 22:16, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * rename It is the job of an encyclopedia to inform people, not let them guess and not assume they have knowledge that we have. Proper and complete names help in all such cases.  Hmains (talk) 03:13, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Match category to article name Support for articles where "City, State" is used, but NOT where only "City" is used as per the AP stylebook, such as San Francisco. --Joowwww (talk) 15:11, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Why the AP Stylebook? I don't have access to the AP Stylebook, and I doubt most Wikipedians do either, so how are we supposed to know which ones are the exception to this rule? And don't these AP rules just apply to headlines and bylines anyway? Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:37, 1 March 2009 (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:Texas music artists

 * 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 to Category:Texas country musicians. Kbdank71 14:20, 4 March 2009 (UTC)


 * texas music artists


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete Not a clearly defined category. Music of Texas doesn't make it clear which artists would qualify as "Texas music" artists. Do they just have to be from Texas? Do they have to be country, Americana, etc.? Do they have to have a certain style? "Music of Texas" doesn't make it clear. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 20:18, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Rename to Category:Texas Country musicians Category:Texas country musicians, as the category is for artists of Texas Country Music (aka Texas Music). When categorizing by music genre, "musicians" is the common style, not "music artists," e.g. Category:American country rock musicians and Category:Canadian bluegrass musicians.-choster (talk) 19:27, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment There is now a related CfD for Texas music, and capitalization (Texas Country vs Texas country) should match between the two.-choster (talk) 04:00, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kbdank71 14:55, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Rename probably per Choster, but in any case avoiding "artists", which per many precedents here should be restricted to visual arts artists in category names (although "recording artists" has been accepted). If "musicians" suggests only instumentalists, there is always "performers".  Johnbod (talk) 15:47, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Based on the other CfD we have arrived at Category:Texas country musicians. This has the potential to be interpreted as "Country musicians from Texas"; however, Category:American country musicians is not broken down by state.-choster (talk) 02:58, 27 February 2009 (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:Polydactylic people

 * 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 14:18, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

polydactylic people
 * Delete and Listify  - As a relatively minor physical attribute this doesn't warrant a category (I'd say this is on a par with that eye-color (heterochromia) category that we deleted a few months back). However I think it's probably of sufficient interest to convert to list-article form.  Cgingold (talk) 13:28, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It turns out there's already a list-section in the article about Polydactyly, so no need to listify. Cgingold (talk) 13:57, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep besides a couple minor nitpicky issues, the nominator gives no policy/guideline related reasons to delete it, so defaulting to keep. I created this category because I thought it would be helpful to people researching the topic, or just interested in what people had the condition. I understand there is a list as well, but in my opinion categories are a lot eaiser to browse through and maintain. Tavix (talk) 00:18, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * While it may not be specified in the guidelines -- our "civil code", if you will -- there is a substantial body of "case law" in the form of CFDs for similar sorts of categories. If you look at the contents of the parent, Category:People by medical or psychological condition, you will see that they are categories for more serious conditions (and it's always possible that one or more of those will be nominated for deletion at some point). Those for lesser, relatively minor physical attributes have been deleted. Hope that helps! Cgingold (talk) 00:44, 25 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - the condition is not a defining characteristic, which is the cardinal requirement for categorisation - would a brief obituary of the person mention the condition? Occuli (talk) 13:25, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as nominated. Not a defining physical condition; a list exists which serves the same purpose. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:09, 1 March 2009 (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:Library types by subject

 * 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 to Category:Types of library by subject area. Kbdank71 14:18, 4 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Suggest merging Category:Library types by subject to Category:Types of library
 * Nominator's rationale: Merge, unclear distinction between these two categories. There is one item in the first that is not in the second. --Eliyak T · C 13:26, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Some libraries are specialized by subject (i.e. art libraries); some by their function (i.e. academic libraries); there is some overlap but it is a useful distinction. Tentative keep separate. Pegship (talk) 03:45, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - I can see a rationale for this sub-cat, but I'm undecided on its value, so I've...  Cgingold (talk) 04:31, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * keep and probably do few more subjects. There's already one that needed adding, Science fiction libraries....  Yes, everything in this category will go as a superset into Library types. But its still a meaningful sub-category.  there are for example medical libraries, and law libraries. Medical libraries can be in  in one country, or another, and so can law libraries. There are multiple dimensions to categorize, Libraries by country is a meaning subcategory, and so is this. DGG (talk) 04:39, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. If kept, I think it should anyhow be renamed to Category:Subject libraries. --Eliyak T · C 02:50, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Rename. The question is the name.  Category:Subject libraries does not seem to help.  I see something like Category:Subject specific libraries or Category:Specific subject libraries, but I'm not convinced those are useful names. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:33, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep but Rename - I've been giving this a lot of thought, and spent a good while exploring Category:Libraries and its sub-cats. (While I was at it, I set up a new grouping category, Category:Libraries by type, to organize those sub-cats more coherently and facilitate navigation.) My suggestion for renaming is based, firstly, on the thought that it would help to use the term "subject area" rather than "subject"; and secondly, on the premise that it needs to include the word "types" so it's not used for individual libraries. After rejecting a number of wordings I finally settled on two close variants: either Category:Types of library by subject area, or Category:Library types by subject area,. I prefer the first because it parallels the parent, Category:Types of library, which should help clue readers in to the fact that this is a subset which differs only with respect to their focus on specific subject areas. Cgingold (talk) 10:42, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I can live with Category:Types of library by subject area. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:29, 28 February 2009 (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:Articles being handled by WikiProject Nutrition

 * 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 (has remained empty). Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:33, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * articles being handled by wikiproject nutrition


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete Not used since 2006, see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Nutrition. -- Jeandré, 2009-02-24t12:17z 12:17, 24 February 2009 (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:Y.R. K.V. Mechelen

 * 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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:12, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Y.R. K.V. Mechelen to Category:KV Mechelen
 * Propose renaming Category:Y.R. K.V. Mechelen managers to Category:KV Mechelen managers
 * Propose renaming Category:Y.R. K.V. Mechelen matches to Category:KV Mechelen matches
 * Propose renaming Category:Y.R. K.V. Mechelen players to Category:KV Mechelen players
 * Nominator's rationale: Rename. Where disambiguation is not necessary, as in this case, football club category names should match the name of the club's article. – PeeJay 12:06, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related page moves. – PeeJay 12:15, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 15:29, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Supprt per nom. --Uksam88 (talk) 16:47, 2 March 2009 (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:Lists of Acts of Parliament of the United Kingdom Parliament

 * 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 14:15, 4 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Propose renaming Category:Lists of Acts of Parliament of the United Kingdom Parliament to Category:Lists of acts of Parliament in the United Kingdom
 * Nominator's rationale: Rename. According to June 2006 renaming of List of acts of Parliament in the United Kingdom Espoo (talk) 00:18, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose singular, Support dropping second "Parliament" - this category captures lists, not a singular list, so the name should be plural. Otto4711 (talk) 01:36, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Oops, plural was meant; changed the proposal accordingly.


 * Slow down. User:Espoo just moved the list two weeks ago from List of Acts of Parliament in the United Kingdom to List of acts of Parliament in the United Kingdom, with no discussion that I can see. In the last few days the user has moved a large number of the lists, which have remained with a capital A in the word Acts for a very long time.  I'd actually like to see some discussion regarding whether those moves were the right thing to do before we start renaming the categories as well. I appreciate being bold and all of that, but let's have some better discussion and some better reasoning. Hiding T 11:57, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Many of the articles (lists) themselves used both lowercase and uppercase for acts in general (in addition to uppercase for specific acts, which I of course left uppercase since these are proper nouns). 2) The term "act" is not a proper noun unless part of a specific act's name. 3) The UK parliament has a tradition of using uppercase for many common nouns, but this is based on an outdated style that is not followed by most publishing houses today. 4) Most dictionaries show this modern usage by listing only lowercase (unless giving an example of a specific act) or by listing the uppercase usage second, as an alternative and older usage. The last 2 are the only major dictionaries I found that even mention uppercase usage, and both only as "also" or "often" (which would read "usually" if it were more common than lowercase.) 5) MOS:CAPS: Wikipedia's house style avoids unnecessary capitalization; most capitalization is for proper names, acronyms, and initialisms. It may be helpful to consult MOS: Proper names if in doubt about whether a particular item is a proper name. (And if you're worried about the next paragraph, remember that the first 2 dictionaries above are Oxford and Cambridge UP.) --Espoo (talk) 12:47, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose change to lower case, the word Act is usually capitalised by parliament and other major UK institutions. I think Category:Lists of Acts of the Parliament of the United Kingdom or perhaps Category:Lists of United Kingdom Acts of Parliament may be good alternatives based on Category:Acts of the Parliament of the United Kingdom and Category:United Kingdom Acts of Parliament by year. Tim! (talk) 17:53, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Move article(s) back -- "Act of Parliament" is the correct capitalisation, unless you are e.e. cummings. However, we do not need "Parliament" twice.  Peterkingiron (talk) 22:01, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * You and Tim are only talking about the tradition in Parliament (the UK parliament), which is of course followed by other official institutions in the UK and which I referred to in 3) above, but the many other points I mentioned, including most (including UK) dictionaries speak for lowercase. See also use in other encyclopedias such as Columbia: the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890...The act prohibited  and Britannica: This same threat was used (by a Liberal government) in 1911 to compel the Lords to approve the Parliament Act, which enables a majority of the House of Commons to override the majority of the Lords in the latter's rejection of a bill. Under this act, ... I can see why lowercase looks wrong to you, but it's only a tradition in official UK institutions (which violates general, modern rules of capitalisation [and MOS] and) which is not followed by many UK publishers including dictionaries, which show that lowercase is most common in reputable sources, otherwise dictionaries wouldn't list it first. --Espoo (talk) 07:14, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It should be noted that both publications to which you refer are US based (yes even EB) and thus do not reflect widespread British usage. Take for example this BBC news article and this Times article in which the word Act is capitalised.Tim! (talk) 18:07, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The Oxford University Press and Cambridge University Press dictionaries linked to above are not US-based. When they and other major UK dictionaries like Longman (also linked to above) and Collins use lowercase, this very definitely reflects and documents widespread British usage. And, for example, the Economist and politics.co.uk and the biggest Bangladesh paper at least sometimes and the Guardian usually use lowercase: . The uppercase spelling "Act" is not used by all UK publishers, so WP doesn't have to follow this outdated and illogical tradition, especially since it violates MOS:CAPS.
 * Well I googled "act of parliament" and capitalisation seems to outweigh non-capitalisation. As for The Guardian, it has a reputation for spelling mistakes and grammatical errors, hence its nickname "The Grauniad". It capitalises its own name "the guardian" on its front page, yet the wikipedia article is at the capitalised version. As I have cited many current references, you cannot argue the use is outdated, and it is not illogical as the use is so widespread. MOS:CAPS also states "If possible, as with spelling, use rules appropriate to the cultural and linguistic context." This clearly applies. Tim! (talk) 18:48, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * There is no way that a raw Google search can compete with the database and the expertise of even a single dictionary, and you're trying to use it against the combined expertise of apparently all English dictionaries. Please take a look at Search engine test. Modern dictionaries do not impose rules and instead describe current usage in reputable sources. Since all or most list lowercase exclusively or first, that means that lowercase is much more widespread nowadays than uppercase when considering all reputable sources. Since we all agree that uppercase was more widespread before, it's clearly the older usage that is clearly considered outdated by most dictionaries and the reputable sources they're based on. And I'm sure you'll agree that capitalisation of a common noun is not normal or logical according to the very well established English capitalisation rule (usage). There may of course be a reason to make an exception with some common noun (though I can't think of a single one off the top of my head), and there may be a widespread tradition of doing so in certain cases, but that doesn't make such an exception logical. Of course usage is not dictated by logic alone, but I hope you'll agree that it's not incorrect or even denigrating to call an exception to a very well established usage illogical. Many things in spelling and writing are of course not logical, but when MOS clearly prefers something (avoiding unnecessary uppercase) that most English dictionaries "prefer" (= list as most common usage), there's not really any reason to prefer the less logical of two existing usages.--Espoo (talk) 09:18, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose, per my extensive comments here. Depending how these discussions come out, we probably also need to think about about, eg, fixing the recent changes to Act of Parliament. Is there somewhere we could have a more extensive discussion on this, rather than fragmented? Shimgray | talk | 20:43, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(capital_letters) would no doubt be the right place since uppercase "Act" seems to clearly violate MOS:CAPS without any compelling reason.--Espoo (talk) 22:19, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Depends on your pov, actually. A number of people don;t think it does violate the MoS, so it's a matter up for dispute and resolved by consensus. Hiding T 22:20, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * In case it isn't clear, I oppose. This isn't a matter for the MoS, it's a matter for consensus, per policy. Hiding T 12:09, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, naming conventions call for the A to be capitalised. Hiding T 12:13, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Please explain what you mean. --Espoo (talk) 17:57, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Um, okay, I'll have a go. The Naming conventions policy indicates the A of Act or Acts should be capitalised.  Hope that clarifies. Hiding T 09:39, 4 March 2009 (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.