Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 December 2



Category:American politicians convicted of corruption

 * 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 to Category:American politicians convicted of crimes. I will also merge it (i.e. add the two sub-cats, being the only current contents) into Category:Political corruption in the United States. – Fayenatic  L ondon 20:41, 20 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Propose merging Category:American politicians convicted of corruption to Category:American politicians convicted of crimes
 * Nominator's rationale: Merge. Small category with limited growth potential. The only article that had been in it I relocated to an existing sub-category for the specific crime. "Corruption" is a fairly nebulous term and I don't see any need for this layer interposed between the sub-cat and the parent. There are two other parent categories and this can be merged to them or not as people see fit. Buck Winston (talk) 23:32, 2 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Merge per nom. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 00:08, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * keep The possible articles here are not limited, given the activities of various politicians. The use of categories is not only what articles they directly have, but also what subcats they have.  This category is also a child of Category:Political corruption in the United States that the nominator did not mention above.  The suggested merge merge will result in the loss of this significant connection for purposes of navigation, the purpose of our categories.  Also, corruption is well defined in WP, both with the article Corruption and the entire category tree Category:Corruption. Instead of spending time trying to delete categories, WP would be better served if time were spent populating them by studying articles. Hmains (talk) 01:25, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep The category is anything but small, and growth potential seems nearly unlimited by the scope of the vast resources available to crooked politicians. The parent Category:American politicians convicted of crimes is a catchall that describes itself as including individuals convicted for "crimes of various kinds", while the category in questions is more sharply focused and more specifically relevant to the fact that these individuals are (or more hopefully, were, in the past tense) politicians. Alansohn (talk) 03:51, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. This is a catch-all cat for 'politicians we don't like.' Hardly surprising it is well populated. Benkenobi18 (talk) 21:05, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge per nom. Corruption is a fairly amorphous term, and the more general "crimes" category is a much better name.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:29, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The category describes itself as including "American politicans convicted of corruption, generally political corruption." A politician like Rod Blagojevich, who accepts a bribe is guilty of corruption, while a politician like Marion Barry who was convicted of drug crimes is not. How is "corruption" amorphous by this definition, and how would "crimes" not be about as amorphous as possible? Isn't the difference between political corruption in which an elected official misuses his office rather different from a politician who violates drug laws and other regulations unrelated to their public service a rather strong distinction worth making? Alansohn (talk) 22:54, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment while it is true this has more specific sub-categories, it is unclear why we need this specific layer of categories. I think putting its sub-cats directly in the convicted of crimes cat is a much better plan.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:31, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep as a defining characteristic. Category is reasonably large with good potential for growth. Crime of corruption is well defined (i.e.political corruption: "Political corruption is the use of power by government officials for illegitimate private gain. Misuse...") --Andrewaskew (talk) 03:24, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep -- possibly renamed "... political corruption". This may not be the precise offense, but it should not be difficult to recognise.  Politicians who take bribes or exploit office for their own gain are a particularly reprehensible group who need to be split out of these merely guilty of other crimes, not necessarily connected to abuse of office.  Peterkingiron (talk) 17:13, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * They are already split out by the actual crime they committed as opposed to the non-specific "corruption". Using categories to identify people as "particularly reprehensible" is not objective and not a correct use of categories. Buck Winston (talk) 20:48, 4 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment we have a specific category for those convicted of bribery, I see no reason to merge bribery with other things grouped under "corruption".John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:33, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge. There is no Category:People convicted of corruption. Most jurisdictions do not have such a crime. They could be grouped by the crimes they were actually convicted of, such as bribery, perversion of justice, etc. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:10, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge There should be no issue with having the children directly under Category:American politicians convicted of crimes. Category:American politicians convicted of federal public corruption crimes can also be under Category:Political corruption in the United States. Is 'corruption', without being 'federal public corruption' even something the US law system CAN convict someone of? If not, corruption might be well defined but 'convicted of corruption' is not. --Qetuth (talk) 22:56, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment would there be anyone left in this category were it pruned of anyone convicted of something not titled corruption, such as bribery/abuse of office/padding the expense account/paying off the mistress/influence peddling/tax evasion??? If so, show me. If not, time to delete an unpopulatable category. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:54, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, no, because the category is already empty. It is in effect a container category with a vaguer but equivalent name than one of its children. --Qetuth (talk) 09:29, 9 December 2012 (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:Descendants of Rabbi Meir Katzenellenbogen

 * 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 where necessary into existing List of notable descendants of Meir Katzenellenbogen. – Fayenatic  L ondon 20:45, 20 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Propose deleting descendants of rabbi meir katzenellenbogen


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete. CFD has a long history of deleting categories for descendants of specific people. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:03, 2 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. Good catch GOF. :) Benkenobi18 (talk) 21:09, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete descendants cats are a very bad idea. We have consistently deleted them as such wherenver they come up at CfD.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:31, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep/Oppose the notability and diversity of the descendants is significant and passes both the test of triviality OC and threshold established OC. The unique nature of the Jewish Diaspora and the direct, traceable lineage of these notable individuals in particular illustrated in detail in an exhaustive scholarly publication Talk:List_of_notable_descendants_of_Meir_Katzenellenbogen is valuable. MerlinsMagic (talk) 16:48, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * This is not a category for which OC applies. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:04, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Listify (if necessary) and delete -- We long ago did that for a category concerned with the issue of Queen Victoria, surely a much more significant figure. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:15, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete didn't we Queen Victoria's issue earlier; certainly the rabbi is less notable than her. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:55, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Impressed to be able to learn from each of you who are more experienced with this issue. Was only trying to contribute, learn, and have no objection to the small chorus that believes the category should be deleted. I believe having the list maintained as an article and connected to the good rabbi's page should suffice. MerlinsMagic (talk) 02:09, 7 December 2012 (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:Permanent Representatives of Kazakhstan to the European Union

 * 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. – Fayenatic  L ondon 20:50, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Permanent Representatives of Kazakhstan to the European Union to Category:Ambassadors of Kazakhstan to the European Union
 * Nominator's rationale: Rename. Kazakhstan is not a member of the EU, so it send ambassadors to the EU, not permanent representatives. Only EU members send permanent representatives. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:17, 2 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Rename per nom. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 00:09, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Rename per nom. If Kazakstan ever joins the EU (which is unlikely, but who knows) we would still have to distinguish those who were ambassadors from those who held something named like this category is currently named.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:33, 3 December 2012 (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:Mayors of Independence, Missouri

 * 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 to Category:People from Independence, Missouri and Category:Mayors of places in Missouri. Without prejudice to re-creation if we get more articles about mayors of Independence, Missouri. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:05, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:Mayors of Independence, Missouri to Category:People from Independence, Missouri
 * Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. Only has 1 entry ...William 15:32, 2 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Merge as nom. I do not think the city is big enough to warrant a category for mayors.  Peterkingiron (talk) 20:56, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge per Peterkingiron. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 00:09, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * In principle, a city of with a population of 116,830 in the most recent census is large enough for its mayors to count as notable per WP:POLITICIAN — and a category doesn't have a distinct size cutoff, but is valid as soon as we actually have enough articles about the city's mayors to populate one. It's also possible that we already have other articles about past mayors of the city which just haven't been properly categorized yet. So if the category can be augmented with at least one or two more articles before this discussion closes, then keep — however, if this is in fact the only mayor of the city that we have at the present time, then merge per nom (but do so without prejudice against recreation in the future if and when we have more than one mayor to file in it.) Bearcat (talk) 18:05, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. Fill the cat with the articles we do have on the mayors of Indepedence. Benkenobi18 (talk) 21:02, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge per nom. I cannot seem to find any other articles on mayors of Independence, Missouri.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:38, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Double upmerge to Category:Mayors of places in Missouri also Hugo999 (talk) 11:22, 10 December 2012 (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:Songs written by B*Witched

 * 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, especially as all four songs are by additional people as well. – Fayenatic  L ondon 21:02, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting songs written by b*witched


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete. Songs are written by people, not by people who are then associated together in some other way. Making categories of songwriters by band member affiliation is a huge headache and not at all helpful to navigation. This is supported by WP:SONGS which states, Where a team of people is credited for a characteristic (excluding songwriter credits which should be split to the individuals), the official credit must not be split into multiple categories for individual team members. Previous discussions include The Bee Gees and The Miracles and Lady Antebellum. Further, on the closure of Songs written by The Clash, the nomination was closed with the comment, I'm going to suggest a precedent here: that if a song is credited as written by a band, and is already in a category of the style "(band) songs", it does not need a category for songwriting. -Richhoncho (talk) 09:04, 2 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:39, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment we have grouped songwriter categories such as the lennon mccartney one and such like. Also merging to bewitche songs wod loose something as they did not write all of their songs.146.90.110.75 (talk) 07:57, 15 December 2012 (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:Los Angeles, California

 * 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: no consensus as below. – Fayenatic  L ondon 21:13, 2 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Propose renaming Category:Los Angeles, California to Category:Los Angeles
 * Nominator's rationale: Rename. There is not need for disambiguation; Category:Los Angeles is not a disambiguation page but a redirect page. (This nomination and the one immediately below should be jointly considered.) Mayumashu (talk) 22:31, 2 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose per all the comments below. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 00:12, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Rename. Category names should match the name of the corresponding article. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:22, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Support Rename GO says it best, and we should use the article title wherever possible in generating category names. Like Cher and Liberace, Los Angeles as an article title needs no disambiguation, even if both the people and the city have been rather ambiguous most of the time. Alansohn (talk) 03:47, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Support It's high time categories caught up with mainspace in this regard. --BDD (talk) 18:45, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose – we spent some weeks under the wise guidance of Mike Selinker standardising nearly all the US-city categories into the form 'City, State' (see eg a previous attempt for exactly this rename). We should temper our enthusiasm to follow article names with due regard for consistency of category names and the avoidance of ambiguity. Oculi (talk) 20:15, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * That was four years ago, and a lot has changed since then. For one, the "California" has been dropped from the article title.    p  b  p  00:55, 7 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose per Oculi. Benkenobi18 (talk) 21:03, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose there is also a Los Angeles, Chile so I think this form is needed for disambiguation.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:40, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * LA, California is the primary topic for the English-speaking world p  b  p  00:55, 7 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Rename. As per Good Ol’factory. We should maintain correspondence between names unless absolutely necessary. --Andrewaskew (talk) 03:24, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Rename. Discussion regarding which is correct should be at the article - categories should follow the article names for the most obvious of reasons.--Richhoncho (talk) 22:33, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Support: for all the reasons I gave at the discussion for Category:People from Los Angeles, California. It's not Category:People from New York City, New York; the article associated with this category isn't at Los Angeles, California  p  b  p  00:56, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose. There are many cities with ambiguous names in the US, and there's no rationale for making people try to figure out which ones those are.--Mike Selinker (talk) 08:39, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Why is this only a United States problem, especially as the tiny city of Los Ángeles, Bío Bío is in another hemisphere? The cities in the United States throughout the world that are ambiguous are disambiguated in mainspace, while the ones that are not ambiguous -- or ones where it is abundantly clear which place is intended -- exist without the name of a state or country. We thus have London (and not London, England, despite the existence of London, Ontario), Paris (not Paris, France, despite the existence of Paris, Texas) and Los Angeles (not Los Angeles, California, despite the existence of Los Ángeles, Bío Bío). This mainspace standard should carry the day, but only in the CfD Bizarro World are people unable to realize which Los Angeles is being referred to when we rename this category Category:People from Los Angeles. Sure, (the misnamed) Category:People from Los Ángeles exists with only one notable, while Category:People from Los Angeles, California has over 2,900 in addition to the thousands more in subcategories. Per PRIMARYTOPIC, the place in Los Angeles -- with 30 times as many people and 3,000 times as many notables -- seems to clearly be the primary topic. Why shouldn't the standard be that for any place "X" the associated category is named "People from X", with zero confusion? Why does CfD world manufacture standards that are arbitrary, inconsistent and blatantly conflict with mainspace standards? Alansohn (talk) 23:25, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
 * One could just as well ask why mainspace perversely declines to follow the manifestly superior standards thrashed out over cfd after cfd. (IMO it is because editors local to Hicksville have much influence over Hicksville articles in mainspace but much less in cfd over Hicksville categories.) Oculi (talk) 09:37, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * It seems that there are orders of magnitude more people who participate in such discussions in mainspace and that the mainspace discussions reach far more reasonable conclusions than those made in the miasmic airs here in the backwaters of CfD, where one or two people with arbitrary biases can influence decision-making in a direction that not only conflicts with broad policy, but leads to greater confusion for editors and readers. The table below shows how the biggest Hicksvilles in the world are named, along with the names of the parent category:


 * A review if the world's largest cities demonstrates that every single one of them uses no disambiguation in the name of the article and uses no disambiguation in the corresponding category, even where there is another city sharing the same name. Los Angeles needs no disambiguation in mainspace, but is inconsistently named in CfD, where the name is Category:Los Angeles, California, despite the fact that the one other place in the world that shares the name, Los Ángeles, Bío Bío, is 3% of the size of the City of Angels and has no corresponding category. It would seem infinitely more likely that editors and readers might confuse Lima with Lima, Ohio, Paris with Paris, Texas or London with either pretender in London, Kentucky or London, Ontario, yet each of those world cities use no disambiguation in their article titles (Lima, London and Paris) or in their main category (Category:Lima, Category:London and Category:Paris). There is no reasonable expectation of confusion for anyone and there is no legitimate reason that Los Angeles should be the only one of the world's largest cities to violate the rather simple rule that the name of its primary category is the same as the name of the article. Alansohn (talk) 01:37, 24 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Rename - I see no reason that the category is any more ambiguous than the article name Los Angeles is. (In some cases, such as Queens, there are additional ambiguity issues - but not here.) עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 21:45, 15 December 2012 (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 Los Angeles, California

 * 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: no consensus. Although the nominator and Alansohn in particular presented some good arguments, a slight minority (8 of 18) were not persuaded. Category names should be even more clear than article names, and so need not match articles where there is significant scope for mis-categorisation. The case for needing disambiguation is weak when the primary meaning is so clear, but editors were also swayed by the consistent pattern of using "city, state" within the US; this has a significant benefit in that it saves us repeating this sort of debate as to whether disambiguation is necessary for other US cities, towns and villages. – Fayenatic  L ondon 21:11, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:People from Los Angeles, California to Category:People from Los Angeles
 * Nominator's rationale: This rename hasn't been considered in six years. Consider the following:


 * The article on the city is at Los Angeles
 * The list article of people from the city is List of people from Los Angeles
 * There isn't anything at Category:People from New York, New York; the category is at Category:People from New York City

The category named should be changed to reflect this p  b  p  01:21, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The county and the city share the name and cover different areas.  So the proposed name is ambiguous.  Categories, because of the way articles are added, need to be unambitious. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:41, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
 * People from the county have a different category, Category:People from Los Angeles County, California.


 * Oppose There is also a Los Angeles, Chile. The city name is not unambiguous.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:56, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Which redirects to Los Ángeles. Totally different to Los Angeles.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 10:28, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Los Ángeles should really be given disambiguation.  Mayumashu (talk) 22:41, 2 December 2012 (UTC) I've just given it some. Mayumashu (talk) 22:44, 2 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Support In the Bizarro World of CfD, people still insist that the naming convention that exists in Article World has no relevance here. The article is named Los Angeles -- and not Los Angeles, California -- because there is no ambiguity as to which place in the world among all those with similar names needs no disambiguation. There is a rather simple naming convention for any article for a place named "X", the category of people from that place should be Category:People from X, which means that we will have a lot of entries like Category:People from Portland, Oregon, some entries like Category:People from Hamilton Township, Mercer County, New Jersey and some like Category:People from Los Angeles. And what are the odds that someone defends this needless mismatch by arguing that sometime disambiguation is needed? The real question is why the standard that was set by a far broader consensus in Article World is needlessly disregarded here? Alansohn (talk) 06:32, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Rename Per the long standing rationale that the category name should match the main article.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 10:29, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose per the long standing rationale that the category name should match the main category Category:Los Angeles, California (the convention is that the category name should match the main article, unless the article name is ambiguous, eg Birmingham, ). There is another convention upheld over many cfds that US categories should use the 'place, state' format, to avoid endless quibbling, such as here. Oculi (talk) 14:59, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose -- Birmingham (already cited) provides a very good precedent. Chilean WPans may add the category in the propsoed form to an article on some one from their Los Angeles, without checking that they had the right target.  The California article is correctly where it is; normally we encourage categories to match articles, but this case is an exception.  In the Birmingham case, the Birmingham category was supposed to relate to the English city, but was picking up articles on the Alabama one, so that the English one had to be moved.  Peterkingiron (talk) 21:02, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
 * That seems to be a rather poor justification. Birmingham, West Midlands is the most populous British city outside of London, while Birmingham, Alabama is the largest city in that state, making possible confusion a legitimate concern not from a category-naming perspective but from the Wikipedia-wide article naming side. What other place will people be confusing with Los Angeles? Will anyone really confuse the U.S. global city of 3.8 million with Los Ángeles, a city 3% of the size in Chile? How are Europeans able to distinguish Category:People from Paris from Category:People from Paris, Texas or Category:People from London from Category:People from London, Ontario, while Americans are too ignorant to accomplish that same task with cities of far greater disparities in size? I'd feel confident in saying that Los Angeles corresponds far better to London or Paris, and not Birmingham. Why does CfD world insist on creating a bizarre and arbitrary inconsistency where article place names are used in some categories with added disambiguation used in some cases with no correspondence to the standard established by the broadest possible Wikipedia consensus? Is there any standard for place names in CfD World? Alansohn (talk) 21:39, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Rename per (most of) Alansohn's reasons. I agree that CFD should not generally be creating names that diverge from article names. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:41, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Rename. If only because category naming for the U.S. should not be different than for that for places elsewhere. Without ambiguity, there is not need to add 'disambiguation'. Mayumashu (talk) 22:29, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Ironically, the list cited in the nom redirects to an article using the style of "Los Angeles, California". - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 00:12, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose per the comments above. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 00:13, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Support per Alansohn. By rights this should be C2D. Has the category world collectively forgotten what a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is? --BDD (talk) 18:46, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Oculi. --Kbdank71 20:07, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. There has been a long standing convention that the category name should match the article space and not vice versa. Logically categories without matching articles are pointless! Those that think the disambiguation is necessary should be discussing the renaming of the main article space there rather than here. And... a special mention for the editor who moved List of people from Los Angeles yesterday.--Richhoncho (talk) 20:31, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Good catch. I've reverted that move, which was contrary to several basic principles of WP:AT. I doubt it would stand up at WP:RM, but that's the appropriate venue if anyone wants to make that move again. --BDD (talk) 20:39, 3 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose Per Oculi. Benkenobi18 (talk) 21:03, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Rename. As previous nomination. We should maintain correspondence between names unless absolutely necessary. --Andrewaskew (talk) 03:24, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose. There's no reason to introduce ambiguity.--Mike Selinker (talk) 08:40, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Reply There is no issue with ambiguity, as the naming conventions for large cities like Los Angeles have been long settled in mainspace, where it was determined by broad consensus that no disambigutaion is needed. To review the landscape, I looked through how we handle article and category naming for the World's largest cities, those that appear on a broad range of Top 20 lists. Starting alphabetically, Beijing is not disambiguated, nor is Category:People from Beijing. Continuing on that list, no disambiguation is deemed needed or used for the articles for any of these cities. Among all of these cities, the only exception to the rule that if the article is titled X, then we simply plug in that name to create the corresponding Category:People from X is for Los Angeles, where the category is named Category:People from Los Angeles, California, in contravention of this rather simple rule. Ignoring diacritics, Los Angeles is not the only one of the world's largest cities where consensus is that no disambiguation is required, even though there is another city with the same name that also has a category of notable people from that place, all of which use disambiguation for the smaller city in both the article and the category and use no disambiguation in either the article or the category for the larger city in the pair. These cities are listed in the table below (note that only those cities where another city shares the name AND also has a notable category are listed; population is the taken from the Wikipedia article and may not be comparable; and counts of notables are for those only in the main category, not any subcategories:


 * Based on the data in this table, it would seem that Los Angeles would clearly fit the global standard that the people from category should match the undisambiguated title of the article. With 30 times as many people and thousands of times more notables, I not sure that there could possibly be any ambiguity here in which people actually confuse Los Angeles (the world city in California) with Los Ángeles, Bío Bío (the provincial capital in Chile), and the benefits of conforming to mainspace naming standards are considerable. Alansohn (talk) 18:12, 17 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Rename - I see no reason that the category is any more ambiguous than the article name Los Angeles is. (In some cases, such as Queens, there are additional ambiguity issues - but not here.) עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 21:45, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Rename per nom and especially per Alansohn. --Qetuth (talk) 00:14, 18 December 2012 (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.