Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 July 22



Category:Jets

 * 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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 18:29, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting jets


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete. Without a clear introduction and a main article, what is included here appears random. Maybe someone can suggest a rename that makes the contents clearer. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:48, 22 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete almost a "common name", but the NJ football team isn't there. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 02:25, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment seems like it's about jet -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 02:47, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * delete hodge-podge city. A miscellaneous collection of material tangentially related to various dictionary definitions of jets. My guess is, people just populate the cat w/o looking at what's already there.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 04:24, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Weak keep but purge. There is a common concept here, so that this is a legitimate category, but for example, comets are not jets.  Peterkingiron (talk) 23:03, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete, as there isn't enough material to justify re-scoping the category around jet as understood in the several branches of physics, astronomy, meteorology, and engineering collected here. The layman will no doubt assume the category is for jet engines or jet aircraft, for which we have Category:Jet engines and Category:Jet aircraft.- choster (talk) 22:16, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete This seems to be a linking of things because the same word is used for them, but no one would really think of all these things as one unified topic.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:17, 27 July 2013 (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 David M. Bellamy

 * 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: result. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:28, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Songs written by David M. Bellamy to Category:Songs written by David Bellamy (singer).
 * Nominator's rationale: David Bellamy of The Bellamy Brothers is usually credited only as "David Bellamy", no middle initial. Suggest using (singer) suffix instead, as David Bellamy by itself is about an unrelated person, and David Bellamy (singer) redirects to The Bellamy Brothers. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 22:05, 22 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Support as creator. There are places where he is referred to as David M. Bellamy, but I am happy to bow to nominator's greater knowledge of the subject than mine. --Richhoncho (talk) 12:15, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Rename to match name of redirect.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:18, 27 July 2013 (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.

Murderers and serial killers? Or both?

 * 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 consnesus. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:35, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Propose cleanup or deletion Category:Fictional mass murderers and Category:Fictional serial killers
 * Nominator's rationale: At first I thought this was an example of a duplication of a category (the same category by different names). On investigation, I see that there is a tenuous distinction made between mass murderers and serial killers that is contained on the Category:Fictional serial killers and Category:Fictional mass murderers pages but this distinction is not observed in practice. There is duplicate appellation of categories and some Wiki pages that have one category that should fall in the other.
 * I propose that either a clean-up is done (it's not a huge number of pages) and the right category applied (with no applications of both categories) OR that the two categories be combined into one. I think only crime buffs see a distinction between a "mass" murderer and a "serial" murderer. I could be wrong though so that's why I first proposed a clean-up.
 * I should also point out again that these are fictional characters, not real killers. 69.125.134.86 (talk) 15:43, 22 July 2013 (UTC)


 * oppose merge cleanup is fine, but these are different things. I also think that almost any fictional villain I can think of has committed mass murder, so we should really consider whether it is defining for that villain, whatever that may mean in the context of fictional characters. For a diff example, take Liam Neeson's character in Taken - he's not in battle, and doesn't always kill in self defense - much of it is revenge killing, and sometimes multiple at a time - but does that make him a mass murderer? --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:03, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Not every fictional villain is a mass murderer - Lord Voldemort, for example, isn't. (He's a serial killer, but most of his murders were individual, not groups.) עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:11, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment there's a fine distinction, but as is often the case in fiction, the lines can be purposely blurred. Recurring characters in slasher films seem to fit both categories. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 02:27, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * In which case, they could be put in both (say Michael Meyers from Halloween).--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 04:27, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * This is exactly the case that prompted me to refer this confusion of categories to this page.
 * On the category page, "Mass murderers" are (rather randomly) defined as characters who kill 4 or more individuals in ONE incident. "Serial killers" are defined as characters who kill more than 1 person in separate incidents.
 * So, it's not clear, with fiction if "one incident" refers to an event, a movie, a television episode, a novel, a chapter, a comic or an entire series. Myers (or Jason or Krueger) kill more than 4 people over the course of ONE movie but in separate incidents and it occurs separately in each movie installment. If you consider an incident an event, then clearly they fit "serial killers"...but if you consider an incident an entire movie, then, I guess "mass murderer" is a better fit for them.
 * It's my interpretation that, given the definition, "mass murderers", as it is used here, are actually "spree killers", like school shooters, who commit violence in one outburst. The common sense understanding of "mass murderer" is simply a person who has killed more than one person (in one incident or dozens).
 * No doubt the person who originally came up with these definitions thought it was a clear distinction. But in the world of fiction, there isn't a clear understanding of what an incident is. 69.125.134.86 (talk) 16:13, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Hmm. I would say one incident is a single episode without a significant break. So if Mike Meyers kills a kid in the evening, kills another one later that night, then a 3rd in the morning, that's a single incident. If they get a break for a week, then that makes it two incidents. Again, while there are a few slashers who may technically be considered serial killers, I'm not sure if that's really DEFINING for them - mass murderers is probably good enough - as opposed to the real serial killers from series like Dexter. Yes it's fuzzy, but we're talking about categorization of fictional characters, so it's not like lots hangs in the balance here... if you think some are misplaced or dual categorized, please clean up as you see fit. Do we have ? That still somehow seems different than a mass murderer - a spree killer is somehow different, but I can't quite put my finger on it.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:26, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Wow, somehow this is getting even MORE complicated and less clear. I agree that this is not a life and death issue. But I'm just looking for some clear criteria to evaluate which categories to place pages in and I don't think the ones that exist are adequate. And, now a third category has been suggested that could muddy the waters further.
 * I thought I would get more feedback and I fear that editors who want to weigh in on categorization will just go to the current day's page and not wander back here in the past. 69.125.134.86 (talk) 21:24, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
 * You can always post a neutral notification at the wiki films project or something. If you want criteria, I'd go by sources. If the sources describing the killer in question call him a "serial killer", then classify him accordingly. Otherwise, just stick him in mass murderer.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 00:58, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd agree with you but I don't think most fiction writers are concerned with labeling the villains they write. And also, in cases like "The Joker", there are many different authors writing the same character. There isn't a single author defining what archetype a character fits. 69.125.134.86 (talk) 22:59, 25 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Merge both to Category:Fictional multiple murders. Yes the two nominated categories are not quite the same, but the distinction is a fine one. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:06, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
 * That's a decision I could live with. From what I can see, the distinctions between mass/spree/serial murder is of most interest to those who study "true crime" and criminology. I think most casual readers will know that Hannibal Lecter is a mass/multiple murderer and it doesn't matter whether he killed a lot of people at one time or a few spread out over time.
 * I hope when people consider merging categories, they can understand that many of these FICTIONAL murderers (from Michael Myers to the Joker to "the miniature killer" on CSI to the latest long-arc villain on Bones or Criminal Minds) appear over multiple episodes--movies, comic books, TV episodes, etc.--but kill many people. If it's not clear whether they are a "mass murderer", a "serial murderer" or a "spree murderer", then we should probably just have one, straight-forward "multiple murderer" category. Personally, if it was my choice, I'd use "mass murderer" as the all-encompassing, umbrella category for all of them and do away with subcategories. 69.125.134.86 (talk) 22:54, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Again, we're talking about fiction, so should expect some fuzziness. I don't think we need spree murderer cats (it's a redirect), and we only ahve around 600 articles in these two, + around 500 in "Fictional murderers". I do think that for, whoever is looking at these, a distinction should be made from a serial killer from Dexter, a slasher like Mike Meyers, and someone who committed one murder in an Agatha Christie novel. I think there is a clear definition of what makes a serial killer, and most super villians, even though they might kill people one at a time, would not fit within that definition.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:40, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Could you offer a definition then of what differentiates a serial killer from Dexter from a slasher like Mike Meyers or a mass murderer like The Joker? They all kill multiple people over time. It seems like the only distinction is finesse and planning which shouldn't be a criteria in assigning a category.
 * There are already unnecessary categories of "murdered by method" for real people, I don't think they need to be duplicated for fictional characters.
 * As I see it, there should only be two categories: "Fictional murderers" (one victim) and "Fictional mass murderers" (more than one victim). The number of victims is an easily determined number, other "aspects" of how the killing was done or how murders were spaced over time involve judgment calls which is what this proposal was an attempt to address. Newjerseyliz (talk) 17:39, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
 * right which is where we go back to reliable sources, if the book itself or the commentary about the book calls them a serial killer, they should be there; otherwise put them in mass murderers. There is a standard def of serial killer I'm sure we could also try to apply, we could use the same criteria used for the real page.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:16, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I'll just repost what I said above (and is probably buried!): "I'd agree with you but I don't think most fiction writers are concerned with labeling the villains they write. And also, in cases like "The Joker", there are many different authors writing the same character. There isn't a single author defining what archetype a character fits. 69.125.134.86 (talk) 22:59, 25 July 2013 (UTC)" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.125.134.86 (talk)


 * Merge per Peterkingiron's proposal. The distinction makes some sense when dealing with fact, but when we area dealing with fiction, I really do not see the usefulness of the distinction, and we are going to run into many cases where what counts as an "incdent" will be too hard to tell.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:20, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Closing question. I was going to closed as merge.  What happens to the current parenting to Category:Mass murderers and Serial killers, Fictional?  Vegaswikian (talk) 17:26, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * further evidence:, two subjects which study fictional serial killers at length, and the fictional-serial-killer genre. Remember, categories are those things which are DEFINING - and no-one would deny that Hannibal Lecter is a serial killer, and I don't see why he would be placed in the same category as a terrorist or an arch-villain who dropped a bomb on a city (thus committing mass murder). I thus think we could easily find sources to keep these categories separate.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:09, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose merging to the artificial Category:Fictional multiple murders. It's stuff like this that gives CFD a bad name. We have two categories, both of which use terminology that is used reasonably often and are reasonably well understood, and because there is some obvious overlap between the two we debate the issue to the point of suggesting the creation of an artificial combination using terminology that no one uses. Dumb. Keep them both separate. Good Ol’factory (talk) 18:26, 30 July 2013 (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:Chicago, Illinois

 * 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 to rename.  There is no consensus about changing the Chicago category name to match the world standard of having the category title match article title wherever possible or to follow the US usage of having (nearly all) categories for cities be "city, state".  As such the current name stays by default. Hobit (talk) 13:41, 23 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Propose renaming Category:Chicago, Illinois to Category:Chicago
 * Nominator's rationale: The name of the article is Chicago. The city is the third-largest in the United States and there aren't really any other categories. This discussion also includes all subcategories  p  b  p  15:00, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: previous related CFDs:


 * Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_March_10 (proposal to add "California" accepted)
 * Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_May_6 (consensus to append the state)
 * Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_November_17 (proposal to strip "California" rejected by consensus)
 * Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_March_10 (consensus to append the state)
 * Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_March_11 (consensus to add states)
 * Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_March_25 (consensus to append the state)
 * Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_March_26 (consensus to append the state)
 * Categories_for_discussion/Log/2010_August_31 (proposal to strip the state, but was rejected)
 * Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_December_2 (proposal to strip "California", no consensus for a change)
 * Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_April_12 (no consensus to remove "California")

Note: I notified all of the past participants in the April 12 Los Angeles discussion of this one who have not yet weighed in here. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 12:57, 23 July 2013 (UTC)


 * oppose per Category:Wikipedia_categories_named_after_cities_in_the_United_States, City, State seems to be the pattern for categories, regardless of whether the article title doesn't have a state attached. Renaming categories, especially top-level ones like this (and I see no reason your arguments wouldn't apply to San Francisco, Cincinnati, Pittsburgh, etc) would result in touching hundreds of categories and literally thousands upon thousands of articles, without any good reason. The categories are fine as they are, and renaming just Chicago would be out of line with every other city.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:30, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Support Rename There's a fantastic argument, and that is that category titles should match article titles in almost all cases so that confusion by editors and readers is minimized. The United States is well-integrated with other cities worldwide, such as London, Moscow and Paris, which have associated structures named Category:London, Category:Moscow and Category:Paris, despite the existence of Category:London, Ontario, Category:London, Ohio, Category:Moscow, Idaho, Category:Paris, Texas and even Category:Paris, Maine. The pair of New York City and Category:New York City also works well, so it seems that the better and most consistent solution is to have category title match article title wherever possible. It works in all cities worldwide outside of the United States, even where there are conflicting place names, and there's no reason to believe that Americans will be unable to understand this rather simple change even if many Wikipedia editors don't understand why we are better off with a single consistent worldwide policy to minimize confusion. Alansohn (talk) 15:54, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * the confusion argument is very weak. Are editors or users really confused as to what Chicago, Illinois means? I'd suggest closing this argument and re-opening it at us-names talkpage, as if we do this it's a major shift in status quo and would affect things way beyond Chicago.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:07, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The confusion is not in questions about what the title might mean — it's in what form the category name is expected to take by editors in the process of trying to use it. It's in the fact that people will routinely add their new article to instead of, or to  instead of , or to  instead of , because they're making the perfectly reasonable and rational assumption that if the article is at Chicago then the categories will be named that way too. The confusion is in the fact that you can't just act logically, but rather have to make a special effort to discover that Chicago's categories don't follow the same "category name matches article title" rule that pertains to  and  and  and  and  and  and  and  and  and on and so forth. Bearcat (talk) 21:09, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Then, as I suggested, why not take this to the USNames board, and discuss there, as many other cities would have to be moved. Recall that such a move will cause edits to thousands of articles and hundreds of categories. Have you ever, once, ever, seen, any single editor, anywhere, complain about this? I haven't. Show me a diff. I think this alleged confusion is imaginary. What would be confusing is, when an editor is adding topics to categories for US cities, that the vast majority of cities are city,state, while a very small subset, aren't. That's an exception to the rule. We have thousands of categories for US cities, and you are proposing to make an exception for a few big ones. An exception for the article name is fine, whatever, but I don't see any value in an exception for the category name. It also means that if someone decides that "Carmel-on-the-sea, California" should be moved to "Carmel-on-the-sea" as it's unambiguous, boom now you have to move *all* the categories and hundreds of articles. The whole thing is a waste of time, space, energy, and smacks of bureaucratism. Show me a user who is confused. Just one.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:39, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * There's no rule anywhere on Wikipedia that category names have to be consistent with the naming format of sibling categories; there is a rule that they have to be consistent with the naming format of their own head articles. There is no inconsistency in having sitting next to  in, because both  and  are in complete accordance with the only rule that actually applies to category names: match to its own head article. "Match to head article" creates no confusion whatsoever; "match to a sibling even if that causes one of them to contradict its own head article" does. Even I regularly get tripped up on this whenever I go anywhere near Chicago-related categories — and I'm pretty well-known as one of the biggest category geeks around. Bearcat (talk) 22:07, 22 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Support rename. Categories, subtopics, etc., should follow the names of established primary topics. bd2412  T 16:08, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Support rename. Categories should never be at a different level of disambiguation status than their associated head articles are, as doing so creates more problems than it solves. Bearcat (talk) 21:09, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment That's nonsense. Categories should be more unambiguous than articles, because there is no easy way to monitor, which pages are added to a category. Armbrust The Homunculus 13:10, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * comment Now digging through the CFD history, I've realized that we've been down this path before, on dozens of cities. I added a few related CFDs above, but there are many others. Do we really have nothing better to do? Apparently, these categories have been moved back and forth several times already. The recent attempt to de-state Los Angeles was not successful (I actually !voted for it, but in hindsight I think I !voted the wrong way). Seriously, there is now a long-established consensus that cats in the US match city,state - with one exception - New York. Moving Chicago would open up the gates for Los Angeles, Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, and scores of others - resulting in the need to move hundreds of category pages and thousands of articles. With what benefit to the wiki? Do you have any proof whatsoever that some poor editor is quivering in their boots and unable to find the right category for something? Redlinked categories are easily found and fixed. I really think this is a bad path to go down - we have a choice between two forms of consistency (1) Consistency with the (current) article title (which could move) or (2) consistency with the long-standing consensus for all US city categories to be so-named, which has the additional advantage of NEVER NEEDING TO CHANGE. I'd much rather go with (2) than (1).--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:57, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * There's never been any consensus that all US city categories had to be "City, State" with no exceptions, even if the article title wasn't. There used to be a consensus, which has wisely been eased off somewhat, that all US cities' articles had to be at "City, State" with no exceptions — and the naming of the categories was not an independent consensus of its own, but simply a secondary byproduct of following the "match to head article" rule while a "head article has to be at City, State" naming convention was in place. There has never been any consensus that cities' head articles could be moved to just "City" but their categories still had to stay at "City, State" anyway — the convention has always been that if the city's article moved then the categories went with it, but some categories just didn't actually get dealt with. Bearcat (talk) 22:14, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Neither "this is the way it is, and has been for a while" nor "We'd have to move a lot of cats" is a particularly valid argument. Consensus can change; there's no need to rubber-stamp it and a discussion that was closed as no-consensus can and should be revisited after a few months.  What is a valid argument is having as short a title as possible.  PRIMARYTOPIC and naming conventions will dictate that the article stays where it is, and the category should be with it.  If it's ever moved, that's another story.  But predicting that it will be is almost crystal-balling.  p  b  p  03:29, 23 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Support rename. Category names should not be unnecessarily disambiguated.  And, yes, this argument applies to all related category names.  --B2C 22:06, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose. It is not worth the effort involved in moving the category. The name is adequate to describe the category, and does not need to exactly match the underlying article. I would rather see us make necessary corrections instead of just "make work" projects. Apteva (talk) 22:17, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose – there has certainly been consensus at cfd for some years that category names for US cities should include the state, regardless of the naming and renaming of the underlying article. Oculi (talk) 00:42, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:CONSENSUSCANCHANGE. Citing a previous consensus is not an argument that that consensus is best supported by policy.  --B2C 00:53, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree, consensus can change. But here we're talking about longstanding consensus, through multiple CFDs, over several years, all ending up at the same place. This is not an article title, this is a category title, and when you change a category title, hundreds of articles must be edited. For the 30 or so cities on the AP list that aren't disambiguated with a state, do we really need to make an exception to the general category naming consensus here for hundreds of categories? Because if we do Chicago, we will have to do 30 or so other cities, and all of their hundreds of subcategories. What for?--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 01:40, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * And that's not altogether accurate. Many of the more recent discussions have ended in "no consensus" rather than affirming that they should stay where they are.  There's never been an overwhelming majority for the Illinois in the Chicago cat or the California in the Los Angeles cat or any of the other ones.  Not that it matters if there was, by the by  p  b  p  03:29, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Again, my main argument is consistency in category naming with all other US cities. To me it's perfectly reasonable to have this exception to what is, at the end of the day, only a guideline. Per IAR, and to stop these time-wasting discussions, we should just keep a standard - US cities categories are city,state. End of story. Do you realize how many bytes have been expended to date on this topic and the numerous CFDs that preceded it? You can't just keep coming back to the well until you get the answer you want.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 03:37, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The argument that consistency across US city categories should be the primary consideration simply isn't a compelling one — because there simply isn't any reason, besides I like it better that way, why that needs to trump consistency on the "category name matches article title" criterion. Just to use the example that I'm most familiar with, the naming convention for Canadian cities and their related categories is consistent with that in place for nearly all world countries: disambiguate the article only when necessary, and always match category name to article title. As a result, we have coexisting with,  coexisting with ,  coexisting with , and on and so forth — and not one single solitary problem has ever been created by this "inconsistency", because the categories follow the perfectly predictable and logical and consistent pattern of matching the name of their head article. All of the categorization problems Canada has ever actually had stemmed from cases where that rule was not followed, where an article got moved but its associated categories were delayed in following for some reason, and thus the category name was for some length of time not rationally predictable in relation to the article title. Problems frequently arise when an article and its associated categories are not at the same level of disambiguation as each other — but as long as both categories are correctly matched to their own head article titles, problems do not arise from a category not being at the same level of disambiguation as a sibling category for a different city. Bearcat (talk) 05:12, 23 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose categories are purposefully named is a less ambiguous manner than articles, because categories require maintenance -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 02:49, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * comment @Bearcat, these cats HAVE been moved, even once the city articles had been stripped of their state. Search the CFD archives. This discussion has been had, and consensus WAS to move the cats to City,state, to avoid ambiguity, esp in cases where you're dealing with metro areas, etc. Are there any categories besides NY that HAVE been dealt with? I can't find ANY - so your assertion that some cats haven't been dealt with is simply not true. In fact, it's the opposite - every CFD I've found so far has found a consensus to append the state, or no-consensus to strip it. If you think consensus has changed, fine, but do you have different arguments this time?
 * Plus, the guidance on cat names matching article names is flexible - it states: "Names of topic categories should be singular, normally corresponding to the name of a Wikipedia article" (my bold) - this is not a hard and fast rule.
 * A further guidance states: "Choose category names that are able to stand alone, independent of the way a category is connected to other categories." - when you have a head article and an eponymous category, this is normally not a problem - but when you have multiple sub-categories, disambiguation can become important - which is why previous consensus has held that more specification of the state at all levels is necessary, as the head article is not present in all sub-categories. See Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_May_6, Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_March_26 for other CFDs on this matter. I see Bearcat was making the same arguments in 2009.
 * Finally, given that the participants here are well aware of previous consensus in spite of their denials, I again assert this is the wrong place to discuss such a broad-ranging change. It would be better off to close this discussion down, move it over to Wikipedia_talk:Category_names where it can live a bit longer, set up an RFC, and enshrine a new consensus in the guideline, one way or the other (e.g. "Cities w/o states can have cats w/o states OR Cities w/o states still get cats with states"). If you really care about this issue, you'll do it that way, rather than here in CFD.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 04:03, 23 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Support the article is at Chicago so the categories should follow. Hot Stop talk-contribs 04:26, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Support Should match the main article.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 06:38, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Support The general consensus is to name categories after that of their primary topic articles. TB randley  (T • C  • B) 07:10, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Except when they are overly ambiguous. How are you going to keep this category properly filled, when all Chicagoland/Metro Chicago/Greater Chicago will end up being categorized into this by default? -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 05:51, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose This change should not be made for Chicago, unless it is going to be made for all other cities.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 12:24, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose The convention for categories of US cities is "CITY, STATE". I don't see any reason, why we should differ from that convention for Chicago. Armbrust The Homunculus 12:57, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Support The current form is over disambiguation and the convention is to match the article names and USPLACES gives an exception for Chicago. We already don't go for City, State with New York City and should do the same for the other big US cities, one by one if needs be. It won't take much effort with the bot but needs doing at some point. Timrollpickering (talk) 13:26, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi Tim. I think I'd buy this argument if we were just talking about one category - but we're not - we're talking about dozens, maybe more, categories that can be deeply nested - categories in which the head category is not a member. In this case, someone deep down in the category tree may not know that the "head" article is one of the 30 "special" cities. To me, this is a good reason to over-disambiguate as you state.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 13:33, 23 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose Do all categories with city, state. That is much easier to figure out than having to argue over it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:25, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes. It's a good thing we have the City, State convention. Otherwise we might argue over this. --BDD (talk) 16:05, 23 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Support Outside of this bizarro world, this would be a C2D. I can only attribute the enduring WP:LOCALCONSENSUS otherwise here at CfD to the iron law of oligarchy. --BDD (talk) 16:04, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * C2D? Apteva (talk) 01:08, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
 * It's a category speedy naming criteria to change a category's name to match its article. Since the article is at Chicago, the category should logically be at Category:Chicago. --BDD (talk) 16:50, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Ah, C.2.D, not C=Categories, 2=to, D=Discuss. A speedy move can not be done if there is opposition to the move. There is no reason for categories to always exactly match the article title. Apteva (talk) 17:03, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
 * BDD, you're right in theory. however, practice and past consensus (linked above) has found otherwise - perhaps this is an example of IAR. The guidance says "normally", not "always must" match the title.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:13, 26 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment: A number of the oppose votes are predicted solely on "it would take too much effort to move the cats". That in and of itself isn't a valid reason for supporting or opposing a proposal.  I also agree with BDD's oligarchy comment above, i.e. that this proposal is being stonewalled by only a handful of elite editors 16:33, 23 July 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Purplebackpack89 (talk • contribs)
 * It's up to us to decide what is valid reason to oppose, and repeatedly bringing up an issue already decided by consensus is time-wasting, thus effort counts. I'm not sure if you include me in the elite (blushes), but I haven't participated in any of the other ones besides the recent LA, where I !voted to move, but have now changed my mind. My point remains, PBP, that you keep coming back to the well hoping for a different answer - each time trying a different city - and that is IMHO disruptive. If you really want this changed, I assume you want it changed for all ~30 or so cities that don't require the state dab. If so, let's just close this discussion, open a broader RFC on the matter at the category naming page, enshrine the results in the guidance, and then speedy the outcome. Otherwise, each new move request will lead to the same back and forth which has been hashed out, as you can see, across at least ~15 CFDs in years past. The worst case would be if Chicago passes, then Pittsburgh fails, etc - then you'd have REAL inconsistency. for now, it is consistent, at least in one sense.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:40, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * If you think it's disruptive, start a noticeboard discussion about it. If something is closed as no consensus, it can be revisited at any time.  And to say I've come to this well 15 times is a bit of a stretch.  I think it's maybe 3-4, each with a different article as the main move candidate and each separated by 3 or more months.  And, yes, I do.  Each of the titles violates naming conventions and primary topic, both of which say shorter is better  p  b  p  04:06, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I didn't say you came here 15 times. But if you've already tried and failed 4 times, what makes you think it will work this time? Why not try a different venue? Also, if something is closed as "no consensus", it does not mean you can re-open it the next day - I do think that would be disruptive. Rather, you should wait, and see if new arguments or changes present themselves, or if something happens that may lead you to believe consensus has changed. CFD isn't really ideal for such a wide-ranging change that conflicts with current consensus, and ultimately requires a change to the guidance. A longer, slower RFC with more participation on the matter would be better, and would give us a definitive answer that can be put into policy rather than your piece-meal approach. Either that, or take the time now to nominate all categories in all 30 cities. Otherwise, who knows what result you might get. As you can see from the CFDs above, this was previously done piece-meal, instead of enshrining the result in a policy and speedying it. Do your really want to repeat that?--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:35, 24 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Support per nom, to match catmain's article and for the same reason I wrote about LA. Of course, also because Chicago is undoubtless the primary topic. --Dэя-Бøяg 19:07, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose -- Categories sometimes need a disambiguator to prevent their picking up categories for other places. The Classic case is Birmingham, whose categories are at "Birmingham, West Midlands" to avoid these picking up Birmingham, AL.  Chicago (disambiguation) shows that are other places of the name, though much less significant.  Peterkingiron (talk) 23:13, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
 * What's Birmingham or any of the other Chicago's have to do with anything? The articles London, Moscow and Paris, all have associated structures named Category:London, Category:Moscow and Category:Paris respectively, despite the existence of Category:London, Ontario, Category:London, Ohio, Category:Moscow, Idaho, Category:Paris, Texas and Category:Paris, Maine. Birmingham in the West Midlands has a population of 1,000,000, while Birmingham, Alabama has about 200,00, a ratio of 5-1. Chicago has a population of 2,700,000 and I'm not sure which other place is causing confusion at Chicago (disambiguation), but if you're thinking of Chicago Corners, Outagamie County, Wisconsin, I think there's little to worry about. Sometimes they need a disambiguator, but not in Chicago. Alansohn (talk) 02:03, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
 * oppose Current category name meets the tighter requirements for all US city category names to be clear and unambiguous on their face without further having to get into the category and read it. Chicago, Illinois, is nothing special to make an exception about Hmains (talk) 16:38, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
 * rename to match article name Chicago per Alansohn's comments. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:18, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Again? We've got a clear structure that all US cities are "Category: City, State" (except New York City, which contains its state name, I guess). There's no reason Chicago should diverge from this structure.--Mike Selinker (talk) 18:47, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * What these nominations may be getting at is that some users think that we're following the wrong pattern. We have a structure that only applies to U.S. cities—all other cities in all other countries of the world (and indeed—virtually all other WP categories in existence) follow the "name the category after the article" approach. This is so well established elsewhere that it is a speedy criterion. So there is some merit to the idea that the U.S. does not warrant separate treatment, not least of all because the inconsistency causes confusion. I expect nominations like this to continue indefinitely as long as there is the special rule that applies to only one country. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:16, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose I support WP:USPLACE, under which this city and some 30 or 40 others (based on a reliable source) omit the state name in the article title. However, it is universally expected that categories in the U.S. are named "city, state" - and when the 30 or 40 article names were changed to follow the Reliable Source convention, their categories were not changed. They all still say "category:city, state." Simliarly, "city, state" is used for disambiguation even if "city" stands alone as an article title; see for example Category:Churches in Los Angeles, California, Category:Public schools in Baltimore, Maryland, etc. It is simply easier, when starting an article or adding a category, to do them all the same (city, state) without having to do any research about whether to add the state in this particular case or not. --MelanieN (talk) 00:56, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The final sentence above provides a reason that is completely subjective. Others find it easier to match category names to the relevant article name without having to research whether there is a special rule that applies that is different than the standard. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:00, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Support per BDD's rationale above.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); August 5, 2013; 17:04 (UTC)
 * Strong support - the article's current name is Chicago, not Chicago, Illinois; this title has been completely stable since March 2008 (except for a brief vandalism incident in May 2008, which took about 3 minutes) - see here and here for the relevant logs; and the article name isn't currently under discussion. So the category name should match. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:18, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Support per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and WP:COMMONSENSE. - The Bushranger One ping only 19:07, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose per my comments in the last discussion which was closed only a month before this one opened. Is there really some new information here that supports a change? Vegaswikian (talk) 01:43, 20 August 2013 (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:List of educational institutions in Vellore

 * 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. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:18, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting list of educational institutions in vellore


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete. The category is a redundant one, as there is already a category named 'Education in Vellore'. not the world (talk) 09:22, 22 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete -- Empty and redundant. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:15, 24 July 2013 (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:Recipients of Campaign Finance from Monsanto

 * 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. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:16, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting recipients of campaign finance from monsanto


 * Nominator's rationale: Receiving a campaign donation from Monsanto is not a notable characteristic of a person. --Hirolovesswords (talk) 02:31, 22 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete How many politicians don't receive anything from Monsanto? Horrible corporation, but not a notable characteristic. Reywas92 Talk 04:06, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * delete, this is a POINTY category, seemingly made to tar politicians. We need to nip this in the bud. But plz go easy on the accusations Reywas92, it's not necessary here. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:36, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete whose funded what is generally not-defining, any more than what you bought: Category:People who own airplanes, Category:Companies who own congressmen, Category:Countries who have bought foreign heads of state, and the like. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 02:29, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom.-- Lenticel ( talk ) 07:12, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * we will cover all campaign finance in wikipedia one day. It is not to tar people, just the start of total coverage of political influence, will be working on this more in the future. I dont have the energy to fight Hirolovesswords, he has a lot of energy to remove all the work I have done recently, and he does not respond or want to discuss with me at all. James Michael DuPont (talk)


 * Delete -- This feels like an ATTACK category. Anyway, it is much too like a performance (financier) by performer (politician) category, which we do not allow. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:19, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete Are we going to categorize politicians by everyone who donated to the campaign? If we start here, where does it end. This is not how we want to categorize politicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:19, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I do not want to even think about how many categories we could but Obama, Romney or any other recent presidential candidate in. Or what about John Dingell with his 55+ years in congress. If he accepted a donation from some group in 1960, and not since, would it really be defining of him?John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:24, 27 July 2013 (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.