Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 August 15



Subcategories to Video games by country sorted by company

 * 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 "Video games developed in Foo" for where the work was actually done, and rename "Video games by Fooian company" to "Video games by Fooian companies" for the base of the company that published the game. "By company" is more logical IMHO but "by companies" follows the precedent for works by individuals, see the sub-cats of Category:Works by writer nationality and Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_February_12. Therefore, the "by company" categories will be renamed to Category:Video games by Chinese companies, Category:Video games by Czech companies, Category:Video games by Japanese companies, Category:Video games by British companies and Category:Video games by American companies. – Fayenatic  L ondon 14:47, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Video games developed in China to Category:Video games by China company or Category:Video games by Chinese company
 * Propose renaming Category:Video games developed in the Czech Republic by company to Category:Video games by the Czech Republic company or Category:Video games by Czech company
 * Propose renaming Category:Video games developed in Japan by company to Category:Video games by Japan company or Category:Video games by British company Category:Video games by Japanese company
 * Propose renaming Category:Video games developed in the United Kingdom by company to Category:Video games by the United Kingdom company or Category:Video games by British company
 * Propose renaming Category:Video games developed in the United States by company to Category:Video games by the United States company or Category:Video games by American company

Subcategories also include games not developed by these companies but only published.Max Payne was fr example developed in Finland but it is according to the old category name also developed in USA which is incorrect. There are other examples of this like Operation Flashpoint: Cold War Crisis or Overlord. I already moved these categories because I didn't know that I have to discuss here first and was warned a bit late. Sorry for this mistake of mine. --Bedivere.cs (talk) 15:34, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Propose alternate naming in the style of Category:Video games developed by British companies. The proposed naming are not idiomatic and are overly wordy. SFB 17:16, 19 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Problem is that these categories doesn't include only games developed by these companies but also published. I would better suggest style of Category:Video games by British company. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bedivere.cs (talk • contribs)
 * I think companies not involved in the development of the game in anyway are not worthy of categorisation. These should be forced out of the category structure. SFB 20:45, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I assume that you meant Japanese instead of British for the Japan cat? Aristophanes 68   (talk)  00:53, 20 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep -- Some companies operate across borders, so that a game may be developed in Britain by a US or Japanese company. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:13, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Relisting comment: Pages needed to be tagged.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Fayenatic  L ondon 23:16, 15 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Note to closer: as the nominated categories apart from China had already been moved, leaving redirects, I tagged some of the targets. – Fayenatic  L ondon 23:16, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
 * New Tree Clearly a new tree is needed, dinstinguishing between  1. Category:Video games by developer and 2. Category:Video games by publisher , and in the next step:  1. Category:Video games by country of developer and 2. Category:Video games by country of publisher  Note: In the topic of video games 'developer' and 'publisher' usually automaticly means a company, not a person. -- CN1 (talk) 00:09, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment. Wait, what? Aren't these redundant to Category:Video games developed in the United States? If categorized by developer and by location developed, why would the nationality of the company matter? And so Category:Amanita Design games‎ in Category:Video games by Czech company would actually be fine in Category:Video games developed in the Czech Republic. Am I missing something? czar ♔   18:46, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I think the issue is that these parents are heavily populated (~1500 for the UK one). Also, some companies may have international offices which would complicate the country categorisation. SFB 19:53, 9 October 2014 (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 Eddie Fisher (musician)

 * 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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 05:25, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Songs written by Eddie Fisher (musician) to Category:Songs written by Eddie Fisher (drummer)
 * Nominator's rationale: C2B disambiguation fix per Eddie Fisher (drummer) LittleWink (talk) 23:17, 15 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Support per nom. This could have been speedied. --Richhoncho (talk) 14:29, 16 August 2014 (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:Brand name poultry

 * 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 as nominated. – Fayenatic  L ondon 17:25, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Brand name poultry to Category:Brand name poultry meats
 * Nominator's rationale: Rename. I am proposing this renaming due to the ease of confusion on this matter. Hybrid poultry breeds, such as ISA Brown could easily be confused with this, which is brand name meats not poultry hybrids/breeds. JTdale   Talk 16:18, 18 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Suggest Category:Poultry meat brands or Category:Poultry brands. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:40, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I think this naming is avoided as these categories contain both the brands themselves and their sub-products, e.g. Burger King is the brand, BK Chicken Nuggets is a product (not a brand). SFB 17:06, 19 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Fayenatic  L ondon 22:56, 15 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment: see also previous discussion at Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_October_16. – Fayenatic  L ondon 22:59, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Support as nominated. Johnbod (talk) 23:02, 15 August 2014 (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.

Italian municipalities

 * 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: reverse merge. The "communes" sub-categories may be speedily renamed to "Municipalities", if someone would be so kind as to tag them and list them at WP:CFDS. – Fayenatic  L ondon 06:45, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

I propose merging:
 * Category:Municipalities of Italy to Category:Communes of Italy


 * Category:Former municipalities of Italy to Category:Former communes of Italy‎
 * Category:Municipalities of the Province of Agrigento‎ to Category:Communes of the Province of Agrigento‎
 * Category:Municipalities of the Province of Caltanissetta‎ to Category:Communes of the Province of Caltanissetta‎
 * Category:Municipalities of the Province of Catania‎ to Category:Communes of the Province of Catania‎
 * Category:Municipalities of the Province of Enna‎ to Category:Communes of the Province of Enna‎
 * Category:Municipalities of the Province of Messina‎ to Category:Communes of the Province of Messina‎
 * Category:Municipalities of the Province of Palermo‎ to Category:Communes of the Province of Palermo‎
 * Category:Municipalities of the Province of Ragusa‎ to Category:Communes of the Province of Ragusa‎
 * Category:Municipalities of South Tyrol‎ to Category:Communes of South Tyrol‎
 * Category:Municipalities of the Province of Syracuse‎ to Category:Communes of the Province of Syracuse‎
 * Category:Municipalities of the Province of Trapani‎ to Category:Communes of the Province of Trapani‎
 * Category:Municipalities of Trentino‎ to Category:Communes of Trentino‎

The majority of Categories for Italian municipalities as well as Category:Communes of Italy uses the Italian term commune for the name of the category. A small number of municipalities however uses municipalities. I guess that this is just caused by the preference of the user who created the category. To avoid confusion about the difference of terminology the categories should be renamed to commune. Inwind (talk) 10:14, 15 July 2014 (UTC) I have little knowledge of the Italian language or of Italian local government. My involvement in this arises solely from trying to get some standardisation in article and category titles for WP's terminology for the Italian word "comune/comuni", initially at Talk:List of communes of the Province of Agrigento. That discussion was closed with a consensus to use the literal translation "communes", which I accepted and used as the basis for Categories for discussion/Log/2014 May 1. Neither discussion appears to have included anyone with significant expertise, so we were all a little in the dark. I think that Marcocapelle has raised a valid concern, but it is one which I have no way of answering, and the abysmally poor sourcing of the head article comune gives us little help. I suggest that there are two questions, where some expert advice would help:
 * Comment Reverse merge: according to the lead article Comune, 'municipality' seems to be the regular English translation of the Italian word 'comune' (with only one 'm'!) and 'commune' is just a wrong translation. I'm not the expert here, so please correct me if I'm wrong. But if I am correct, it would be more logical to name all of them 'municipalities'. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:17, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Rename to match the format agreed at Talk:List of communes of the Province of Agrigento, where the consensus was to use the English-language translation "communes". This was the rationale at Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_May_1 (which I closed) for renaming the "comunes" categories to "communes". Note: there are more sub-cats of former municipalities yet to be nominated. – Fayenatic  L ondon 09:43, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Apologies upfront, I don't want to be the play the role of the bad guy here, especially not since I'm not even speaking Italian, but we should be honest with each other about the fact that in these previous discussions 'municipality' has not been discussed as a viable alternative, while this is exactly what the current discussion is about. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:24, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Fair point. I have pinged BrownHairedGirl who took the lead in those discussions, not meaning to WP:CANVASS but because she is an experienced contributor with an interest in this matter. – Fayenatic  L ondon 19:38, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment. Thanks for the ping, Fayenatic L.
 * What translation of the Italian word "comune" is most commonly used in English-language reliable sources?
 * Does the same terminology apply to all comuni? It occurs to me that there may a sub-type or variant of "comune" which is more appropriately labelled a "municipality".
 * FWIW, my suggestion is to start by improving the head article, and find the reliable sources which could answer these questions, before a followup CFD based on whatever answers arise these. There is a general consensus on the principle that categories should follow the head article, but the current head article is not robust enough to follow. And sorry, despite my suggestion I don't have the time or energy to do the necessary research myself :( -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:13, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot for your problem analysis! By the way, I've been trying to involve Italian Wikipedians in this discussion but without any success so far. I'll try to think of other ways in the next week. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:24, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Reverse merge. The term "municipalities" is a term that is wider used in English than "communes", which is basically a verbatim translation of the Italian term. Gryffindor (talk) 18:32, 11 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Relisting comment: I have now tagged the target category as well, as reverse merge has been suggested, in order to attract more comments. If anybody has time to tag and list the target's sub-cats, that would be welcome, but I think that they could be processed speedily if they are not added to this nomination. – Fayenatic  L ondon 21:19, 15 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Fayenatic  L ondon 21:19, 15 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Reverse merge municipalities is the common English name for these governmental entities - communes, while the cognate of comuni (the Italian word for these), suffers from the ambiguity of also, in English, meaning a informal living places often associated with the counterculture of the 1960s. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:55, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Question: has anyone notified WikiProject Italy of this discussion? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:36, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I wasn't aware this exists, good suggestion! Do you know where I can find a talk page of this project? Marcocapelle (talk) 20:11, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment I edited the Comune article directly now. Suggest to wait a while to see whether or not this edit is being reverted/discussed, and then decide for the CfD in accordance with the final article edit/discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:23, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Reverse merge I just read about this discussion. So, the italian word for the basic local government is "comune" (musculin, singular, with only one "m"), with the plural "comuni". There is no problem of cunfusing it with "an informal living places often associated with the counterculture of the 1960s", which in Italian is "la comune", feminin form and much lesser used. The current English translation is "municipality". The town hall is called either "comune" or "municipio". The whole territory of Italy is divided into "comuni" and this local level of government has been written in the constitution a couple of years ago (Title V). Some local "comuni" have been awarded the rank of "città" (which indicates both city or town), so they use in their acts the wording "città di XY" instead of "comune di XY", especially in cases of a recent award or of a rural "comune" in order to state their importance, but this does not change the current language nor the administrative concept, since all local goverment are "comuni", even if are called "città". There are only 3 exceptions to the organization into "comuni": 1) some sub-municipal zones, with a (supposed) strong historical identity, recently received a smaller level of local government within their respective municipality, and they are called "municipalità" (same form for singular and plural); 2) the municipality of Rome has recently become "Roma capitale", meaning the capital city of Rome, with peculiar powers; 3) within the municipality of Rome, the territory has been subdivided into "municipalità", with a range of powers intermediate between other cities "municipalità" and normal "comuni". My proposal is to call 1) all italian "comuni" municipalities, since it makes the concept clear to everybody; 2) "Roma capitale" the capital city of Rome, if needed ; 3) all "municipalità", both Rome ones and any other instituted in other cities, boroughs, similarly to London boroughs, in order to get the idea. --Vadsf (talk) 11:29, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Otherwise I would support the suggestions of User:Vadsf. Jsmith1000 (talk) 22:13, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Merge and rename to Category:Comuni of Italy, in line with our article at Comune. This is the loan-word we use in English to describe the Italian administrative division. No translation is required, any more than is needed for Oblast (see Category:Oblasts of Russia) or Comarca (see Category:Comarcas of Spain) or Tehsil (see Category:Tehsils of Pakistan and Category:Tehsils of India). We should indeed be consistent. We don't have to translate every single foreign loan-word, and indeed to attempt to do so just makes us look silly. Our article on the most famous kind of pasta does not, for example, need to be moved to Little strings, any more than Category:Pasta needs to be moved to Category:Paste. The moves of the List of comuni of foo pages were ill-considered and should be reversed. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 14:01, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment - Italy is in the EU, which uses (British) English as one of its official languages. Presumably it would be possible to check what EU practice is, and to follow that. I believe this was the basis for the choice of terms for German local government units, for example.Jsmith1000 (talk) 22:09, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
 * In EU comuni translates indeed into municipalities, see for example see chapter 5 of https://e-justice.europa.eu/content_member_state_law-6-be-it.do?init=true&member=1 versus https://e-justice.europa.eu/content_member_state_law-6-be-en.do?init=true&member=1. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:48, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Reverse merge. The term "municipalities" is a term that is wider used in English than "communes", which is basically a verbatim translation of the Italian term. Use English terms in English Wikipedia. Gryffindor (talk) 21:26, 2 September 2014 (UTC)


 * See also: Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_September_1. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:00, 10 September 2014 (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:Programming rules of thumb

 * 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. – Fayenatic  L ondon 17:12, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:Programming rules of thumb to Category:Programming principles
 * Nominator's rationale: Any differences between these two seems fuzzy and subjective. I don't find the distinction useful for navigation. -- Beland (talk) 20:19, 15 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose Had to give the quite a bit of thought - if we take "principle" to a fundamental truth or foundation, then rules of thumb inherently do not fit well within that structure. A rule of thumb is knowingly incorrect at times and is disregarded when its relevance is questionable. Principles are omni-relevant. For example, Rule of three (computer programming) is just a suggested good practice which can be disregarded quite easily, whereas Principle of least astonishment is a fundamental principle of programming which if disregarded can seriously affect the outcome. I'm not opposed to thinking of a more inclusive rename if it's a good one. SFB 07:28, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment I was actually going to suggest "Programming guidelines" to be more general.  I think it's subjective and somewhat arbitrary to have essentially "Suggestions for better programming" vs "Really important suggestions for better programming". -- Beland (talk) 16:34, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think guidelines summarises the topics very well. The Abstraction principle or code reuse aren't guidelines, they are more a part of a basic knowledge toolset for programming. Conventions is perhaps a better fit, but then we have the issue of face-value confusion with things like Category:Hacker conventions. Another thought would be to merge the Category:Technology conventions tree with the conferences one to resolve this... SFB 19:19, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * oppose rules of thumb are exactly what these are, as found in the text of the articles. No formality of category name is needed for the simple concepts here. Hmains (talk) 03:04, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose - rules of thumb are about culture and tradition within professional practice, while principles are grounded on computer science and research. It's true that there's a grey line between them that can make them hard to classify, but that doesn't make them the same concept. Diego (talk) 14:20, 9 September 2014 (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 Stockport Borough
<div class="boilerplate cfd vfd xfd-closed" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:01, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:People from Stockport Borough to Category:People from Stockport
 * Nominator's rationale: To undo recent rename, which was in error. This is the category for people from the town of Stockport, not Stockport Borough - which is Category:People from Stockport (district).Mhockey (talk) 19:31, 15 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Rename – the related cfd of April 2014 was long and complicated. In my opinion it has made a mess of Stockport. We have Stockport, a town within its borough, reflected by within  (so far so good). So we should have 'cat:foos in Stockport' within 'cat:foos of Stockport Borough'. So rename per nom and then rename Category:People from Stockport (district) to  Category:People from Stockport Borough. Oculi (talk) 21:55, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
 * My objection to Stockport (district) is that (a) Stockport (district) is a redirect to Stockport and (b) the only category name including Stockport (district) is Category:People from Stockport (district). I suspect there is no such thing as Stockport (district). Oculi (talk) 17:04, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Stockport (district) should be a redirect to Metropolitan Borough of Stockport, i.e. Stockport Borough, not the town of Stockport. I have now corrected.  A metropolitan borough, legally defined as a metropolitan district, is a type of district.  Stockport Borough could be referred to as Stockport District.  It is also sometimes referred to just as "Stockport", causing ambiguity with the town - hence the recent CFD.  There is a wider issue in that the editor who created the English People from Foo District categories created them all as Category:People from Foo (district), even when the district was a borough or metropolitan borough.  It would be good if the People from Foo (district) categories were made consistent with the higher borough or district categories, but it would be quite a task to change them all.--Mhockey (talk) 20:36, 16 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Support per Oculi. Specificity has made things less intuitive here. The town and borough/district cats should be easily distinguishable. "Stockport" is clear as the town name, while the other cats should uniformly align with either the borough or district titles for consistency. SFB 07:31, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Rename per the rationale above.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 09:42, 16 August 2014 (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:Grand Theft Auto clones
<div class="boilerplate cfd vfd xfd-closed" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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: relist at Categories for discussion/Log/2014 October 10 as the discussion has not acknowledged the existence of the lead article Grand Theft Auto clone. – Fayenatic  L ondon 16:40, 10 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Propose deleting grand theft auto clones


 * Nominator's rationale: Highly debatable criteria. So any open world third person game set in any remotely urban environment is a clone of GTA? Just Cause 2? JC2 is more akin to Far Cry 3 than to GTA. Also, Simpsons Hit & Run? Really? uKER (talk) 15:50, 15 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete This is a non-neutral category since it makes major claims about developmental influence in the creative arts.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:03, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment: I know it sounds like a silly example to someone who hasn't played it, but The Simpsons: Hit & Run is the archetypal GTA clone. There's even been a lawsuit based on it. Tezero (talk) 20:44, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete It is clearly POV and OR. No way this could be turn into a legitimate category. JDDJS (talk) 03:21, 1 October 2014 (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:Engineering colleges in India
<div class="boilerplate cfd vfd xfd-closed" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


 * The result of the discussion was: relisted at October 10. – Fayenatic  L ondon 16:21, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Engineering colleges in India to Category:Engineering universities and colleges in India
 * Nominator's rationale: Opposed speedy. Category should follow the convention of . Armbrust The Homunculus 12:01, 15 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Category:Engineering colleges in India to Category:Engineering universities and colleges in India – C2C: per the convention in . Armbrust The Homunculus 19:11, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose. There are no Engineering universities in India. All are colleges. Every county has different names and i see no point in applying one standard name to all countries. "Engineering universities" reads weird in Indian context. Shyamsunder (talk) 13:36, 9 August 2014 (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:Gangsta rap artists
<div class="boilerplate cfd vfd xfd-closed" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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. If is ever renamed to, this can be renamed back. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 05:32, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Gangsta rap artists to Category:Gangsta rappers
 * Nominator's rationale: Opposed speedy. Category should use the same term as it's parent category and it's various sub-categories. Armbrust The Homunculus 11:57, 15 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Category:Gangsta rap artists to Category:Gangsta rappers – C2C: per . Armbrust The Homunculus 08:57, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Object to speedy rename I think the title of the category i created is very appropriate please do not rename it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alcatrazzrapper (talk • contribs) 09:04, 7 August 2014‎


 * Support Both terms are in use but I believe gangsta rappers is a good choice to align with (which could also feasibly be called . SFB 07:35, 16 August 2014 (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:White Citizens' Council
<div class="boilerplate cfd vfd xfd-closed" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


 * The result of the discussion was: relisted November 29. – Fayenatic  L ondon 08:29, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:White Citizens' Council to Category:Citizens' Councils
 * Nominator's rationale: Opposed speedy. The main article of the category is Citizens' Councils. However it that is deemed ambiguous, than it can be renamed to, the networks name after 1956. Armbrust The Homunculus 11:52, 15 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Category:White Citizens' Council to Category:Citizens' Councils –C2D per Citizens' Councils Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:07, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Object to speedy rename I think this should be discussed. There's potential ambiguity with the proposed title, and generic citizens' councils -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 06:33, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
 * What is a "generic citizens' council"? Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:25, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Any council of citizens -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 08:19, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Such as ...? There is no Wikipedia article about such a concept, as far as I can see. Good Ol’factory (talk) 10:28, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
 * As I said, it is generic, highly generic. It is a council of citizens. So can potentially collect a very wide variety of topics. Thus a discussion would be a good idea. -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 05:57, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I can see your point, but of course the generic—if such a thing existed in the category tree—would be non-capitalized, as in . This is a capitalized proper noun. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:26, 12 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment I prefer Category:Citizens' Councils of America per my comments at speedy. -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 07:44, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Rename to Category:Citizens' Councils per my original nomination to match Citizens' Councils. If it's unambiguous enough for the article, I have no problem in having the category match it. Given the capitalization, I don't think there's any problem of confusion, and in any case, what exactly would be at risk of being miscategorized? Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:58, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose and rename article. There are lots of times that things have been called citizens councils. We should reflect current mention and make the name less ambiguous and more clear.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:04, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Could you name some? Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:49, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Some I found quickly: Citizens Council (UK), Global Citizens Council (UN), Asian American Citizen's Council, Senior Citizens Council, A proposition for citizen's councils in government. SFB 21:35, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Interesting, thank you—I'd regard the first and last ones you link to above as being on point. The others—probably not, since they use other words to modify the name "Citizens' Council". Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:26, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Question to Armbrust, Good Ol’factory, JPL, SFB: as the contents are mainly biographies, shouldn't the new name include "activists" or similar? – Fayenatic  L ondon 01:19, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Maybe it should be or similar. Whatever name results from this CFD, there can be a new nomination to reflect that. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:49, 25 November 2014 (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.

Volkswagen categories
<div class="boilerplate cfd vfd xfd-closed" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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 on Category:Volkswagen vehicles  (therefore keep it), rename others. – Fayenatic  L ondon 22:34, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Volkswagen people to Category:Volkswagen Group people
 * Propose renaming Category:Volkswagen executives to Category:Volkswagen Group executives
 * Propose renaming Category:Volkswagen vehicles to Category:Volkswagen Group vehicles
 * Propose renaming Category:Volkswagen engines to Category:Volkswagen Group engines
 * Propose renaming Category:Volkswagen diesel engines to Category:Volkswagen Group diesel engines
 * Propose renaming Category:Volkswagen platforms to Category:Volkswagen Group platforms
 * Nominator's rationale: Opposed speedy. Categories should follow the main article (Volkswagen Group and main category of the three. Additionally most categories contain pages related to Ducati, Lamborgini... etc., which are not Volkswagen. In case of the platforms/engines/diesel engines categories the main articles use "Volkswagen Group" instead of just "Volkswagen", see: List of Volkswagen Group platforms, List of Volkswagen Group engines, List of Volkswagen Group diesel engines and List of discontinued Volkswagen Group diesel engines. Armbrust The Homunculus 11:28, 15 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Armbrust, I understand the position, but this is a far more compicated issue we are dealing with than what's covered in your rationale.


 * First of all, "Volkswagen Group" which is the translation of "Volkswagen Konzern" in German, is not a legal name, and the definition (what belongs and what doesn't) is not officially published and is up to Volkswagen AG to decide/change without formal announcements (without us knowing), and if a definition is somehow established for Wikipedia Category and Article Title purposes (like Volkswagen Group is a "group of brands including A,B,C", or "group of companies including D,E,F"), commonname and disambiguation justification must be established for the defined group.


 * Secondly, the distinction among the group (group of companies, makers, products, brands, services, etc.), the maker (some VW vehicles are made by Toyota and other contracted makers), the brand (For WikiProject Brands, VW brand covers much broader products/services than just vehicles, e.g. oils, accessories, financial services, etc.), the company (treatment of holding company, 50%-owned subsidiary, etc.) and the vehicles (historical lineage before/after the merger/takeover, OEM, knockdown assembly, etc.) is not clear in Wikipedia category policy, convention on car maker article titles, or content policy (on what to include/exclude in what articles in a group). So "what to base grouping/categorization on" needs to be decided, where each approach (company-centric, brand-centric, product/service-centric, etc.) has pros and cons for Wikipedia purposes.


 * Thirdly, Porsche SE(not Porsche AG) has become the controlling owner of Volkswagen AG, so is now the top tier 'company' in the "group of companies" (so "Porsche SE Group" is logical in company-centric categorization), and is the owner of Porsche brand. This is a very rare case where the carmaker, Porsche AG, is not the owner, but is a licensee of the brand (big problem in 'brand-centric' categorization).  So Volkswagen does not own the brand directly or indirectly, but Porsche AG is a subsidiary of Volkswagen AG.


 * I have been editing Porsche and contemplating how best to cleanly split the article into Porsche SE and Porsche AG, but the above mentioned issues/questions are enormous on this limited scope alone. As the policy/convention is not established for complicated situations, the current practice seems to handle each on case by case basis.  In handling the second largest (correct?) car maker in the world, we should be ready to make decisions with at least semi-plausible reasons on most of the questions raised above, as VW case would likely be looked at as a precedent by others handling less complicated 'groups'.  So I hope you could see that simply changing the categories from Volkswagen to Volkswagen Group would not solve any of the issues above, and would complicate the behemoth without some kind of general direction/destination set.  If you, or anybody, are willing to work on this, let me know. I'd welcome questions, suggestions, etc.  Yiba  (talk &#124; contribs) 14:29, 16 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Category:Volkswagen diesel engines to Category:Volkswagen Group diesel engines – C2B: per Volkswagen Group/. Armbrust The Homunculus 05:28, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose. While the description "Volkswagen Konzern" (Volkswagen Group) has started appearing on Volkswagen announcements, annual reports, etc., the formal name "Volkswagen Aktiengeselschaft" (Volkswagen AG) has not been changed. The validity and the commonname arguments of the terms "Volkswagen Konzern" and "Volkswagen Group" deserve time for non-speedy discussion. Moreover, as Porsche SE has become the controlling owner of Volkswagen AG with over 50% ownership in 2007 (see Porsche for details), Porsche SE (not Porsche AG, which has become a VW subsidiary) now is the top tier company in the group (including Porsche Design Group that does not belong in the Volkswagen Group). While we need time to sort out the organization of article titles and contents to cope with this development, the change from 'Volkswagen' to 'Volkswagen Group' does not help the situation, and also make it more complicated. Yiba  (talk &#124; contribs) 08:22, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Category:Volkswagen people to Category:Volkswagen Group people – Multiple Volkswagen categories: per WP:C2D. "Volkswagen" is a marque (brand) of automobiles and Volkswagen Group is the corporate company that owns other car brands. Each of these categories contains either sub-categories or articles which make clear that the category is really intending to include company-wide articles. RevelationDirect (talk) 05:11, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Category:Volkswagen vehicles to Category:Volkswagen Group vehicles
 * Category:Volkswagen engines to Category:Volkswagen Group engines
 * Category:Volkswagen executives to Category:Volkswagen Group executives
 * Category:Volkswagen platforms to Category:Volkswagen Group platforms
 * Oppose.  as explained above. Yiba  (talk &#124; contribs) 08:22, 3 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Support (been offline for awhile). This change would convert categories named after a brand (Volkswagen with no qualifier) to the corporate category (Volkswagen Group) to match the actual usage of those categories. Yiba has valid concerns that corporate restructuring means that Wikipedia no longer has right name for the parent company. But opposing the nomination keeps these categories as brand categories and doesn't rename the corporate category (s)he favors. RevelationDirect (talk) 03:09, 24 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi RevelationDirect, I feel I might have found a good person to discuss the issue of Titles on carmaker articles. Has there been a consensus in WP:WikiProject Categories to treat carmaker/car names (like 'Toyota', 'Ferrari' 'Jaguar' or 'Volkswagen') to be 'brands', 'car brands', 'car maker' or 'company'?  If so, I'd very much like to read the discussion, rationale and categorization criteria, as I am not as familiar with the project.  The distinction among 'brand', "car brand", "car maker" and 'company' has become an important issue on Porsche (see its Talk page. I just summarized the issues we are facing on that article there.)


 * This may seem off-topic, but this distinction issue and naming convention on article titles are in the heart of the problem we are facing here (categories follow article titles, correct?). And depending on the outcome, I might even go along with your position as I do see that it may be a valid position from the Project Categories perspective.  btw I am a he :)  I just wish I were there when Volkswagen Group article title was created.  Yiba  (talk &#124; contribs) 05:17, 24 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Partial support: support all but the vehicles category. Volkswagen vehicles are vehicles named Volkswagen, i.e. they carry a brand name. The main article for vehicles carrying a brand name is the brand. The category is now placed in Category:Vehicles by brand controlled by Volkswagen Group, along with its sister brands. See also Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion. HandsomeFella (talk) 11:20, 29 September 2014 (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:Volvo Buses
<div class="boilerplate cfd vfd xfd-closed" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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:Volvo buses, as there is no consensus for a longer name. – Fayenatic  L ondon 11:20, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Volvo Buses to Category:Volvo Buses buses
 * Nominator's rationale: Opposed speedy. Category should follow the convention of, which is "MANUFACTURER buses". In this case Volvo Buses is the manufacturer. Armbrust The Homunculus 11:18, 15 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Category:Volvo Buses to Category:Volvo Buses buses – C2C: per the convention in . Armbrust The Homunculus 08:06, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose: I think we need to distinguish between the brand and the company/legal entity. In my view, this category should be "Volvo buses", i.e. a C2A. HandsomeFella (talk) 11:16, 3 August 2014 (UTC)


 * rename to Category:Volvo buses since it's obviously silly to say "Buses buses". If Volvo Buses is their subsidiary that makes buses, well, people can figure that out. Mangoe (talk) 14:23, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment It's not silly at all. That's the same situation as the many "Books books" in Category:Books by publisher. Armbrust The Homunculus 15:11, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment: a difference (although I'm unsure) might be that the book covers in most cases display "Foo Books", not just "Foo", i.e. the brand name is the same as the (common) name of the publisher. On Volvo buses, you don't see "Volvo Buses", you just see "Volvo". HandsomeFella (talk) 18:12, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose: It may be technically correct to change, but it is not needed and to most readers will look like an error. There is no confusion with the existing naming. <B>Warren</B> (talk) 22:57, 17 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose: "Volvo Buses" is the subsidiary making the buses (and chassis for coachbuilders), but the buses are marketed using the trademark "Volvo", and they are thus known as "Volvo buses". HandsomeFella (talk) 16:33, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Also, cf. Category:Leyland buses <-> Leyland Motors, and Category:Fiat buses <-> Fiat Industrial Vehicles. Maybe Category:Buses by manufacturer instead should be renamed Category:Buses by trademark, or Category:Buses by brand. HandsomeFella (talk) 17:46, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Support as following the normal naming guidelines. While reading funny it actually makes sense. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:50, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Alternative Rename to Category:Volvo Buses vehicles. Not a perfect suggestion since all the vehicles are in fact buses. I'm torn though because thhis nomination seems technically correct but awful for the English language.RevelationDirect (talk) 03:22, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment: I have proposed a rename of Category:Buses by manufacturer to Category:Buses by brand. It might affect this discussion. HandsomeFella (talk) 08:53, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment 2: there is currently a discussion on vehicle categories at Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion. HandsomeFella (talk) 15:00, 26 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Rename to Category:Volvo buses. OSX (talk • contributions) 09:16, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment: If the category should be renamed to fit the name of the manufacturer, the new name would be "Volvo Bussar AB buses" (just like "Scania AB buses") or just "Volvo Bussar buses". Volvo Buses is after all just an English translation of the Swedish company name. Still I would prefer the name to be just "Volvo buses", as they are only known by their trademark. Bergenga (talk) 17:03, 6 November 2014 (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.

Scania categories
<div class="boilerplate cfd vfd xfd-closed" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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) 01:45, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Scania vehicles to Category:Scania AB vehicles
 * Propose renaming Category:Scania buses to Category:Scania AB buses
 * Propose renaming Category:Scania trucks to Category:Scania AB trucks
 * Nominator's rationale: Opposed speedy. The main article and category of these categories is Scania AB and respectively. Category doesn't contain vehicles/buses/trucks used in the Swedish province of Scania. Armbrust The Homunculus 11:12, 15 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Category:Scania vehicles to Category:Scania AB vehicles – C2B: per Scania AB/. Armbrust The Homunculus 08:00, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Category:Scania buses to Category:Scania AB buses
 * Category:Scania trucks to Category:Scania AB trucks
 * Oppose: I think we need to distinguish between the brand and the company/legal entity. I have no problems with the "people" category, but the other proposed category names seem incorrect to me. HandsomeFella (talk) 11:16, 3 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose: see my remark on Volvo above. This category no doubt needs a dab, either Category:Scania (trademark) buses or Category:Scania (brand) buses. HandsomeFella (talk) 17:49, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Support. This appears to meet the speedy criteria.  This creates an unambiguous name which is what we try to do. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:47, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment: there is more than one way to disambiguate, and some are better than others. See my proposal: Category:Scania (brand) buses. The originally proposed category could also be perceived as ambiguous; it could be buses of another brand (MAN) manufactured by Scania AB in Södertälje. Even if there are no such buses currently, there are many similar cases, for instance the old Volvo S40 model was manufactured in the VDL Nedcar factory in Netherlands, along with, and even on the same assembly line as, the Mitsubishi Carisma. So, should both these models be categorized as Category:VDL Nedcar cars? Of course not.
 * Personally the issues on the two categories are different so I don't see your comments on the other discussion applying here. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:09, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * It's more logical to rename the parent category Category:Buses by manufacturer to Category:Buses by brand. For more rationale, see the discussion on Category:Volkswagen Group and my comment on Category:Volvo Buses, both above. HandsomeFella (talk) 13:14, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * If you want to propose renaming the parent category, you can do that. But that is a separate discussion that should not affect the decision here. If you propose that change and it is adopted, then any decision here can be reconsidered. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:13, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Support Again, if you want to change a parent category proposing changing it. I don't think concerns about the parent category are pursuasive with holding up housekeeping changes for subcats. RevelationDirect (talk) 03:15, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment: I have proposed a rename of Category:Buses by manufacturer to Category:Buses by brand. It might affect this discussion. HandsomeFella (talk) 08:54, 24 August 2014 (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:Members of the Confederate House of Representatives from Georgia
<div class="boilerplate cfd vfd xfd-closed" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:08, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Members of the Confederate House of Representatives from Georgia to Category:Members of the Confederate House of Representatives from Georgia (U.S. state)
 * Nominator's rationale: Opposed speedy. The category should follow the convention in . Armbrust The Homunculus 11:07, 15 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Category:Members of the Confederate House of Representatives from Georgia to Category:Members of the Confederate House of Representatives from Georgia (U.S. state) – C2B/C2C Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:15, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose. This disambiguation is unnecessary and awkward. Given the American Civil War context, there could be no reasonable doubt that the U.S. state is the referent of "Georgia". — Jaydiem (talk) 16:45, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
 * How does this not meet the conditions for a speedy rename? This type of change has been discussed at a full CfDs in the past and the proposed target has gotten consensus.  Support based on the current guidelines and established consensus. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:29, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Excuse me, but I believe the way this is supposed to work is that if any editor makes a non-frivolous objection to a speedy request, the request is to be treated as non-speedy and go through the standard discussion process. — Jaydiem (talk) 01:54, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Support consistent with other categories, and removes any ambiguity with any possible ethnic Georgian backgrounds. -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 09:12, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
 * The question on the floor is whether to process this request as unopposed speedy, not an evaluation of the merits of the request itself. — Jaydiem (talk) 01:54, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
 * If there is a supporting voice, then it is likely to be turned into a full blown request. Without one, someone may just forget about the change. -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 03:41, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
 * And this exact issue has been discussed a number of times, and it's always resulted in the disambiguation being added, so to some extent there's the issue of WP:CONLIMITED and whether taking yet another one to a full discussion would be a worthwhile exercise. Note that the parent categories in the tree are and, so I don't think including it is "awkward" in the context of the overall tree. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:46, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I should call your attention to this parallel multi-category rename request, which is presently under discussion: Categories for discussion/Log/2014 August 1 — Jaydiem (talk) 18:15, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. So far at least, there doesn't seem to be consensus to rename them, so that kind of lends further support to my position. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:09, 6 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Support. Another principle that categories need to follow is consistency through the tree — if the parent category has the parenthetical "U.S. state" disambiguator, then the subcategory needs to follow the same pattern. Even if it doesn't actually create its own independent conflict with a subcategory of Georgia the country, we can't have a mix of "Georgia (U.S. state)" and just undisambiguated "Georgia" within the U.S. state's category tree, because that would create excessive confusion about which version any individual state-related category was following. Bearcat (talk) 16:30, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Support - Bearcat covers the rationale admirably. Oculi (talk) 17:22, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Support for consistency. kennethaw88 • talk 03:32, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Support per Bearcat -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 07:47, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment: There is a separate discussion (August 1) about renaming Category:Georgia (U.S. state) in the American Civil War (hotly debated?) so I suggest that the two proposals be considered together. Hugo999 (talk) 13:53, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Was closed as "keep" the disambiguation. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:50, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Support per my initial speedy nom. I thought this was a settled issue, which is why I had used speedy. I guess it continues to rankle. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:48, 19 August 2014 (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:Marathon at the Olympics
<div class="boilerplate cfd vfd xfd-closed" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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:Marathons at the Olympics, matching the pattern of other multi-sport event categories within Category:Marathons. – Fayenatic  L ondon 16:21, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Marathon at the Olympics to Category:Marathons at the Olympics
 * Nominator's rationale: Opposed speedy. The main article of the category is Marathons at the Olympics. Also the category contains marathons by year and gender, thus making it a set category.Armbrust The Homunculus 10:56, 15 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Category:Marathon at the Olympics to Category:Marathons at the Olympics – To align with main article at Marathons at the Olympics, the parent Category:Marathons, and for idiomatic sense. SFB 18:53, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose speedy. It appears that the proposed change would convert a topic category about the sport of marathon at the Olympics to a set category containing articles about individual marathons at the Olympics. The convention of Category:Athletics events at the Olympics appears to favor the former than the latter—cf. Category:Decathlon at the Olympics, and not Category:Decathlons at the Olympics. -- Black Falcon (talk) 04:19, 25 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Rename per nom. It does apppear to be a set category, subcat of Category:Marathons whose topic category is Category:Marathon running. Oculi (talk) 11:08, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree. One could, in theory, move this to, but not only is that more wordy but also needlessly broad. As a competition category this will mainly include specific marathons, with outliers being Olympic marathon courses etc. SFB 07:07, 16 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment: An alternative could be Category:Marathon races at the Olympics, if this is truly a set category comprised by all Olympic marathon races. "Marathon running", mentioned above, is not a valid name for a set category. Set category names are in plural. HandsomeFella (talk) 13:39, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * This could technically exclude content such as 2012 Olympic Marathon Course, which is not desirable. SFB 19:38, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Rename to one of the proposed names - the current name looks like it may refer to the achievements of sportspeople from a place called Marathon, just like we have, , and so on. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:14, 26 August 2014 (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:Roman Catholic Bishops of Pittsburgh
<div class="boilerplate cfd vfd xfd-closed" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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. The balance of opinion is slight (4:3 for renaming), and in the absence of a strong consensus I give weight to the desirability of matching all the sibling categories in Category:Roman Catholic bishops by diocese in the United States. Most of the hierarchy within Category:Bishops by diocese in North America follows this pattern ("Category:Denomination bishops of Place") with the relatively scarce exceptions of Category:Roman Catholic bishops by diocese in Canada‎ and a few that start with "Roman Catholic" within Category:Roman Catholic archbishops by diocese in the United States‎. Elsewhere within Category:Categories by diocese there are further inconsistencies, but where the denomination comes first then lowercase is predominant for the title. See also the rarely used format Category:Bishops of Liverpool (Roman Catholic) which avoids the problem. – Fayenatic  L ondon 12:55, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Roman Catholic Bishops of Pittsburgh to Category:Roman Catholic bishops of Pittsburgh
 * Nominator's rationale: In accordance with WP:JOBTITLES since this title "bishop" is being used generically and not for any particular person, also to bring this category in line with numerous other categories with the same capitalization, created and maintained without controversy for many years. Elizium23 (talk) 03:22, 15 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment – this is an opposed speedy and it is customary to include the opposer's remarks, which seem apt. Some of these have been speedies (eg Category:Roman Catholic Bishops of Honolulu was renamed speedily in 2013). The most recent cfd I can find is Jan 2011, which did not support 'bishops'. Category:Anglican Bishops of Wellington, deleted as empty on 21 July 2011, appears to have been emptied out of process, possibly by user:DBD, who created Category:Anglican bishops of Wellington on 11 July 2011. So the numerous other categories mostly used 'Bishops' until being renamed surreptitiously after Jan 2011. Oculi (talk) 07:47, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
 * PS – there is this later cfd in Sept 2011 which does support 'bishops' (but I was the only contributor other than the nom, and I am famously unreliable). Oculi (talk) 09:32, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment I'd forgotten about that. But my position then has not changed. As I wrote then: "Roman Catholic Bishop of Foo" is a title. "Roman Catholic Bishops of Foo" is not a title.". Laurel Lodged (talk) 19:04, 18 August 2014 (UTC)


 * rename A search for "named bishop of" shows that lower case is typical, and that the official Catholic papers and such invariably use it. Occasionally one does see "named the Bishop of X" but it's clear to me that our situation is the first and not this latter. I also note, by comparison that "elected mayor of" is generally also in lower case. Mangoe (talk) 14:50, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
 * rename The title is capitalised but the collective is not capitalised. Laurel Lodged (talk) 09:58, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep -- the person concerned holds (or held) the title "Bishop of Piitsburgh". The change would suggest that the RC Church had several bishops in Pittsburgh at a time, which is surely not the case.   Peterkingiron (talk) 18:04, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment Each of the people in the category holds (or held) the title "Bishop of Pittsburgh". None holds (or held) the title "Bishops of Piitsburgh". No such title exists. Laurel Lodged (talk) 19:07, 18 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment if this cat is for people who held the title "Bishop of Pittsburgh" then Peterkingiron's observation and argument is persuasive. If this cat is to also include auxiliary bishops of the diocese, then the lower case seems fine as it is using "bishops" as a generic, like Category:Colonial governors of Pennsylvania and many others, where any governor will do, regardless of his (only males in this cat so I think this is PC-enough) formal title. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:05, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose I agree with Carlossuarez46 and Peterkingiron. Looking at the category for President of the United States for a comparison, that category does use the capital for the plural, as in "Books written by Presidents of the United States". As Carlos correctly points out, this is the distinction between the holders of a general rank and those who hold a specific office. The office is Bishop of Pittsburgh, what else can all those who have held this office be called but the Bishops of Pittsburgh, which would not include auxiliary bishops, if any? Laurel Lodged's position regarding pluralization of the title could lead to inaccurate and misleading categorizations, especially in large dioceses, which have many auxiliaries. Daniel the Monk (talk) 22:13, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment Re Daniel's position. The problem cannot arise. No two people can simultaneously hold the office of "RC Bishop of Pittsburgh". It's possible to have a coadjutor bishop in the see; he is not, however, the holder of the title of "RC Bishop of Pittsburgh" while the Ordinary lives. In an archdiocese, it's common for the archbishop to have multiple auxiliaries; none of them holds the title "RC Archbishop of Foo". Instead, each holds a titular title. Category:Auxiliary bishops of the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Dublin is an example of how to treat auxiliary bishops; you don't conflate them with the archbishops. On Daniel's other point, I disagree that the "distinction (is) between the holders of a general rank"; the nomination is for a specific title, not a title in general. And the point is that no title of "RC Bishops of Pittsburg" exists. As for the presidents of the USA or of France or of any other nation, it follows that they too are mislabled when they occur in the middle of a category name. They ought to be the subject of future CFDs. Laurel Lodged (talk) 22:45, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
 * The flaw in that logic is that it's not about multiple holders of the office at one given moment. The category holds those articles about those who either currently hold or have held that post in the past. Were they not all equally the holders of a given office in their day? Daniel the Monk (talk) 04:27, 1 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose If it is capitalized in the singular, it should be captitalized in the plural.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:08, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Rename per Mangoe. Regardless of the auxiliary bishops and other components of the hierarchy, "bishops" is normal English usage in this context, just like the mayors and other lowercased-in-context officeholders.  Nyttend (talk) 04:56, 5 November 2014 (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.