< October 30	November 1 >

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 with capital M in Metroplex and hyphen. Kbdank71 14:27, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Shopping malls in Dallas-Fort Worth (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Propose renaming Category:Shopping malls in Dallas-Fort Worth to Category:Shopping malls in the Dallas-Fort Worth Metroplex

Nominator's rationale: Rename. To match List of shopping malls in the Dallas–Fort Worth Metroplex. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 23:38, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Question - should "metroplex" be capitalized or not? The list article capitalizes it but your suggested rename does not. Otto4711 (talk) 01:29, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd say yes to match the parent Category:Economy of Dallas-Fort Worth Metroplex. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:56, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good idea. Changed. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 03:27, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support with the dash instead of hyphen (Category:Shopping malls in the Dallas–Fort Worth Metroplex) to match the article. Neier (talk) 22:10, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support rename, Oppose use of non-keyboard characters in category names as they serve as a barrier to navigation. Otto4711 (talk) 00:40, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Do not use special characters unless you want to make navigation by typing in category names impossible. 70.55.86.100 (talk) 08:41, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

---

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.

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:Musical quartets. Kbdank71 14:29, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Quartets (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete - with the exceptions of the String quartet and the Barbershop quartet, which have their own categories that are not under consideration here, there does not appear to be anything defining about happening to have four members in your musical group. Additionally, the number of members in a band is not fixed. We recently deleted a number of categories for other types of quartets for this very reason. The string and barbershop subcats can be housed directly in Category:Musical groups by numbers. If retained, I suggest a rename Category:Musical quartets to specify that it is not for other collections of four people or objects. Otto4711 (talk) 21:07, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep -- but Rename to Category:Musical quartets and restrict to groups that are specifically named & designated as "quartets"[amended] with appropriate inclusion criteria. That will mean cleaning out all but five three of the articles that are currently included (American Quartet (ensemble), Amsterdam Loeki Stardust Quartet, James Taylor Quartet, Kraft Quartet, The Sacred Aires Quartet), none of which belongs in either of the sub-cats. Cgingold (talk) 21:26, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I've just created a new sub-cat, Category:Vocal quartets, and moved two of those five articles into it, along with Category:Barbershop quartets. Cgingold (talk) 21:55, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I gotta say, I'm not quite understanding the utility of the vocal quartets category. Can you explain your thinking behind its creation a bit, along with perhaps a definition of a vocal quartet? Quartet#Vocal quartet is not very illuminating. Otto4711 (talk) 00:03, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry, I don't have time for a full answer right now, but I'd say it probably centers on the use of four-part harmony. Also, take a look at Gospel quartet. (More later!) Cgingold (talk) 12:56, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – rename and trim per Cgingold (except 4 Non Blondes also sounds like a quartet to me unless irony is involved). Occuli (talk) 21:56, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch -- I skipped right over that one. Cgingold (talk) 23:07, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Are groups like 4 Runner, the Oak Ridge Boys and Little Big Town vocal quartets? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 23:39, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• As I just said above, I don't have time to answer right now, but I will look at these later today and let you know what I think. Cgingold (talk) 12:56, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Vocal quartets: Lamentably, we don't have a good, solid article on either Vocal quartets or Four-part harmony. But I found bits and pieces strewn all over the place, both on and off Wikipedia. As I suggested above, "Vocal quartets" are 4-person vocal groups (usually but not always the same gender) in which each member takes a different vocal range/role (typically lead, tenor, baritone, and bass for a male group). "Four-part harmony" is distinctive, and is the essence of what they do -- with one voice assigned to each part. Most Vocal quartets perform a capella (unaccompanied), but there are some that perform with instrumental accompaniment. Barbershop and Gospel quartets are particular types of Vocal quartets -- they are closely related historically, and laid the foundation for other forms that developed more recently.

As for the groups that TPH asked about, the answer is Yes, they are indeed Vocal quartets. The Oak Ridge Boys were originally called the "Oak Ridge Quartet". 4 Runner "drew critical acclaim for the prominent use of four-part vocal harmonies." And Little Big Town: "The quartet's musical style relies heavily on four-part vocal harmonies..."

I'm going to rethink/reformulate my original suggestion, which had the virtue of simplicity, but is clearly too narrowly-drawn to serve as a properly inclusive definition for these categories. I've left notes for a couple of editors asking for input here, and I'd welcome constructive suggestions... Cgingold (talk) 14:10, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Cgingold caught part of the distinction but also missed some. In common with chamber string quartets, but distinct from nearly all other modern instruments, a cappella vocal quartets routinely use "Just intonation" to achieve what is usually known as "expanded sound". Of course vocalists usually sing lyrics, as distinct from other instruments. Hence the cat should not be simply merged into musical quartet, although making it a subcat could make sense. Possible subcats "Doowop quartets" and "Bluegrass quartets" should also be considered. LeadSongDog (talk) 04:43, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I guess I'm not quite understanding why there needs to be a category called "quartets" if consensus ends up being to strip out those groups that don't go into a specific subcat. Given the likelihood that four-member groups will be added back if they're stripped out, why not side-step the problem by housing the subcats directly in the Groups by number parent? This happened with the category for quintets and Category:Brass quintets, the only subcat, was placed directly in the parent. Otto4711 (talk) 20:37, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Aside from the specific sub-cats, don't forget there are also at least three articles (Amsterdam Loeki Stardust Quartet, James Taylor Quartet, Kraft Quartet) that certainly belong in the renamed Category:Musical quartets. Cgingold (talk) 23:14, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as Musical quartets, but for the most part this should be a parent category with the individual musical groups sorted by the type of music that they play. IN classical music and perhaps other genres some quartets have a long and stable existence. I am not convinced that there are four members of a pop band is a significnat characteristic, but that can only be judeged when the category is sorted. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:32, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

---

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.

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 all. Kbdank71 14:47, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Hydro power stations in Armenia to Category:Hydroelectric power plants in Armenia

Similar categories to be renamed:

• Category:Hydro power stations in Azerbaijan to Category:Hydroelectric power plants in Azerbaijan
• Category:Hydro power stations in Bosnia and Herzegovina to Category:Hydroelectric power plants in Bosnia and Herzegovina
• Category:Hydro power stations in Kenya to Category:Hydroelectric power plants in Kenya

Nominator's rationale: Rename. To be in line with other country-based categories. Beagel (talk) 21:20, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

---

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.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: merge. Kbdank71 14:48, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Hydro power stations in Vietnam to Category:Hydroelectric power plants in Vietnam

Nominator's rationale: Merge, Same subject. Merging a new category into the old category to be in line with similar country-based categories. Beagel (talk) 21:03, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

---

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.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: rename. Kbdank71 14:48, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Hydro Power Plants in Bulgaria to Category:Hydroelectric power plants in Bulgaria

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Capitalization and to be in line with other similar country-based categories. Beagel (talk) 20:54, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

---

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.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: relisted on 12th. Kbdank71 17:17, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Adaptations of works by Jane Austen to Category:to be determined

Propose renaming Category:Films based on Jane Austen works to Category:to be determined

Propose renaming Category:Television programs based on Jane Austen novels to Category:to be determined

Nominator's rationale: Do something. These three categories are illustrative of a problem that's resulted from the development of two parallel categorization structures. One uses the form "Adaptations of..." and the other uses "...based on..." Within those structures there are additional variances, including "Foos based on Boo works", "Foos adapted from Boo's works", "Foos based on moos by Boo" and so on. Multiple categories covering the same author means that either the same articles are getting multiple categories or items are being split, making it harder to locate them. There is also the Category:Works based on media structure. I've been guilty myself of helping to create some of this mess. My preference is that we use "based on" when there is no specific author (e.g. a film based on a comic book, where there may have been dozens of people who wrote issues of the comic) or when the author in question has either a very low literary output or has had very few works adapted from their works (e.g. To Kill a Mockingbird (film) would go in Category:Films based on novels rather than Category:Films based on Harper Lee novels) and use "adaptations of" or "adapted from" when the author has a significant number of adapted works (e.g. Carrie (1976 film) would go into Category:Film adaptations of Stephen King novels or Category:Films adapted from Stephen King novels and not Category:Films based on novels). The existing "Works based on..." structure can continue to serve as parents for the single-adaptation categories but should be themselves parented by Category:Adaptations of literature or something similar to tie them together for navigational purposes. Otto4711 (talk) 18:23, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• So to illustrate, the above categories would be renamed "Adaptations of Jane Austen novels" (if they're all novels which I believe they are, otherwise "Jane Austen works"), "Films adapted from Jane Austen novels" or "Film adaptations of Jane Austen novels" (my preference because it's shorter) and "Television programs adapted from Jane Austen novels" or "Television adaptations of Jane Austen novels" (my preference because it's shorter). The latter two would be parented in the first and the first would be parented in Category:Adaptations of literature. Otto4711 (talk) 18:28, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry, I don't mean to bombard my own nomination with comments, but just in case I wasn't clear, I would like this discussion to serve as a possible blueprint for widespread reform of the entire adaptation/based on structure, so please consider this in light of that potential reform. Thanks. Otto4711 (talk) 18:44, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom, but "programmes", if I have understood this correctly. I prefer "adaptations" for straight film etc versions. However in this case it should be "programmes", per WP:ENGVAR, as both the sources and most of the adaptations are British. Johnbod (talk) 18:35, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• What about the alternative "Television adaptations of..." which sidesteps the entire issue of US/UK English? Otto4711 (talk) 18:40, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, or that. Johnbod (talk) 18:41, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I thought sure this nomination would attract a lot of traffic. Closing admin, may I request a relist since I'd like to try to establish a precedent toward reforming this categorization scheme? Otto4711 (talk) 19:17, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• merge all into one category: possibly dramatic Category:presentations of works by Jane Austen. I do not think that there is much distinction between Costume Dramas whether they appear as a film or a TV series. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:36, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They belong in different trees, which a merge would mess up: Category:Films based on works by author, and Category:Television programs based on novels are the respective parents. Johnbod (talk) 08:34, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

---

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.

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: Withdrawn (non-admin close) Otto4711 (talk) 23:13, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

:Suggest merging Category:Hamlet on screen to Category:Films based on Hamlet

Nominator's rationale: Merge - two categories covering the exact same ground; "based on" is in line with other similar categories. Otto4711 (talk) 17:47, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and upmerge to Category:Shakespeare on film. No real need to have just one category for Hamlet. There appears to be just as many versions of Macbeth, and they're all in the parent category. Lugnuts (talk) 19:09, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I'm not so sure - Category:Hamlet on screen contains mostly straight film productions of the play. Category:Films based on Hamlet contains things like the The Lion King, without a word of Shakespeare, but using the story. This seems a valid distinction. Better to Rename Category:Hamlet on screen to Category:Films based on Hamlet, removing Hamlet 2, Hamlet A.D.D., and Hamlet Goes Business to the current Category:Films based on Hamlet, which becomes a sub-cat called maybe Category:Films loosely based on Hamlet or Category:Films using the plot of Hamlet. Johnbod (talk) 18:03, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Withdrawn - trying to deal with this tiny sliver of the based on/adaptations structure when the result may be undermined or reversed by the discussion directly above it suddenly strikes me as not the best use of time and resources. If consensus is reached above, this can be worked out later. If not these can be renominated. Otto4711 (talk) 18:31, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did wonder! I will make the 2 cats consistent by moving the 3 loose ones across anyway. Johnbod (talk) 18:36, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I really didn't realize the extent of the problem before opening this one. Otto4711 (talk) 18:40, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

---

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.

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. Kbdank71 14:35, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Football (soccer) to Category:Association football

Propose renaming All categories that use the term "Football (soccer)" to use the term "Association football"

Nominator's rationale: Rename. The category's main article was moved from Football (soccer) to Association football on 27 December 2007, but the category and all of its subcategories were left at Category:Football (soccer). A WP:FOOTY proposal to move the categories to use the name "association football" has been seconded, so the next logical step is to bring the discussion here. There is no reason why the category title should not match its main article. – PeeJay 16:10, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related page moves. – PeeJay 16:14, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• This discussion has been included in WikiProject Stub sorting stub types for renaming. Her Pegship (tis herself) 04:32, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: All categories proposed for renaming must be tagged. Johnbod (talk) 22:03, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nominator's rationale. GiantSnowman 16:20, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – much better. Is the intention to change (in due course) all mentions of 'Football (soccer)' to 'Association football', but to leave 'Football' alone where there is no ambiguity? (Eg in the hundreds of subcats of Category:Football (soccer) and Category:Football (soccer) clubs by country.) Occuli (talk) 16:39, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the category name includes the term "Football (soccer)", it should be changed to "Association football". – PeeJay 16:56, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Oppose will confuse many readers - football is only "Association football" in Britain, but "Football (soccer)", though inelegant, is understood by everyone. Johnbod (talk) 17:05, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Irrelevant. That is an argument for why the article should be located at Football (soccer), not why the category should stay at Category:Football (soccer). – PeeJay 17:11, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • What about FIFA and CONCACAF? I always assumed soccer was an abbreviation for "Association football", not a replacement. Occuli (talk) 18:05, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is a British nickname, and the "Association" concerned is The Football Association, which is purely British. Johnbod (talk) 18:26, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong support for consistency with the main article. As noted, the above oppose vote is irrelevant here - that is an issue for the article title, not the category (which should always match the parent article). пﮟოьεԻ 57 17:15, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The category should not "always" match the main article, though normally it should. But often category names need to be clearer, which is the case here. The first line of the article reads "Association football, more commonly known as football or soccer...", but a category does not have that option, and the name must be clearer. To change Category:Bolivian football clubs, or to have it under an "Association football" head-cat is clearly wrong. Johnbod (talk) 17:43, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not suggesting that Category:Bolivian football clubs be retitled. Regardless, I don't understand how the term "association football" is unclear. It is what it is. If I was suggesting that the category be moved to Category:Football, then I could understand your objection, but there is nothing ambiguous about the name "association football". Furthermore, categories do have the option to describe themselves. You could even add the line "Association football, more commonly known as football or soccer..." to this category. – PeeJay 18:17, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • If you are American, Australian, South African etc, let alone from a non-English speaking country, it is not "ambiguous" but totally mystifying. Hardly anyone outside the UK is aware of the term, since they either use football or soccer. Johnbod (talk) 18:20, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Your entire argument is irrelevant and should have been raised at the Football (soccer) → Association football RM. – PeeJay 19:00, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom BanRay 18:44, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support and move all similar page names not just categories. Peanut4 (talk) 20:13, 31 October 2008 (UTC) Removing vote, since I agree about the clarity reasons given below, and now neutral. Peanut4 (talk) 16:31, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Oppose per Johnbod. This is a perfect illustration of why we haven't delegated authority for renaming of categories to the WikiProjects. I hasten to emphasize that I have frequently solicited input from relevant WikiProjects, because I think that those editors often have knowledge and insights that are of real value to CFD discussions. However, the internal deliberations of the WikiProjects often tend to be rather insular -- as reflected in the arguments made here, which display an unfortunate disregard or lack of concern for non-specialists, and also an apparent lack of familiarity with the way that categories function in actual use. In a nutshell, the problem is that readers who come across Category:Association football (or any of its sub-cats) and don't already know that it refers to soccer would just pass right by and never click on the cat-link in the first place -- which means that they would never see that wonderfully helpful explanatory note on the Category page. Cgingold (talk) 20:28, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Talk:Association football is largely taken up with people complaining about the name, and being slapped down by the regular team. Johnbod (talk) 21:57, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • And the archive of Talk:Association football is almost entirely comprised of people bitching about the name "Football (soccer)". What's your point? – PeeJay 22:54, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At least they all know what that means, whereas many say they have never heard of the current name. With redirects this does not matter much for an article, but it does not work for a category. Johnbod (talk) 23:10, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• NOTE: This proposal/discussion should not proceed any further until the hundreds of sub-categories have been tagged for CFD. Cgingold (talk) 23:28, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're really desperate for this proposal not to go through, aren't you? – PeeJay 23:33, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I really don't appreciate this remark, PeeJay. Suppose I were to suggest that you were desperate to minimize the possible opposition to your proposal? Just because you have your heart set on it doesn't mean that you're somehow entitled to have it breeze through CFD. I hope you've now come to understand that the scope of this proposal requires that any decision be arrived at on the basis of a thorough discussion that results (hopefully) in a broad concensus one way or the other. Cgingold (talk) 12:50, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Fair enough. Sorry. – PeeJay 20:55, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • And if you think I'm going to tag every fucking category in Category:Football (soccer) clubs by year of disestablishment, you've got another thing coming. – PeeJay 23:37, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Any decision will only affect tagged categories - those are the procedures here. Johnbod (talk) 00:31, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I would suggest we see how the discussion goes for Category:Football (soccer) only, before tagging anything else (which bots can do in subsequent rounds, if necessary). Occuli (talk) 01:17, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Tagging is all done now. Didn't have time to do all of the "Football (soccer) by year" categories or the "Football (soccer) templates" categories though. – PeeJay 12:21, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • [The following remarks were being written when the preceding comment was posted, resulting in an Edit Conflict.] The point of having -- and adhering to -- the rules is that they were developed with an eye to promoting the participation of all interested parties. Given the breadth of this proposal, it should have the widest possible participation. And given the fact that a decision to rename the super-cat would be used as a strong precedent for renaming all of the sub-categories, the existence of this CFD discussion needs to be brought to the attention of readers who may only learn of it through one of those sub-cats. Cgingold (talk) 12:35, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • I just want to add that I'm glad to see that the tagging has now been done started. I wish it wasn't so onerous, but it does serve an important purpose. Cgingold (talk) 12:38, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • I just took a quick look to see what had been tagged and found that it was considerably less than I anticipated -- mostly just "first-level sub-cats". I'm afraid there's quite a lot that hasn't yet been tagged -- notably, none of the sub-cats of Category:Football (soccer) clubs by country (as far as I could determine from a a quick sample). Cgingold (talk) 13:06, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Yes, the term "soccer" derives from abbreviation of "association football". The article was moved, so lets have the categories match it. The fact that it's an onerous task is not a valid argument against, as the work (tagging and the actual renames) can be done by bot. Beve (talk) 13:55, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Category naming is about clarity of meaning and 'Football (soccer)' is clear to everyone whereas 'Association football' is only clear to some. And it s also quite accepted in discussion here that category names do not need to match article names. Mayumashu (talk) 18:13, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• FYI: There were discussion about this over at WP:WPSS back in April 2006 and February 2008. (Plus if any of the categories nominated or renaming are stub cats, they should be tagged with ((sfr-c))). Her Pegship (tis herself) 02:26, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which I'll take care of for you. :P Her Pegship (tis herself) 02:38, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • And btw, oppose renaming per Johnbod & Mayumashu. Her Pegship (tis herself) 01:13, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Mayumashu. --Wulf Isebrand (talk) 23:09, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. This would be a step backwards in category name clarity, as discussed by many of the users above. The current category name has the benefit of being clear in UK, American, and most other forms of English. "Association football" would not be. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:46, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

---

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.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete. Kbdank71 14:40, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Scientific comparison (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Delete - The articles I found in this very small category were not what I was expecting to find when I saw the name of the category -- I don't think any of them actually deal with "Scientific comparison". Ground truth isn't even a comparison article of any sort. The other two are only vaguely related to science, and should simply be upmerged to Category:Comparisons. (I also want to note that the name is ambiguous/misleading, which probably accounts for the erroneous inclusion of Ground truth.) (Category creator stopped editing in May 2007) Cgingold (talk) 13:58, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

---

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.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: rename. Kbdank71 14:39, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Volleyball Asian Championship (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: The creator's intent was a little unclear, but I think this category was intended to cover Asian volleyball championships, of which there are several, hence I am proposing to rename it to Category:Asian volleyball championships. Stepheng3 (talk) 20:58, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kbdank71 13:09, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• NOTE: don't know if you are aware, but there is Category:Asian volleyball club championships which seems to duplicate this, and may need a rename as well. In fact Category:Volleyball competitions is pretty much a mess. I'll speedy what I can, but someone may want to make some more nominations for consistency. --Kbdank71 13:09, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

---

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.

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. Kbdank71 14:41, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Unincorporated cities in Norway (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions.

Nominator's rationale: The term "unincorporated" does not have any meaning in a Norwegian context. All cities in Norway are localized within a municipality and lack local governance.

For instance, Bergen has a so-called city council which is elected by the whole municipality, but the outlying borough of Arna is not a part of the city, just of the municipality.

Seemingly, the category creator has just added cities with a different name than their corresponding municipality. The history of Horten shows why this is meaningless: The municipality of Horten was merged with the municipality of Borre in 1988. The name of the new municipality was Borre. Supposedly, then, Horten was an "unincorporated city" in Borre municipality. Some years later, the name was changed from Borre to Horten. Supposedly, from this point the city of Horten was no longer "unincorporated", since its corresponding municipality bore the same name. But - no, that makes no sense and is OR. Punkmorten (talk) 19:08, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Technically, Arna is in fact part of the city. I believe the reason why you think it is not is due to SSB's urban areas, but those do not in any way decide the size of and the area covered by the cities - SSB does not decide what is part of cities and what is not (although it might have been reasonable if they could do that, but that's not the current situation). The city limits of Bergen are in fact coterminous with the municipality limits, much like those of Oslo being coterminous with that city's limits - Bærum is not part of Oslo even though it is obviously a very integrated surburb and considered part of the Oslo urban area by SSB. On a related note, what are your thoughts on the Sandvika case? How large is its population and where is its city limits (it is entirely included in the Oslo urban area). --Aqwis (talk – contributions) 20:21, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think my thoughts about Sandvika are relevant - sources, on the other hand, are. Punkmorten (talk) 10:07, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What do the sources say? --Aqwis (talk – contributions) 10:15, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know. Punkmorten (talk) 11:15, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have repopulated this category with the following cities:

• Drøbak
• Lillestrøm
• Sandvika

I find it quite inappropriate that the category was depopulated before this nomination. __meco (talk) 09:33, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kbdank71 13:02, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• comment Ok, each of these 3 articles state the settlement is an 'unincorporated city'. Are the articles wrong? Are there also other Norwegian settlements that indicate they are 'unincorporated cities? Hmains (talk) 17:22, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• oppose since no further explanation was forthcoming, it seems that there must be 'unincorporated cities' in Norway so the category is appropriately kept. Hmains (talk) 03:29, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are none unincorporated cities in Norway. All physical areas on the Norwegian mainland, as well as on islands, are parts of formal local governmental councils, that is municipalities or communes (Norw: kommune, cfr French: commune). There are urban communes, rural communes and partly urbanized communes. Urbanized areas or not, all area land uses and all inhabitants are regulated by the rules, regulations, taxation and by-laws of the commune (elected) council. Drøbak, Lillestrøm, Sandvika, and other similar urbanized areas, are just built-up parts of formal communes (Commune of Frogn; Commune of Skedsmo; Commune of Bærum).Josefine Antonia (talk) 22:44, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

---

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.

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: hallelujah for the relist. Rename to Personal financial problems. Kbdank71 14:44, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Economic struggle (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Rename to Category:To be determined. The current name just doesn't do the job -- I was expecting something else entirely when I came across it. One possibility might be Category:Personal economic problems, but perhaps we can do better. Suggestions, please? Notified creator with ((subst:cfd-notify)) Cgingold (talk) 23:52, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge in to Category:Economic problems. --Wassermann (talk) 00:09, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• rename to Category:Personal economic problems as this set of articles needs to be a subcat of Category:Personal finance. Merging these articles into Category:Economic problems will just lose them. Hmains (talk) 01:33, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I was going to point out that this grouping is the intersection of two equally important parent cats, both of which are well populated with other articles that don't fall within the scope of this category. I was initially tempted to propose deletion, but it does seem to serve a useful purpose. Cgingold (talk) 03:36, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kbdank71 12:56, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Category:Personal economic problems or Category:Personal financial problems - more appropriate, I think, as countries have economies but people have finances. Johnbod (talk) 15:28, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• That's a very good point. I knew there was a better name -- so how did I miss something so obvious?? Rename to Category:Personal financial problems', per Johnbod. Cgingold (talk) 19:01, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree and change my prior suggestion to rename to Category:Personal financial problems. Hmains (talk) 17:29, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

---

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.

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. Kbdank71 14:46, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:People from Sherbrooke, Quebec to Category:People from Sherbrooke

Nominator's rationale: Rename - Last year, on the categories for discussion, the users talk about between the 2 categories, Category:People from Sherbrooke, Quebec and Category:People from Sherbrooke, and as a result last year, one of the categories, merged. On July 14, 2008, The good users has made the main article to rename a page, The new main article title is called Sherbrooke, I check the Sherbrooke related categories, there are categories with the Sherbrooke name, without including the province name. The only category I'm worried about is Category:People form Sherbrooke, Quebec, this category will be proposing for renaming the category, as of Sherbrooke's talk page. If any users check the talk page. Just decide if this category will propose for renaming a category, per rename page. This category has to be renamed to match the main article and other Sherbrooke related categories to be matched. Steam5 (talk) 01:38, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename - per nom category to match main article. 24.84.0.102 (talk) 20:56, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment -- Are you sure that this is the only significant place called Sherbrooke? If not, it will attract articles from other places so named. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:40, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - There is another city called Sherbrooke, Nova Scotia and that is a very small town, but this is another largest city in the province of Quebec, Wikipedia users made all the request moves for larger cities without the province name. I check Sherbrooke's talk page one more time and it would still be rename this category to match the main article, plus all of the Sherbrooke related categories without the province name. check Sherbrooke's talk page. Steam5 (talk) 04:14, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

---

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.

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 per nom. Definite consensus to rename, although to what is less clear. To avoid a no consensus close, I'm going with the nom, as more people favored that term. Kbdank71 14:32, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Vegetable-like fruits to Category:Fruit vegetables

Nominator's rationale: Rename - category is for vegetables that form from the fruits of their parent plants. Renaming brings this cat in line with the similar Category:Root vegetables and Category:Leaf vegetables. Otto4711 (talk) 01:34, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – the term 'fruit vegetable' is certainly in use and is neater than 'Vegetable-like fruit'. Occuli (talk) 13:27, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure that this is in common use. A quick search does not show any obvious uses. Do you know of a search that would support this? Vegaswikian (talk) 01:28, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Here are two: Culinary Creation by James Morgan, and British Nutrition Foundation. - Fayenatic (talk) 14:23, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • That first reference is not available. The second shows the term being used, but only lists 5 items. Not really sufficient given the number of entries for the category. It also uses the term, but does not attempt to define it.Vegaswikian (talk) 22:30, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • The first one works for me; ISBN 9780750679367. It contains more examples: "Fruit" vegetables are so named because they are technically fruits (that is, they contain seeds), but they are used culinarily as vegetables. Primary examples are squash, tomatoes, peppers, avocados, and eggplant. Tropical examples include the plantain... Olives also fit into the category... The following page mentions tomatillo and various peppers. - Fayenatic (talk) 19:24, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom, makes sense to me. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 13:57, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 19:24, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename as something, although I would prefer Category:Fruits used as vegetables -- less consistent but more clear. - Fayenatic (talk) 14:23, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename as something, although I too would prefer Category:Fruits used as vegetables, per Fayenatic. Johnbod (talk) 15:47, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, so I use grapes in a salad. Salads generally contain vegetables so your proposal would cover that case. However it would be rather ambiguous. Maybe something like Category:Fruits commonly called vegetables would be more appropriate, but that becomes subjective based on local usage. Not something that can really be categorized. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:37, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - As this seems to be categorising botanical fruits which are considered culinary vegetables, perhaps one or more of those terms should be in the title? - jc37 05:14, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  On further thought, perhaps this should be a list, if for no other reason than to be able to explain that this applies only in certain countries (due to tariff law, for example). - jc37 05:15, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Why does it only apply in certain countries? The basis of this category is scientific, not legal. A tomato is a tomato from a botanical standpoint regardless of the country in which the tomato is grown and regardless of whether there is case law, statute or treaty classifying it in a particular way based on that country. Otto4711 (talk) 18:38, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  If we're ignoring the legal issues, then the tomato is a fruit, per science. - jc37 18:39, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• So remove tomatos from the category. Otto4711 (talk) 02:47, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Listify. Clearly the tomato is a fruit, to use one example. It is only considered a vegetable based on usage and a court ruling in the United States. That ruling applies to one country. Does every other country consider this to be a vegetable? If not, then it should not be in this category. It seems that only a list is really able to address all of the issues that this category creates. Even our own article on vegetable states that the usage is somewhat arbitrary and subjective. Again this leads to an arbitrary inclusion criteria. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:30, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• No to listify - we'd be throwing out the baby with the bathwater if we end up with Maize and Cucumber not categorised within Vegetables. Renaming as Category:Fruits commonly called vegetables would be fine by me. It would be easy to find citations in each case. These could be saved as inline hidden text by the category at the end of each member article, or on the talk pages. - Fayenatic (talk) 19:15, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

---

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.