< March 22	March 24 >

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: Renamed DavidLeighEllis (talk) 04:46, 1 April 2014 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Wikipedians in the Wikipedia Neutrality Project to Category:WikiProject Neutrality participants (1st choice) or Category:WikiProject Neutrality members

Nominator's rationale: Per the convention of Category:Wikipedians by WikiProject, and also per WikiProject Neutrality. I hold a slight preference for 'participants', since participation implies more active involvement than mere membership, but the project itself uses both "participants" and "members". -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 19:35, 23 March 2014 (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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:39, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Colchester Garrison (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: per WP:SMALLCAT. Consist of the head article Colchester Garrison and 3 redirects to that page, with little prospect of expansion. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:59, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- not a helpful categpory: probably created when the three barracks each had a separate article. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:28, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not a helpful category without the articles on the sub-units actually existing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:45, 29 March 2014 (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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:38, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Roman Emperors with Illyrian decent to Category:Roman Emperors of Illyrian descent

Nominator's rationale: spelling and grammar fix. Not sure if this should be kept; I would not oppose deletion. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:39, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as a trivial intersection of unrelated characteristics. The Roman Empire stretched across Europe, the Middle East, and North Africa, and included tens or hundreds of native tribes and peoples. I oppose an upmerge to Category:Illyrian people because, although these emperors were born in Illyricum (or Dalmatia), for all intents and purposes they were Roman, not Illyrian. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 19:55, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Black Falcon. Trivial intersection. Resolute 15:02, 26 March 2014 (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: administrative close: category was speedily deleted per creator's request. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:15, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Čačanska banka (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: per WP:SMALLCAT. Eponymous category for the Serbian Čačanska banka, which doesn't seem to have much chance of expansion. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:03, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not enough content for a category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:46, 29 March 2014 (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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:59, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Meadows in Kathmandu Valley (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Should be empty, because none of the 3 articles currently in the category is a meadow. It seems unlikely that any individual meadow will be notable. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:38, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Category:Open Spaces in Kathmandu Valley. We have a plain; a field where a religious festival takes place; and a parade ground/sports field. They probably need a category. Some (at least) are categoriesed as meadows. That category should be removed. Whoever categorised them thus does not understand the definition of a meadow. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:33, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  Although using "open spaces" would solve the problem of accuracy, I think that it would broaden the scope of the category excessively. An "open space" could refer to something as large as the Great Plains of North America or as small as a public park or town square. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 20:15, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. There are plenty pf existing categories into which these articles could be placed. Bhuikhel, a "large plain", belongs in Category:Plains of Nepal. Jawalakhel, a town, belongs in Category:Populated places in Lalitpur District, Nepal—the town merely contains a "large open field at the town's center", and we should not categorize on this basis… we would not, for example, categorize an article about a city with a skyscraper in Category:Skyscrapers. Tundikhel, a "large grass-covered ground in the center of ... Kathmandu", is neither a plain nor a meadow, and can simply rest within Category:Kathmandu. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 20:15, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Open to suggestions. Tundikhel, Bhuikhel and Jawalakhel are large open spaces covered with grass in the middle of town. When I created the category Meadows in Kathmandu Valley, I was thinking along the lines of Sheep Meadow, Central Park in New York. Please rename or delete the category as appropriate. Karrattul (talk) 10:51, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete None are meadows, and the items do not really have any unifying characteristic at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:48, 29 March 2014 (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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:08, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming:

• Category:Former Local Government Areas of Queensland to Category:Former local government areas of Queensland
• Category:Local Government Areas of Western Australia to Category:Local government areas of Western Australia
• Category:Local Government Areas of Tasmania to Category:Local government areas of Tasmania
• Category:Local Government Areas of Victoria (Australia) to Category:Local government areas of Victoria (Australia)
• Category:Former Local Government Areas of Western Australia to Category:Former local government areas of Western Australia
• Category:Former Local Government Areas of Victoria (Australia) to Category:Former local government areas of Victoria (Australia)
• Category:Local Government Areas in Melbourne to Category:Local government areas in Melbourne
• Category:Local Government Areas in Adelaide to Category:Local government areas in Adelaide
• Category:Former Local Government Areas of South Australia to Category:Former local government areas of South Australia
• Category:Local Government Areas in Brisbane to Category:Local government areas in Brisbane
• Category:Former Local Government Areas of Australia by state to Category:Former local government areas of Australia by state
• Category:Local Government Areas of the Hunter Region to Category:Local government areas of the Hunter Region
• Category:Local Government Areas of the Riverina to Category:Local government areas of the Riverina
• Category:Local Government Areas of the South Coast (New South Wales) to Category:Local government areas of the South Coast (New South Wales)
• Category:Former Local Government Areas in Sydney to Category:Former local government areas in Sydney
• Category:Local Government Areas of Queensland to Category:Local government areas of Queensland
• Category:Local Government Areas of New South Wales to Category:Local government areas of New South Wales
• Category:Local Government Areas of Australia to Category:Local government areas of Australia
• Category:Local Government Areas of the Northern Territory to Category:Local government areas of the Northern Territory

Nominator's rationale: Rename. common nouns in line with associated articles etc Crusoe8181 (talk) 08:25, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support all. This is a reasonable nomination that is inline with our conventions. --AussieLegend (✉) 09:58, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy rename all per WP:C2A, as a capitalisation fix. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:58, 24 March 2014 (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: keep. Editors may want to look into re-homing these within the structure of Category:Media by language of India. – Fayenatic London 20:38, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Gujarati cinema‎ to Category:Cinema of Gujarat
• Propose renaming Category:Malayalam cinema to Category:Cinema of Kerala
• Propose renaming Category:Marathi cinema to Category:Cinema of Maharastra
• Propose renaming Category:Tamil cinema to Category:Cinema of Tamil Nadu
• Propose renaming Category:Telugu cinema to Category:Cinema of Andhra Pradesh

Nominator's rationale: To be in line with the name of the state to which the cinema belongs to. Also to be in the present category of Category:Indian cinema by state - Thaejas (talk) 06:53, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose It is abstract to classify cinema by state, rather than language. It would be weird to label a Marathi film created say Baroda as Cinema of Gujarat; rather than Marathi cinema. What about pre-1960 (Maharashtra and Gujarat were not formed) Marathi movies? Would they be classified as cinema of Bombay State and pre-Independence Marathi cinema as cinema of Bombay Province? The categories are in line with articles e.g. Marathi cinema. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 13:15, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • In that case, it is appropriate to remove the above sub-categories from the Category:Indian cinema by state as they are not specified to a state. Eg.Category:Tamil cinema belongs to the states of Tamil Nadu and also Sri Lanka (a different country)! - Thaejas (talk) 16:12, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Question -- Is this about location or language? Peterkingiron (talk) 18:35, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Peterkingiron, the main category (Category:Indian cinema by state) where the above mentioned sub-categories are located is not correct for these sub-categories. Hence, have created a discussion to be decided either for renaming the subcategories or moving the subcategories out of the main category. - Thaejas (talk) 06:17, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose as current categories are based on language of the film and that is more important than which state made it. If the nominator thinks that the categories per state should also exist, they are free to create such differently. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 06:49, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename parent to Category:Cinema by language. In the Tamil case it is not even clearly "Indian". If you look at the articles and sub-cats it is clear what is being categorized is the intersection of a language and filmmaking, not a location and film-making. Bollywood is centered in Mumbai, but that does not make it Marathi cinema, it is Hindi cinema. Similarly, even if the Armenian population in Hollywood rose to a majority, and the majority of them spoke Armenian in their homes, if the films made in that city remained made in English, they would not be classed as "Armenian cinema".John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:51, 29 March 2014 (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 change "Dynasty" to "dynasty". (Which also appears to be option 2.) No consensus on the rest. Feel free to re-nominate the various proposals at your discretion. - jc37 22:54, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Xia Dynasty to Category:Xia (dynasty)
• Propose renaming Category:Xia Dynasty kings to Category:Xia kings
• Propose renaming Category:Xia Dynasty politicians to Category:Xia politicians

Nominator's rationale: A number of recent discussions resulted in the decapitalization of all "Dynasty" articles as to Chinese historical dynasties. (See, for the latest, Talk:Han dynasty.) There is currently a group of (largely administrative, which I agree with, albeit with some reservations) speedy renaming proposals for moving a few of the largest category trees, and the nominator there has, with good reason, argued that those should be speedy-moved first before further discussions on the merits of renaming some of the categories. However, I do believe that Xia, being the oldest and probably the least complicated of the category trees, should be discussed first and can serve as a template for further discussion — which I believe should be done sequentially rather than all at once, because each of the dynasties may be in a different situation. As I've explained in my arguments in the decapitalization debate, I believe "Category:Foo dynasty people" is awkward, and during the discussion, some people who agreed with me that it would be awkward also believed that for a number of the category trees, the word "dynasty" can simply be omitted due to a lack of ambiguity. "Xia," however, is ambiguous. (See Xia.) Therefore, I am suggesting that the category be named "Xia (dynasty)" although its subordinate categories may not need the "dynasty" disambiguator. Please discuss. --Nlu (talk) 01:32, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment that would mismatch the article with the category. As the subsidiary categories are reliant on the same main article, they should share the same primary name. Categories require maintenance, so if the main category is renamed "Xia (dynasty)", then all the subsidiary categories should share in that. In any case, the main article needs to be renamed first. -- 70.50.151.11 (talk) 09:09, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose: There is no rational given for using Category:Xia (dynasty) rather than Category:Xia dynasty. The discussion at Talk:Han dynasty rejected parenthetical disambiguation in favour of natural disambiguation. As for the point of dropping the word dynasty completely on certain categories, it may work in some cases but not in others. I think that is too complex to approve in a blank style. Rather I think we need to separate the issues. Lets get 'Dynasty' changed to 'dynasty' first. Then look at if and where 'dynasty' can be dropped as a separate discussion. Rincewind42 (talk) 13:44, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose as nominated. Consistency of titles helps both readers and editors, and there is now a broad consensus in favour using the for "Foo dynasty". The lowercase format was agreed at this RFC, and endorsed in the group RM discussion at Talk:Han dynasty#Han_Dynasty_to_Han_dynasty. I accept the sincerity of the nominator's preference for the parenthesised form of disambiguation, but that issue has already been settled. Using CFD to try to reopen that issue simply brings a re-run of a debate whose outcome is already clear, with the risk of inconsistency. I am sure there is no ill-intent, but the effect of this is a form of WP:FORUMSHOPping.

So I propose an alternative: to simply rename to the lowercase "Xia dynasty", per the head article. I have set these out as option 2, below. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:57, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support the last two moves, though not the first, as Category:Xia dynasty clearly and unambiguously corresponds to Xia dynasty. "Xia dynasty" is awkward (though not ambiguous) when used as modifier, and the correct hyphenated form Category:Xia-dynasty kings would make some people cringe. Both Category:Xia kings and Category:Xia politicians sound fine to me. (Well, not the completely anachronistic "politicians", which should be replaced by "officials" across the board, but I'll keep that for later.) "Xia kings" is succinct, natural, easy to find, and widely used in reliable sources.[1][2] "Kings of the Xia dynasty" is longer and less easy to find, and in scholarly sources it mostly appears in expressions like "the kings of the Xia and the Shang".[3][4] Note also that "Xia kings" is not ambiguous, because the rulers of Xia (Sixteen Kingdoms) fall under Category:Xia emperors and those of the Western Xia under Category:Western Xia emperors. Incidentally, ***these two categories show that the "Foo ba" structure is perfectly clear***, and that we've been using it all along. It's important to keep "Xia" as first word to preserve an identical structure for all the categories that have "kings" or "emperors" in them, otherwise some will become harder to find. Finally, as far as I could determine, all the categories where "ba" is a single word referring to an occupation are titled Category:Foo dynasty ba. The even simpler "Foo ba" without "dynasty" in it preserves consistency across category names, and it would work equally well for "Xia kings" as for "Tang chancellors", "Song poets", and "Qing viceroys", all of which are natural and widely used in English-language reliable sources. Succinct, natural, easy to find, unambiguous, consistent across all categories, and supported by RS: what more can we ask for? Nlu: I'm sure if you changed Category:Xia (dynasty) to Category:Xia dynasty, your proposal would receive strong support! Madalibi (talk) 15:08, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Option 2

• Category:Xia Dynasty to Category:Xia dynasty
• Category:Xia Dynasty kings to Category:Xia dynasty kings
• Category:Xia Dynasty politicians to Category:Xia dynasty politicians

• That wasn't quite the consensus during that discussion. The consensus formed there goes to article titles and style, but explicitly, a number of opinions raised during that discussion contemplated omitting "dynasty" altogether with regard to category names. Indeed, a number of the supporters of decapitalization cited that as a reason why they support decapitalization — that the awkwardness in category names can be avoided by omitting "dynasty" altogether. --Nlu (talk) 16:03, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Nlu: I should have spelt out that I proposed option2 as an implementation of @Rincewind42:'s proposal to "look at if and where 'dynasty' can be dropped as a separate discussion". That discussion could usefully be a broader one looking at all dynasties. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:36, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I understand that, but I think we should actually do this one dynasty at a time; otherwise, it becomes a massive (I'd estimate 500+ categories) discussion that it would soon be impossible to sort out exactly what everyone is talking about. --Nlu (talk) 20:51, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Nlu: Doing it one dynasty at a time risks producing inconsistent results. It would be highly disruptive to have a variety of formats, such as Category:Politicians of the Xia dynasty, Category:Ming dynasty politicians, and Category:Qing politicians.
        That doesn't mean doing all 500 categs together. The best way would be to choose groups of similar categories such as the politicians. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:17, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support option 2. The important thing is for these categories to be consistent across all related dynasty articles. I don't get why the need to suddenly rearrange the order of the name now (Option 3)? Just follow the original category's name.--Balthazarduju (talk) 07:13, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I gave that option since the nominator and others gave the impression that they do not favor the alternative "X dynasty Y" format and there's little chance that the original nomination format will gain consensus. In regards to option 2, "Dynasty" should be be decapitalized in any case. --Cold Season (talk) 14:04, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – I would also support a speedy move of all these categories to the uncapitalized form (in the name of "let's take it step by step"), but I think a sufficient number of editors raised the issue of "awkwardness" for "Foo dynasty" used as modifier to justify a further discussion of all the "Foo dynasty ba" categories. In such a discussion, I would support "Foo ba" (see my "support" for Nlu's original proposal above). Madalibi (talk) 23:01, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Given the potential for an unruly mess given the number of categories that would be affected by changing the word order and nomenclature of multiple dynasties, let's just stick with dropping the case of Dynasty. ► Philg88 ◄ ^♦talk 09:43, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Option 3

• Category:Xia Dynasty to Category:Xia dynasty
• Category:Xia Dynasty kings to Category:Kings of the Xia dynasty
• Category:Xia Dynasty politicians to Category:Politicians of the Xia dynasty

Rationale. It's natural--with none of the purported awkwardness--and it still maintains the outcome of the RfC and RM discussions. I don't think it's an uncommon format, glancing at the sub-category entries of Category:Kings. --Cold Season (talk) 17:36, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• For now, oppose. I think this makes it more awkward, not less. But I'll sleep on it. --Nlu (talk) 20:49, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to option 2: "Xia dynasty". Why is this even being debated here? Since the article is at Xia dynasty, the categories naturally follow. To introduce an alternate form in categories only complicates matters and makes the location of the categories unpredictable. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:59, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • See the discussion at Talk:Han Dynasty that led to the decapitalization. The awkwardness of the form was not something that I dreamed out of the blue; a good number of the people who discussed the issue shared my discomfort and suggested omitting "dynasty" as an alternative. While it would be legitimate to disagree with me, dismissing the idea out of hand would appear to be a form of bait-and-switch. --Nlu (talk) 01:10, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • What was mentioned was that formats like "Xia dynasty kings" was supposedly awkward, but it's mainly and inconclusively argued by those that opposed the successful move. This has no bearing to this rendering. Considering sub-articles titles often also followed this format (before and after the discussions)--e.g. History of the Han dynasty, Kings of the Han dynasty, Economy of the Han dynasty, etc--and what I said in the rationale, I find it a good option. It's very consistent and applicable to the earlier discussion outcomes. --Cold Season (talk) 01:48, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's not a "bait-and-switch", it's simply an application of long-standing conventions. We don't need endless debate and discussion about the same identical issues over and over again. Once we decide on the article name, the category names follow the same form. That's why the convention exists—to avoid repetitive discussions such as this. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:33, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

• I like option 3 , but option 2 also works. -- 70.50.151.11 (talk) 05:48, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• While I am in favour of dropping the D to d in dynasty, I see no need for a widespread change for the kings, politicians, etc, etc. Looking through Wikipedia you can see all three ways round. We have Category:Later Zhou politicians without the dynasty. We have Category:Military of the Qing Dynasty using 'of the'. Then we also have Category:Xia Dynasty politicians. I don't think we should go changing hundreds of articles/categories without a strong reason. If it is currently Foo Dynasty ba then change it to Foo dynasty ba If it currently uses Ba of the Foo Dynasty then just change it to Ba of the Foo dynasty. If it currently omits dynasty, then leave it omitted and don't change anything at Ba of Foo. If there is one article/category you think might need a change, the raise it on that talk page. However so far nobody has given a reason to change other than one version sounds nicer to them and that is entirely a matter of personal preference. I would be nice to be consistent, however the whole of wikipedia (not just Chinese articles) is inconsistent on Ba of Foo versus Foo ba. I do note that for categories, Foo dynasty ba is more common while the corresponding article is more often than not titled, Ba of the Foo dynasty or Ba of Foo. So there is some mismatching between article titles and categories that may be cause for change in a few cases. Rincewind42 (talk) 05:52, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Rincewind42: Option2 does exactly what you propose. Capitalisation fix only. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:00, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename using option 3 preferably, or option 2. All the category names should follow the article name, as is conventional in cfd discussions. Oculi (talk) 11:31, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

{subst:cfd bottom))