Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 December 6

< December 5	December 7 >

December 6

Category:Pub theatres

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: retain only lowest level categories. It is not clear that "pub" should change to "fringe," but everybody wants the clutter removed. There's no clear consensus on which level stays, but it seems like the well-populated Category:Pub theatres in London needs the England category to exist, so I'll keep those two and delete Category:Pub theatres in the United Kingdom and Category:Pub theatres. If anyone thinks I made the wrong choice, bring it up again.--Mike Selinker (talk) 11:29, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Pub theatres to Category:Fringe theatres

Propose deleting Category:Pub theatres in the United Kingdom

Propose merging Category:Pub theatres in England to Category:Fringe theatres or to Category:Pub theatres if the above rename is rejected

Nominator's rationale: Rename. The main article here seems to be fringe theatre. Also reduce the level of the category structure in this area which seems excessive for 20 articles. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:49, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, albeit weakly; fringe theatre includes a great variety of venues, of which pub theaters are but a small portion. — Robert Greer (talk) 00:55, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- So you oppose the merge, but how about deleting the extra level in the category tree and renaming of the top level category? Vegaswikian (talk) 08:09, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, exactly, retain Category:Pub theatres, delete Category:Pub theatres in the United Kingdom. — Robert Greer (talk) 21:06, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – a difficulty with the merge is that all these 'pub theatres' are in fact in England (almost all in London), and also subcatted as Category:Theatres in England by type. (Surely there are some fringe theatres (non-pubs) somewhere which have articles?) Occuli (talk) 14:48, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I did find The London Theatre – New Cross and Tricycle Theatre (the article does not even mention fringe theatres). I guess the question here is, how defining are those located in buildings with a pub vs the other ones? Or are the pub theaters in England the main group and Category:Pub theatres in England should be kept with the parent changed to Category:Fringe theatres. I'll add that Category:Fringe festivals is rather well populated. And yes, in hindsight, the merges may need to be to multiple targets based on what is kept/changed. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:58, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: Merge England to UK. Merge Pub theatre to Fringe theatres. There are not enough members for the UK to need to be split into its four nations. Pubs are largely a British phenomenon, so that Pub theatres elsewhere are unlikely. This will make Pub theatres in UK a sub-cat of Fringe threatres, thus eliminating a number of unnecessary levels of categorisation. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:33, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: fringe theatre is a term rarely used nowadays in the business. Pub theatres are possibly a British only phenomenon. They tend to be small venues which sprang up in the seventies as pubs had an entertainment license and often under-used function rooms. There are pub theatres in many British towns and cities, also in Portland, Oregon I see. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:28, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Are Category:Fringe theatres or Category:Pub theatres a type of Category:Studio theatres? Vegaswikian (talk) 03:28, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would say not as studio theatres are usually purpose built annexes to larger theatres. Jezhotwells (talk) 02:02, 29 December 2011 (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.

Category:Restaurant organisation

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: G7, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:59, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Empty category. Double with "Gastronomical societies". Made this category myself. Night of the Big Wind _talk 20:39, 6 December 2011 (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.

Category:Cultural Properties of Quebec

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/merge per proposal. If non-monument Cultural Properties pop up later an appropriate category can be created at that time. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:11, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Cultural Properties of Quebec to Category:Historic monuments of Quebec

Propose renaming Category:Historic Monuments of Quebec to Category:Historic monuments of Quebec

Nominator's rationale: Merge to renamed target category I've studied the properties listed in both the source and target cats and according to their references they all seem to be called Monument historique classé per Quebec's Loi sur les biens culturels. Am I missing something? I don't see the need for this split. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:54, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are several different types of Cultural Properties. The seond most prestigious (after National Mounuments [of which there is only one, the Hotel du Parliament]) is that of Historic Monument. Naturally as a premier category we have many more WP articles in the highest category, but eventually I'm sure we will have others. Compare to Class-I and Class-II listed buildings in the UK. Also non-building can be Cultural Properties, including documents and works of art. To sum up: Historic Monuments are just one type of Cultural Property! Check out Répertoire du patrimoine culturel du Québec for more info.

I did. I didn't find the stub article very helpful on this point. Alright, but there are lots of buildings in Category:Cultural Properties of Quebec. In fact, I don't see any non-buildings. So my proposal is still correct, from what I can see, as a cultural properties category for documents and such would be empty, at this point.Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:33, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support nominator's proposal. Without explanations of what these technical designations mean, it would be better to merge them both into a category which calls them by a generic term. If anyone later makes an article which distinguishes the two then the category can be forked again, but right now, the distinction has no basis in any given information. Blue Rasberry (talk) 00:51, 12 December 2011 (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.

Category:Premier League Darts venues

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) 08:32, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Non-defining. We don't cat venues based on what sporting events they host, or who played there. Lugnuts (talk) 19:21, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- This is far too similar to performance by performer categories. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:34, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The contents could be made into a list if there were citations, but it ought not be a category. Blue Rasberry (talk) 00:52, 12 December 2011 (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.

Category:South African alternative country singers

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

The result of the discussion was: merge to Category:South African singers. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:25, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Only one article, no hope of expansion. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:14, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as part of the general categorization of musicians by nationality and genre. Eric444 (talk) 02:21, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Category:South African singers to avoid perpetual micro-categories.--TM 02:40, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Category:South African singers as Namiba says. There is only one entrant in this category and reliable sources do not even exist to put him in this category. Blue Rasberry (talk) 00:57, 12 December 2011 (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.

Category:Members of the British Ornithologists' Union

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. Per the final comment, Category:British Ornithologists' Union people can be created if deemed worthwhile or necessary. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:30, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Nothing remotely notable about membership of this charity. Unlike a learned society (fellowship of which is often notable), membership is open to anyone willing and able to stump up a few quid in annual membership fees ("Membership of the BOU is open to anyone interested in ornithology, birds and birdwatchers" currently from 20 GBP per annum). You don't need to know the difference between a long-tailed tit and a crested tit. What next? Category:Members of the YOC? Mais oui! (talk) 18:30, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, absurdly broad and not defining at all. Nyttend (talk) 05:51, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
DElete -- BOU is probably a notable organisation, but membership of it (any more than of National Trust, or RSPB) is not a notable characteristic. This contrasts with such memberships as FRS and perhaps FRHS, which are not open to all, and indicate that the holder is likely to be notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:37, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, Nyttend, and Kingiron. Blue Rasberry (talk) 00:58, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename and rescope to Category:British Ornithologists' Union people. While membership is not something to sort by for an organisation of this sort, no doubt there are people notable because of the BOU, and that would be a useful categorisation. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:22, 12 December 2011 (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.

Category:Grammy Award for Album of the Year

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. Timrollpickering (talk) 16:41, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Grammy Award for Album of the Year to Category:Grammy Award winners for Album of the Year

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Like Category:Best Picture Academy Award winners, it seems that this category should specify that it contains winners of the award in this category in its title. There are similarly named categories for other categories of the award that should follow suit, but I thought I'd bring up one for a test case in terms of what to rename it to. Could the suggested rename be confusing as whether to include U2 or The Joshua Tree? --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 18:24, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What about Category:Grammy Award for Album of the Year winning albums? 70.226.164.143 (talk) 19:02, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The name definitely needs to change, as right now it's just ambiguously named after the award itself. I think the proposed rename is an improvement, but there still is probably at least some potential for confusion as to whether it should include the albums or the human winners. Category:Grammy Award for Album of the Year-winning albums or Category:Grammy Award-winning albums for Album of the Year could work, but they are verbose and a bit awkward. I'd really support any change that makes it more specific than the status quo. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:30, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with the name as I've suggested. Further discussion can be brought to the Grammy Awards task force page on how they should be defined, but I think album awards such as this one should be populated with the winning albums, song awards with songs, and perfomance awards with performers. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 09:52, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - looking at Category:Grammy Award-winning albums, all other subcategories of it use the "Grammy Award for Foo" format. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:14, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That has already been established in my nomination, but those were all named by the same person based on this one category, and that convention is unsatisfactory. If we can agree on a convention with this one, I would request a similar name change for the rest. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 00:45, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rename. I think it's a good idea and we should include the "Winners" in the title. how about Category:Grammy Award Winners for Album of the Year? i think it sounds better. Reza ^(Let'sTalk) 12:42, 29 December 2011 (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.

Category:Cultural Cold War

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 this and Category:Cultural Cold War films.--Mike Selinker (talk) 11:32, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Cultural Cold War to Category:Cultural history of the Cold War

Nominator's rationale: Rename per sibling categories Category:Cultural history of World War I and Category:Cultural history of World War II (my preference) or parent article Culture during the Cold War. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:19, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Given the timespan (1946-1990) and geographic scope (global) of the Cold War, I would argue that categorising anything as "...of the Cold War" is pointless, especially "cultural history". Will we have Category:Cultural history of the Global War on Terror? No. Category:Cultural history of the Korean War would be valid, as would Category:Cultural history of the Vietnam War, but not of the "overall period of global tension generally referred to as the Cold War". - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:24, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- In fairness to the category and its creator, the cultural war was a unique phenomenon, I think. From the Olympic Games medal counts and boycotts, to the Miracle on Ice, to the 72 Canada/Russia Summit series; the competition between USA and USSR for grandest pavilion at my own Expo 67; and of course the famous Kitchen Debate ...etc. There was a unique cultural aspect to this global "war" that one doesn't find in the localized hot wars you've cited. As for the current "war on terror," there is a battle for hearts and minds of a very different kind. It's an asymmetrical contest, this time, and Islamic fundamentalism is trying to assert its cultural superiority over Western values in a different way -- but there could be a cultural category for the war on terror of some kind, eventually, perhaps. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:30, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Category:Cultural Cold War and its subcategory Category:Cultural Cold War films. Their definition is too vague. Ruslik_Zero 18:27, 30 December 2011 (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.

Wikipedia does not categorize based on current status.

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 all. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 20:09, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Former Washington Nationals minor league affiliates to Category:Washington Nationals minor league affiliates

Category:Former Baltimore Orioles minor league affiliates to Category:Baltimore Orioles minor league affiliates

Category:Former Atlanta Braves minor league affiliates to Category:Atlanta Braves minor league affiliates

Category:Former Minnesota Twins minor league affiliates to Category:Minnesota Twins minor league affiliates

Category:Former Houston Astros minor league affiliates to Category:Houston Astros minor league affiliates

Category:Former Boston Red Sox minor league affiliates to Category:Boston Red Sox minor league affiliates

Category:Former Chicago Cubs minor league affiliates to Category:Chicago Cubs minor league affiliates

Category:Former Chicago White Sox minor league affiliates to Category:Chicago White Sox minor league affiliates

Category:Former Cincinnati Reds minor league affiliates to Category:Cincinnati Reds minor league affiliates

Category:Former Cleveland Indians minor league affiliates to Category:Cleveland Indians minor league affiliates

Category:Former Detroit Tigers minor league affiliates to Category:Detroit Tigers minor league affiliates

Category:Former Kansas City Royals minor league affiliates to Category:Kansas City Royals minor league affiliates

Category:Former Milwaukee Brewers minor league affiliates to Category:Milwaukee Brewers minor league affiliates

Category:Former New York Mets minor league affiliates to Category:New York Mets minor league affiliates

Category:Former New York Yankees minor league affiliates to Category:New York Yankees minor league affiliates

Category:Former Oakland Athletics minor league affiliates to Category:Oakland Athletics minor league affiliates

Category:Former Philadelphia Phillies minor league affiliates to Category:Philadelphia Phillies minor league affiliates

Category:Former San Diego Padres minor league affiliates to Category:San Diego Padres minor league affiliates

Category:Former San Francisco Giants minor league affiliates to Category:San Francisco Giants minor league affiliates

Category:Former Seattle Mariners minor league affiliates to Category:Seattle Mariners minor league affiliates

Category:Former St. Louis Cardinals minor league affiliates to Category:St. Louis Cardinals minor league affiliates

Category:Former Texas Rangers minor league affiliates to Category:Texas Rangers minor league affiliates

Category:Former Toronto Blue Jays minor league affiliates to Category:Toronto Blue Jays minor league affiliates

Nominator's rationale: Merge. per WP:OC#TRIVIA. Minor leagues tend to shift affiliations on a semi-regular basis. Differentiating between former and current is discouraged on Wikipedia and trivial in this respect. TM 15:52, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree per nom and much precedent. For those that are defunct, a different schema would work. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 08:06, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agree per nom, Carlossuarez46, and much precedent. There is no utility in splitting these. Blue Rasberry (talk) 01:00, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agree per nom. I havent confirmed by checking policy that this is not normal, but I havent seen any use of "former" or "current" in categories, and would object strongly to such use.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:24, 13 December 2011 (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.

Category:International Space Station Alpha Commanders

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:Commanders of the International Space Station. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:24, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:International Space Station Alpha Commanders to Category:International Space Station Commanders

Nominator's rationale: "Alpha" is the callsign of the space station, but it is not part of its name, nor is it part of the commander's title, therefore its presence in the category title is unnecessary and confusing. G W… 13:20, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nominator. Colds7ream (talk) 20:06, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, I'm not sure whether Commanders or commanders would be better. --G W… 21:55, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support: If you listen to the cap-comm's, they don't even say Alpha any more when calling the station. They just say station, and who they are calling for if someone specific is needed.--NavyBlue84 23:32, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support It's not called Alpha anymore, they just call it the ISS. Freedom was the last proper name for it. 70.24.248.23 (talk) 04:33, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support—it is not a part of the name of the ISS, and is not used (as mentioned) above by NASA nor myriad standard media accounts. Just confuses our readers. N2e (talk) 13:50, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Commanders of the International Space Station, per Category:Crew members of the International Space Station. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:26, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That title would be fine, and it would also clear up the capitalisation issue that I mentioned above, but nobody responded to. --G W… 21:17, 15 December 2011 (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.

Category:Kopimi images

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: Has been G6'd. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:27, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Not even sure exactly what this empty category is supposed to contain. Kelly ^hi! 03:28, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Presumably it would contain images rlating to kopimi. Not likelt to attract many pages and not needed to the Great Scheme of Things. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 06:22, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete for an empty category of unknown use.--TM 00:38, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete for an empty category of unknown use, as Namiba says. Blue Rasberry (talk) 01:01, 12 December 2011 (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.

Category:Global Education Program

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 05:36, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Global Education Program to ~~Category:Wikipedia Global Education Program~~ Category:Wikipedia Education Program.

Nominator's rationale: It seem that the convention is to preface projects cats with "Wikipedia". Same applies to the subcats. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 01:47, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Alan, thanks a lot for starting the renaming process. We're currently rebranding it as "Wikipedia Education Program" – so, I would suggest to change the category's name accordingly: "Category:Wikipedia Education Program". --Frank Schulenburg (Wikimedia Foundation) (talk) 09:26, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 18:14, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rename in accord with the de-facto naming convention for project categories. Nyttend (talk) 05:51, 8 December 2011 (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.

Category:Theatres

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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:16, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose restructuring Category:Theatres in some way to make clear the content of the categories

Nominator's rationale: We need a discussion on this entire tree and staring at the top may be the best way to go. Theaters are places were productions like plays are staged. They are also cinemas where movies are shown. We also drop in various places, theater companies (performing groups) into the category tree. So this is a mismash of topics. One easy solution would be to rename this to Category:Theatre (structures) to match the likely main article and then move out everything that does not belong. I'll note the existence of Category:Theatre and theatre which talks about live performers. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:29, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Right now, I'm kinda thinking it's fine the way it is. I don't see a problem with this category... Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:26, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment ~~Support~~ - Category:Theatre is a better place to start navigating the tree. It's unfortunate that we have two categories with such similar names. Renaming Category:Theatres to something more distinctive sounds like a good idea, and yes there may be some pages miscategorised given the similarity of the category names. --Northernhenge (talk) 23:49, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe it's because I'm used to it with Category:Film/Category:Films, but the similarity of the top level singular cat and theatres doesn't bother me. There is a clear practice in place where the singular refers to the medium or genre. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:13, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:
1. In the US theater means the building in which theatre takes place.
2. Renaming Category:Theatres to anything else — other than Category:Theaters, which at present redirects to the former — might please the eye but flies in the face of the content.

"Form follows function". — Robert Greer (talk) 01:04, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Category:Theatre (structures) makes clear the building part. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:44, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not "Theatre (structures)" — we need to have category names in plural. Perhaps "Theatres (structures)"? We definitely need to split in the way the nominator suggests, and aside from the details of the name, I support the proposal. Nyttend (talk) 05:53, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Category:Theatres (structure)? I was not sure which of about 3 versions would be best. Vegaswikian (talk) 04:03, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- There is nothing wrong with the category, except that Americans spell it differently. The medium is theatre and the structure is a theatre, but they are too closely related to be able to separate better than is currently done. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:42, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Yes, I too don't see the need for a disambiguation in parentheses. I think Theatre for the genre, Theatres for the structures, and something like Theatre companies for performing groups would work fine. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:22, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Used in the plural, "theatres" invariably refers to the buildings. There's no need for a qualifier. -- Necrothesp (talk) 23:14, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: Perfectly clear as it is. I note that there is some confusion in the USA as "theater" is used for places where films are shown and sometimes for places where plays are performed, but frequently "theatre" is used for playhouses. In the UK, those films are shown in cinemas. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:18, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I've changed my mind - I'm persuaded by the discussion. --Northernhenge (talk) 00:55, 11 December 2011 (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.

Kingdoms of ancient Bharat

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. Jafeluv (talk) 23:32, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Eastern kingdoms in ancient Bharat to Category:Eastern kingdoms of ancient India

Propose renaming Category:North-western kingdoms in ancient Bharat to Category:North-western kingdoms of ancient India

Propose renaming Category:Northern kingdoms in ancient Bharat to Category:Northern kingdoms of ancient India

Propose renaming Category:Western kingdoms in ancient Bharat to Category:Western kingdoms of ancient India

Nominator's rationale: Rename. This is a follow-up to this discussion, where we decided to use "ancient India" for these categories rather than "ancient Bharat", since Bharat is ambiguous and in the context "ancient Bharat" essentially means "ancient India" (see Category:Ancient India). If renamed, these will match Category:Southern kingdoms of ancient India, which was selected in the previous discussion. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:06, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

REname all according to previous discussion. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:43, 8 December 2011 (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.