Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 April 10

< April 9	April 11 >

April 10[edit]

Category:Boca Juniors[edit]

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The result of the discussion was: withdrawn--Aervanath (talk) 05:48, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Boca Juniors to Category:Club Atlético Boca Juniors

Propose renaming Category:Boca Juniors basketball players to Category:Club Atlético Boca Juniors basketball players

Propose renaming Category:Boca Juniors footballers to Category:Club Atlético Boca Juniors footballers

Propose renaming Category:Boca Juniors managers to Category:Club Atlético Boca Juniors managers

Propose renaming Category:Boca Juniors matches to Category:Club Atlético Boca Juniors matches

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Prior consensus at WP:FOOTY agrees that the category should be named after the club of which its main article is the subject. – Pee Jay 21:56, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related page moves. – Pee Jay 22:02, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose If it is considered important that the category names match the article name I would much rather see the name of the article moved to Boca Juniors which is by far the most common name in English and Spanish media and already a redirect to the Club Atlético Boca Juniors article. Calling the club and its categories by it's full official name is like having the Manchester United F.C. article at Manchester United Football Club, and all the categories at Category:Manchester United Football Club players, etc. Moving the main article instead of all the categories would save an awful lot of moving stuff about and an awful lot of typing for those of us that regularly categorise things to do with this club. King of the North East 21:32, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I don't think moving Club Atlético Boca Juniors to Boca Juniors would be a good idea. As can be seen from the Boca Juniors (disambiguation) page, there are several teams all over the world known as Boca Juniors. I would, however, support a move to CA Boca Juniors, and hence a move of these categories to the same title. – Pee Jay 22:10, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CA Boca Juniors is worse than either option, it is a composite which is neither the common nor the official name. I have never heard it said out load by anyone ever, saying "CA Boca Juniors" out load is about the Argentine equivelent of saying "W.B.A." out loud. In defence of moving it to Boca Juniors, they are the first Boca Juniors, the rest are amatuer level spinoff clubs. The Argentine Boca are the only multiple national league champions with the name, the only continental and World club champions with the name and the equal most successful team in the history of international club football, if this is not a case for primary useage I don't know what is. King of the North East 23:23, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well in that case, I withdraw this nom. I suggest, though, that you start an RM to get Club Atlético Boca Juniors moved to Boca Juniors. – Pee Jay 23:38, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, will do. Regards King of the North East 23:47, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And done, please comment. All the best King of the North East 00:08, 15 April 2009 (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:Images of the University of Nottingham[edit]

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: speedy delete per WP:CSD#C1--Aervanath (talk) 05:56, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. This cat is tagged with {{Move to Commons}} and contained only free media. I've moved all the images to Commons, and the category is empty. No longer needed, since new free images of UofN should go to Commons instead. – Quadell ^(talk) 20:27, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as useless. I think that would happen auomatically in due course anyway. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:12, 11 April 2009 (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:Portrayal of Africa in fiction[edit]

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:Africa in fiction--Aervanath (talk) 06:02, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Portrayal of Africa in fiction to Category:Africa in fiction

Nominator's rationale: Merge. "Africa in fiction" is a name consistent with the full hierarchy in Category:Locations in fiction. GregorB (talk) 19:59, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - the 2 categories seem to fulfill the same purpose and Category:Africa in fiction seems to be the better name. Occuli (talk) 14:14, 11 April 2009 (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.

Requested-photograph categories for remote uninhabited U.S. territories[edit]

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: speedy delete per WP:CSD#C1--Aervanath (talk) 05:58, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: The categories are for requested photographs of Howland Island and other extremely remote unincorporated territories of the United States. There are presently no requested photographs for these locations and there are unlikely to be any; they are uninhabited coral islands only a few square kilometers in size, several hundred or thousand miles from the nearest inhabited island. Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in the United States suffices here. Tim Pierce (talk) 16:53, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd play it safe and assume that such requests are possible - some of them haven't always been uninhabited, and several are of historic importance. The article on Howland Island, for instance, has about a dozen photos on it - whereas the article on Palmyra (Cooper) Airport has no picture and could definitely do with one (as such, it is now listed in one of the categories mentioned above - as are a couple of other articles). I would, however, suggest merging these all into Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in the United States Minor Outlying Islands. Grutness...wha? 00:15, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm certainly comfortable with replacing these categories with a single category for all U.S. outlying islands. Tim Pierce (talk) 00:31, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I have merged all of these categories into Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in the United States Minor Outlying Islands and withdraw this CFD nomination. Tim Pierce (talk) 16:31, 11 April 2009 (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:Ariane class frigates[edit]

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 Pallas class frigates, there seems to be no need for the disambiguator.--Aervanath (talk) 06:07, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Ariane class frigates to Category:Pallas class frigates (1808)

Nominator's rationale: Rename. The three ships previously listed as forming the 'Ariane class' were part of the larger 40 ship 'Pallas class' (as shown at List of French sail frigates and per Winfield, British Warships of the Age of Sail 1794–1817, pp. 169-70). The article page has been redirected to cover this larger class, the existing category should also be moved to conform with this. The disambiguation '1808' follows WP:Naming conventions (ships) in using the year of launch of the first ship of the class, and serves to disambiguate it from other frigate classes named Pallas, including one of the Royal Navy. Benea (talk) 16:31, 10 April 2009 (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.

Pre-National Hockey League[edit]

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. This should probably be discussed at WT:HOCKEY to come up with a more comprehensive structure to replace the current one.--Aervanath (talk) 06:19, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. A non-defining distinction based on an arbitrary cut off date and dubious or incorrect claims of continuity. These leagues and teams represented the early days of the sport of ice hockey, but the sport itself is not a synonym of the National Hockey League. In many cases, it is a dubious claim as ot whether they contributed to the foundations of anything, and any claim of kinship with the NHL is laughable. This category exists as a dumping ground for leagues, teams and seasons that existed prior to 1917, nothing more. Reso lute 16:27, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to something like 'Ice Hockey in North America pre-1917'. ('Delete' doesn't really work as it would leave the 'dumped' material floating around, undumped, which is worse.) (Hockey in much of the world means Field Hockey.) Occuli (talk) 12:55, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename it is not an arbitrary cut-off, if you knew ice hockey in North America you'd recognize that. If you would like to represent your argument without your first statement, it'd be a stronger case. As the NHL is the preeminent hockey league in the world, the era before it's existence is a different era, thus not an arbitrary cut-off. The name is problematic, perhaps Category:Top-level professional ice hockey in North America (pre-1917) would be better. 70.29.213.241 (talk) 04:34, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Comment - I'm not sure if Ice hockey ... pre-1917 is any better. I think the seasons are connected to various leagues so they would not go unlinked. I think even in the proposal to delete that there is some recognition that they are a definable group, so I think it's more of a terminology and definition issue. I personally think that there was an evolution to the sport leading to the NHL, which you could argue is the 'mature' state of elite-level ice hockey in North America. Then some sort of category denoting precedents would be normal. Alaney2k (talk) 12:50, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Nom. While I understand Occuli's comments. Most of these articles if not all of them already fall into other category trees so they wouldn't be floating around. As far as the IPs comment, yes the NHL is the premier league now but they weren't in 1917. Which is the point, nothing drasticallly changed from the day before the NHL started to the day after. Which makes the category arbitrary. And your comment about Resolute not understanding North American hockey is amusing because he is probably the top hockey editor on this wiki when it comes to historical facts. And most of what Alaney2k mentions just falls into original research. -Djsasso (talk) 16:58, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and consider rename The creation of the NHL marks a rather strong boundary in the history of ice hockey in North America, and this category provides a means to effectively navigate through pre-NHL history. A rename and reorganization may well be justified, and should be considered. Alansohn (talk) 20:59, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We already have a well defined chronological category tree at Category:Years in ice hockey. I am not sure that a second category tree with a parallel range block is useful. If anything, it qualifies as a content fork. I'd be open to suggestions that don't end up duplicating this tree, but my primary concern is the inaccurate claim of a link to the NHL in this category. And while I respect Alaney's point, the fact is, the sport didn't evolve into the NHL in 1917. The NHL was simply one of three major leagues formed in that time frame (along with the PCHA in 1912 and the WCHL in 1921). While the NHL emerged as the lone survivor of those three leagues and the financial instability the fight for talent caused, its formation was hardly the defining moment in hockey history that is implied here. Reso lute 04:02, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If you look at the other categories on these articles, there is not a category for that era of ice hockey. That, I think is what I consider it to be defining. It really seems to be a naming issue. And from the point of view of 2009, I would say that the NHL forming is the beginning of the current era in North American ice hockey. In that sense it is a defining moment. It has evolved further, certainly, removing its competitors, organizing the amateur leagues to be feeders, etc.Alaney2k (talk) 15:30, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- But I think that is the issue, defining it as an era is POV. There is no NPOV dates that can be extracted for the beginning and end. For example you mention the removing of its competitors, but alot of that didn't happen till years after the NHL started. There is no era to group it all into which is why we have always used the Years in ice hockey category tree. The articles in the current category are only connected because they happened to existed before the NHL, but the fact they existed before the NHL does not define them (ie make them what they are). -Djsasso (talk) 15:40, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's not just a chronological sense. What is 'pre-NHL' can be defined objectively. It's the leagues and teams that led to the composition of the NHL today. I was just now looking closely at the 'pre-NHL' category, and it is a mess. That needs to be fixed up. But the category does fit something definable. There was a group of leagues and teams. There were cities involved in the development of professional, e.g. Pittsburgh, Houghton, even Renfrew. Without the professionalism in paying the players in Pittsburgh back in 1902, the course of ice hockey history would like be different. It's all had an influence on the current NHL. Sure, the PCHA lasted after the start of the NHL. But it was absorbed into the NHL by purchase. Alaney2k (talk) 16:07, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In terms of era, you could define three, early amateur (AHAC), early professional (WPHL, IPHL, ECHA, OPHL, TPHL, NHA) and mature era (NHL, WHA). I would put PCHA in early professional. The NHL era is the mature or modern era, because it has obviously been successful in lasting this long. Would you rather more detailed categorization? I think categorization by era of ice hockey is helpful to non-hockey readers and hockey non-geeks, (for lack of a proper term). Alaney2k (talk) 16:14, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I actually agree with what you mention for eras personally. But again what concrete fact separates those in one era from those in another. This is a wiki so there needs to be a clear line between each. Though perhaps this is getting a bit beyond the Cfd and should be moved to WP:HOCKEY. -Djsasso (talk) 16:23, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think the main benefit of bringing this up for delete is that we can see that the category is a mess. I think we can all agree on that. The categorization of the articles for that time period needs work. I did not do the categorization, and it seems to have been done a bit here, a bit there. A good hierarchy is probably best. I'm working on that, putting the AHAC together, the CAHL together, the IPHL, etc...

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:Open source network management software[edit]

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--Aervanath (talk) 06:22, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Open source network management software to Category:Free network management software

Nominator's rationale: In relation to the rest of the categories, use Free as prefix rather than Open source. ViperSnake151 Talk 15:43, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The more broad "open source" terminology seems more appropriate, allowing for the inclusion of a greater number of licenses. The switch carries with it a burden of needing to do a great deal more checking of the current members prior to the move. More importantly, saying "free" instead of "free software" muddies the waters considerably and ignores the fact that several of the member articles cover software available both in free and paid versions. MrZaius^talk 00:53, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

oppose for the correct reasons stated by MrZaius: 'Open source' is not equivalent to 'free' Hmains (talk) 20:06, 12 April 2009 (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:Open source content management systems[edit]

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--Aervanath (talk) 06:25, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Open source content management systems to Category:Free content management systems

Nominator's rationale: In relation to the rest of the categories, use Free as prefix rather than Open source. ViperSnake151 Talk 15:42, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The more broad "open source" terminology seems more appropriate, allowing for the inclusion of a greater number of licenses. The switch carries with it a burden of needing to do a great deal more checking of the current members prior to the move. More importantly, saying "free" instead of "free software" muddies the waters considerably and ignores the fact that several of the member articles cover software available both in free and paid versions. MrZaius^talk 00:53, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

oppose for the correct reasons stated by MrZaius: 'Open source' is not equivalent to 'free' Hmains (talk) 20:06, 12 April 2009 (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.

More television series[edit]

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, Delete or in one case split per nom. Yes, I did read this and trying to decide this in one nomination given the work involved was difficult. By renaming, nothing is really hurt except for a few categories which could use some cleanup. For those, if after cleanup a recreation of the old category is needed, the old category can be recreated after a discussion on the new category talk page. As always, editors are free to split as needed. If anyone really believes that any of these should not have been renamed, feel free to renominate as single entries and not in a group nomination. Those with the notes about pruning can be done by any editor with the needed knowledge. Hope this covers everything! Now I need an asprin. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:16, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've pruned the categories, especially Mark VII and the associated Category:Dragnet.--Mike Selinker (talk) 15:38, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming: Category:Agency for Instructional Technology to Category:Television series by the Agency for Instructional Technology

Propose renaming: Category:Associated British Corporation productions to Category:Television series by the Associated British Corporation

Propose renaming: Category:Cookie Jar Entertainment to Category:Television series by Cookie Jar Entertainment

Propose renaming: Category:DIC Entertainment to Category:Television series by DIC Entertainment

Propose renaming: Category:Heatter-Quigley to Category:Television series by Heatter-Quigley Productions

Propose renaming: Category:Mark VII Limited to Category:Television series by Mark VII Limited (and prune heavily)

Propose renaming: Category:Ralph Andrews Productions to Category:Television series by Ralph Andrews Productions

Propose renaming: Category:Ruby-Spears to Category:Television series by Ruby-Spears Productions

Propose renaming: Category:Smallfilms to Category:Television series by Smallfilms (and prune)

Propose renaming: Category:Tribune Entertainment to Category:Television series by Tribune Entertainment

Propose renaming: Category:Barry-Enright game shows to Category:Television series by Barry & Enright Productions

Propose renaming: Category:Bob Stewart game shows to Category:Television series by Bob Stewart Productions

Propose renaming: Category:Hatos-Hall game shows to Category:Television series by Stefan Hatos-Monty Hall Productions

Propose renaming: Category:Mark Goodson-Bill Todman Productions game shows to Category:Television series by Mark Goodson-Bill Todman Productions

Propose renaming: Category:Kline & Friends game shows to Category:Television series by Kline and Friends

Propose renaming: Category:Merv Griffin shows to Category:Television series by Merv Griffin Enterprises (with three moved to Category:Television series by Merv Griffin Entertainment)

Propose renaming: Category:Reg Grundy game shows to Category:Television series by Reg Grundy Productions

Propose renaming: Category:Game shows by producer to Category:Game shows by studio

Propose deleting: Category:Louis F. Edelman Productions

Nominator's rationale: Following the successful nomination here, these are more categories containing TV series done by specific studios. The Smallfilms and Mark VII categories contain individuals which should be pruned from the categories; Mark VII also contains films and radio productions, which could get their own categories. The game shows categories could also be "Game shows by (studio X)", though no other such category indicates what kind of show it contains. The only Merv Griffin Entertainment shows are Click (game show), Dance Fever (2003 TV series), and Merv Griffin's Crosswords, so it can be renamed to Category:Television series by Merv Griffin Enterprises and then those three manually moved. The Edelman one doesn't seem to be about a studio, just a person.--Mike Selinker (talk) 14:35, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Category:Cookie Jar Entertainment and Category:DIC Entertainment are for articles related to the company's not just for tv shows made by the company's. Powergate92Talk 03:26, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then I'd suggest pruning those as well. There are only a few articles in each that aren't shows.--Mike Selinker (talk) 15:49, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Since "series" is the way we're headed (per previous noms, and for that matter, the current naming conventions), then these should head that way too : ) - Prune/re-categorise as necessary. - jc37 07:36, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A little of this, a little of that:
- For the top 10 categories, I say keep them, but split all of the articles on television series into the categories proposed by the nominator, with the "Television series by (X)" categories being added as subcats of the current categories. So, for example, all TV series articles in Category:Agency for Instructional Technology would be moved to Category:Television series by the Agency for Instructional Technology, which would be a subcat of Category:Agency for Instructional Technology.
- For the bottom eight categories, I support the renaming.
- I support the deletion of Category:Louis F. Edelman Productions.
(Whew. Complicated enough?)--Aervanath (talk) 15:18, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That's certainly fine with me, though in some cases there will only be a few articles in the parent categories. Probably easier to rename them and recreate the parent categories, but that's not my bailiwick. (Regardless, Category:Mark VII Limited should be pruned, because that's just actor by project.)--Mike Selinker (talk) 09:28, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Fine by me too. (What MS said : ) - jc37 02:20, 20 April 2009 (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:Napoleon[edit]

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:Napoleon I of France--Aervanath (talk) 06:29, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Napoleon to Category:Napoleon I of France

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Although the primary meaning of "Napoleon" is "Napoleon I of France", the name alone is somewhat ambiguous. This rename would match the category to the main article Napoleon I of France. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 10:21, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment is it ambiguous enough? and why not Category:Napolean Bonaparte I? 70.29.213.241 (talk) 07:58, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Because he was not known as "Napoleon Bonaparte I": subsequent Napoleons were not "Napoleon Bonaparte"s. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:56, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom, to match its article Napoleon I of France. Napoleon has plenty of meanings. (Napolean Bonaparte redirects to Napoleon I of France.) Occuli (talk) 19:47, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support to match parent article. Alansohn (talk) 20:59, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to match article title. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:20, 13 April 2009 (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:Songs written by Dave Bennett[edit]

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 all--Aervanath (talk) 06:32, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. This category contains only one entry and no main article.

Also nominated for the same reasons

Category:Songs by Michael Elias
Category:Songs by Harold Cornelius
Category:Songs by Ric Cartey
Category:Songs written by Dick Gleason

Richhoncho (talk) 09:55, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - I couldn't find articles for any of these writers and also none of the songs are sole-credits but are attributed to 2, 3 or 4 writers. Occuli (talk) 17:06, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom & Occuli. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:21, 13 April 2009 (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:Farewell albums[edit]

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--Aervanath (talk) 06:38, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Farewell albums to Category:Farewell (band) albums

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Disambiguate to match Farewell (band). A "farewell album" could be a final album someone releases after announcing that they are retiring from the music business? Kind of like a "farewell tour". At least that's what I thought it meant when I saw the category name. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:30, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename – per nom. Occuli (talk) 16:30, 10 April 2009 (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:State supreme court chief justices[edit]

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--Aervanath (talk) 06:39, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:State supreme court chief justices to Category:State supreme court chief justices in the United States

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Add "in the United States" for clarity and disambiguation purposes, and to match parent Category:State supreme court judges in the United States. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:22, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename - sounds fine. Aboutmovies (talk) 07:38, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom, assuming there are none from non-US States, who need to be purged from it first. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:15, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom & consistency. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:22, 13 April 2009 (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:Arena Rock albums[edit]

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--Aervanath (talk) 06:47, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Arena Rock albums to Category:Arena Rock Recording Company albums

Nominator's rationale: Rename to match article Arena Rock Recording Company and naming style of the category Category:Albums by record label. Tassedethe (talk) 07:12, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. Occuli (talk) 12:30, 11 April 2009 (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:4th & Broadway albums[edit]

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--Aervanath (talk) 06:48, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:4th & Broadway albums to Category:4th & B'way Records albums

Nominator's rationale: Rename to match article 4th & B'way Records and naming style of the category Category:Albums by record label Tassedethe (talk) 07:11, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. Occuli (talk) 12:31, 11 April 2009 (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:Drag City albums[edit]

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--Aervanath (talk) 06:48, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Drag City albums to Category:Drag City Records albums

Nominator's rationale: Rename to match article Drag City Records and naming style of the category Category:Albums by record label. Tassedethe (talk) 07:08, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. Occuli (talk) 12:31, 11 April 2009 (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:Prawn Song albums[edit]

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--Aervanath (talk) 06:49, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Prawn Song albums to Category:Prawn Song Records albums

Nominator's rationale: Rename to match article Prawn Song Records and naming style of the category Category:Albums by record label. Tassedethe (talk) 06:56, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. Occuli (talk) 12:31, 11 April 2009 (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:Interstitial cystitis[edit]

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--Aervanath (talk) 06:50, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Not used, outdated term ► RATEL ◄ 05:30, 10 April 2009 (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:Neighbourhoods in New Zealand[edit]

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--Aervanath (talk) 06:55, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Neighbourhoods in New Zealand to Category:Suburbs in New Zealand

Nominator's rationale: see below

Also:

These were my mistake in the first place, many years back. New Zealanders do not talk about "urban districts", they refer to suburbs - and in the case of these categories, at least tweo have key articles which would be in line with these new category names (Suburbs of Dunedin and Suburbs of Auckland). There is already a Category:Suburbs of Hamilton, New Zealand, so this would also make all five subcategories of the main category uniform. Before anyone ventures to comment that almost every other listed subcategory of Category:Neighbourhoods by country uses the term "Neighbourhoods", and that that should be the name for these categories, may i point out that although most do, some do not - South Africa, for instance, already uses the term suburbs, for the same reason that it should be used for NZ. Having said that, changing the "urban districts" categories to "neighbourhoods" ones would be a viable second-best option. Grutness...wha? 01:21, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename all per nom. This would be the correct terminology for NZ. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:52, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, rename all as suggested. No one calls them urban districts, and neighbourhood suggests something both vaguer and tighter than many suburbs to me (although suburb boundaries can be a bit indistinct too). The term suburb is the one generally used in New Zealand. -- Avenue (talk) 09:29, 10 April 2009 (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:Car-free[edit]

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: split to Category:Car-free movement and Category:Car-free areas.--Aervanath (talk) 07:04, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Car-free to Category:UNKNOWN

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Adjectival category names are generally frowned on, and this one seems more than slightly ugly, as names go. Surely there must be a better alternative? Grutness...wha? 01:09, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Car-free movement, per the parent Category:Environmental movements. Not sure what else it could be called, though also open to further suggestions. - jc37 01:45, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Is this a case where we need a split into a category for the movements and maybe some second actions for the other stuff? Looking at the articles can give one a headache. Car-free walking? How do you walk with a car? Yea it is a movement, hence the suggestion above. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:47, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Car-free living. I'm open other alternatives, but do find "Car-free movement" borderline POV. The car-free status of Sark predates any political or social movement to bring such status to cities; the pedestrian orientation of Category:Pedestrian malls is doubtfully to support a "movement" either (having visited many of these and seen the towering parking garages that surround them, just how "car-free" they are is also debatable, but that's for discussion elsewhere). -choster (talk) 05:08, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your comments seem to underline Vegaswikian's. It sounds like this category needs to be split between the "movement/campaign" and "current examples".

Is there a better alternative term than "living" for the current examples? - jc37 15:07, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How about Category:Car-free settlements for cities, towns etc. (including List of car-free places, Carfree city, Herm, Sark, and Vauban, Freiburg - I'm sure there are others), and Category:Car-free living (I agree that we need a better term for that) to contain it and all other files related to the movement. Mind matrix 20:14, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Pedestrian zones or Category:Pedestrian only zones and rename Car-free zone to Pedestrian zone (this phrase is used in the article, is a redirect and is on the image in the article lead). This avoids the issues with car and what is intended in most cases, which is no motor vehicles. This would allow the article and the category to cover the broader concept and don't become unnecessary specific to one type of vehicle. Split out a subcategory, Category:Pedestrian zone movements to cover the related articles. I'm not comfortable with that last name, but unless someone has a better idea, it would work. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:43, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There's a problem with those names - cyclists are allowed, and aren't pedestrians. Category:Car-free zones and Category:Car-free movement sound more viable to me. Grutness...wha? 23:28, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Some I have seen also ban bicycles. But I think that my proposal is better then anything with car-free. We loose the '-', we avoid the discussion of what is a car which in most cases includes motorcycles and trucks. Actually in some areas, trucks are allowed during specific times to make deliveries! So car-free is misleading at best. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:43, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - The term "car-free" is essential; it's the most widely-used term for living in a way that de-emphasizes cars. "Car-free movement" seems not bad to me but "car-free living" better. Tim Pierce (talk) 01:24, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Car-free movement, into which car-free advocates can be dumped and Category:Car-free areas into which localities can be dumped. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:25, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, in the interest of reaching a consensus, I'll support this as an improvement over the current situation. My only stipulation is that the subcategories contained in the two new categories be allowed to reflect local or county usage terms and that they not be forced to use some variation of car-free. This means that categories like Category:Pedestrianised streets or Category:Pedestrian malls are allowed. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:58, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Split to Car-free movement, and Car-free areas? I can accept that, though with the same stipulation as Vegaswikian. Pedestrian (or cycling) areas should qualify for subcategorisation, but not need to be renamed to match the parent in this case, since they are more specific to their individual topics. - jc37 21:38, 15 April 2009 (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.

Burnaby related categories[edit]

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. While categories do not need to strictly follow WP:PRIMARYUSAGE, this city seems to be the only usage that has any notability, and there is no compelling reason to keep a disambiguator that will never be needed, especially when this flies in the face of the applicable naming conventions.--Aervanath (talk) 07:47, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Burnaby, British Columbia to Category:Burnaby
Category:Burnaby, British Columbia articles to Category:Burnaby articles
Category:Arterial roads in Burnaby, British Columbia to Category:Arterial roads in Burnaby
Category:Buildings and structures in Burnaby, British Columbia to Category:Buildings and structures in Burnaby
Category:Lakes and waterways of Burnaby, British Columbia to Category:Lakes and waterways of Burnaby
Category:Neighbourhoods in Burnaby, British Columbia to Category:Neighbourhoods in Burnaby
Category:Education in Burnaby, British Columbia to Category:Education in Burnaby
Category:High schools in Burnaby, British Columbia to Category:High schools in Burnaby

Nominator's rationale: Rename - On June 23, 2008 on the Burnaby's talk page 4 users are supporting to rename it's main article title from Burnaby, British Columbia to it's new main article title to Burnaby. 5 of the Burnaby related categories that has a Burnaby, British Columbia title. Right now 5 of the categories will be proposing to rename just the title Burnaby without the province named title. One category already has it's title Category:People from Burnaby without it's province name to match it's main article title. And I hope those 5 Burnaby related categories to be renamed it's title to match it's Main Article title. Steam5 (talk) 02:20, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - although it doesn't yet have an article, I note that there is also a place called Burnaby, Ontario... Grutness...wha? 02:46, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - There is no other places in Canada and there is no Burnaby, Ontario. The main article for the largest city in the province of British Columbia is Burnaby check the main article go to Burnaby's talk page, the link of Burnaby's talk page is located above. Steam5 (talk) 02:51, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Really? If that's true, then these people, these people (scroll down to Burt Littler), this person, these people, these people, and these people, all must be confused. (I found quite a few links concerning skydiving, and jobs and appartments available...) - jc37 03:40, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's a two-street crossroads within a township whose entire population is less than 7,000. Although it's impossible to verify exact population figures for unincorporated communities in Canada, "Burnaby, Ontario" is in the "less than 50 residents" range. It's not in Canada Post's mailing address database, meaning that if you tried to send mail to an address in "Burnaby, Ontario", you'd get it back a week later with "undeliverable" scrawled across it. And the jobs and apartments links are from sites that googlebomb every community name they can locate whether there's actual content to publish or not. Bearcat (talk) 05:34, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As Bearcat said, there's no reason to draw any inferences or conclusions based on the existence of linkfarms for any term. These linkfarms simply mine the Statistics Canada Standard Geographical Classification (SGC) (or another source that has done so), then create numerous pages for any entry found there. The 2001 SGC listing for Burnaby, Ontario clearly indicates it is a "locality", StatsCan speak for "unincorporated community or settlement". Mind matrix 14:14, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I honestly don't care if it comprises a gas station and a trading post. It's a place name applied to a place. (Or even more clear: It's a label applied to a noun, giving it a "name".) As such, the names need greater clarity. We're not doing this for you or me, we're doing this for our readers. Categories are about navigation. And any lack of clarity should be dealt with, especially if we can do so as easily as this. - jc37 21:44, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I think we should stick to the convention. For one thing, it reduces the need to try to find out of there are other places of the same or similar names. - jc37 03:40, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not oppose rename Burnaby cause that's the only Canadian city in British Columbia located in Burnaby. If you want to check rename page go to this link. Steam5 (talk) 04:10, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
First, you may want to keep this discussion centralised at the CfD page. (Just for ease of discussion, if nothing else.) A such, I've moved your comment here from my talk page.

Second, in looking that discussion over, two things immediately appear: 1.) They were attempting to discern "the most common usage" of the name, not whether there were others of that name. (I also found an author by that name in my searching. 2.) Even if they weren't, they apparently didn't notice the links I found.

And this discussion is about naming conventions. And so far, I haven't seen an argument for why this city should be an exception to the convention. - jc37 04:26, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The applicable naming convention actually states that this move should occur. See WP:CANSTYLE. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 14:42, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, actually, the "convention" I'm speaking of is a bit broader than just a single WikiProject. If you'll look back over the last month (and longer) of CfDs you may note that there seems to be a convention in such categories to use the same convention for the names regardless of whether the name is the "primary" usage of the city name (and therefore regardless of whether the article name might include "province" or not, in this case). There are several reasons, but this nom highlights one of them clearly: The name of an article may not indicate the "only" usage of a topic, often instead, merely the "most commonly known". And while that may work with articles, it doesn't as work as well with categories, if only for technical reasons. Consider also that there typically are no category disambiguation pages. Something fairly common in article-space.

This renaming to match convention is an ongoing work-in-progress (as anything on the wiki is), and therefore, not all categories are "there" yet.

Besides CANSTYLE (which possibly should be updated to match the broader convention), is there any particular reason why this city (or any canadian city) should be considered an exception to this convention? - jc37 15:04, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, WP:CANSTYLE, and its parent WP:PLACES, are the applicable naming conventions. The reasons we have naming conventions in the first place is so we avoid disputes over vague, subjective analysis of what "seems to be" the practice following over the "last month". I would note that WP:CATEGORY states: "Categories follow the same general naming conventions as articles." The real issue is whether or not there is a good reason to deviate from the naming convention at WP:CANSTYLE, and the practice for Canadian cities (actually, for the vast majority of city categories). Your suggestions of differences between categories and articles don't strike me as a convincing reason for a deviation. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 17:17, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I already answered this above, but to repeat/expand:

While categories do indeed generally follow the naming conventions of articles, due to how categories are used (navigational tools), they have more in common with navboxes and disambiguation pages than with the articles themselves.

And since we don't have category versions of disambiguation pages, category names tend to have to be a bit more specific. Hence the situation here.

And though I was hinting at it, these discussions have been going on for quite a bit longer than the last month. And of course, consensus can change may apply as well.

So I'll ask again: is there a good reason to ignore the current convention, and thereby, be less-than-clear in these categores' names? - jc37 17:48, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is the current convention. A purported CFD trend toward requiring the province or state name at all times is all well and good, but WP:NC trumps it. Bearcat (talk) 01:59, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll see your trump and raise you Wikipedia:Naming conventions (precision) : ) - jc37 02:42, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In what way is not already covered here? There's no other topic on earth that could ever have any of the proposed category names, and thus there's exactly zero possible confusion or ambiguity. Bearcat (talk) 04:50, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, Jc, but your suggestions about categories being different are unconvincing, unsupported by policy or guideline, and your position is directly contrary to the applicable naming convention and the categories guideline. And WP:CCC does not mean that you ignore naming conventions and guidelines as the mood strikes you. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 20:18, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I left a message to some Canadian Wikipedians who support it's renamed title for it's City only and I'm hoping to support for it's renamed categories. Steam5 (talk) 04:35, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just so you're aware, that could be considered inappropriate canvassing. Something that's frowned upon.

That said, I think I (at least) would be interested in their opinions. So at this point, the closer can make the decision as to how to weigh their comments, based upon the canvassing involved. - jc37 04:48, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I didn't make inappropriate comments to Canadian Wikipedians, I talk softly and calm to Canadian Wikipedians to be matched and renamed. Steam5 (talk) 04:59, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Canvassing is frowned upon. But these discussions are routinely listed at WP:CANBOARD, so I'm not sure that the end result is any different. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 14:42, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The convention for outside the United States is in fact not to add the name of province, county, state, etc. unless to disambiguate. Burnaby, Ontario is a very small community - it s the equivalent of disambiguating London or Paris because of London, Ontario or Paris, Ohio. (And I second Jc37's comments to be careful in contacting wikipedians once a nomination is in the works, that this can be seen as canvassing - I know cuz I once did the same thing unaware of the policy) Mayumashu (talk) 13:04, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The move simply implements the applicable naming convention, WP:CANSTYLE, which states: "Dedicated city categories should always be named with the same title format as the city's main article. That is, if the article is at Toronto, then use "Toronto" rather than "Toronto, Ontario" in category names, but if it's at Regina, Saskatchewan, then name the related categories in the format "Regina, Saskatchewan" rather than "Regina"." --Skeezix1000 (talk) 14:42, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Burnaby may take its name from a founder with that surname, but this is a standard form of place name for the part of England under Scaninavian occupation 1100/1200 years ago. There will therefore be an English place of that name, which will be the original. This rename would only be legitimate if you can be sure that there is no other place of the name WORLDWIDE, not merely none in Canada. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:21, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A place name does not have to be unique to qualify for non-disambiguation, nor does it necessarily have to be the original use of the name. It merely has to be documentably significant enough to be a primary meaning, which this is since no other geographic Burnaby is even fractionally as large in population, economic significance or sociocultural prominence. Bearcat (talk) 02:02, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Peterkingiron, Please do not oppose renaming, I don't want to talk about it's surname under Scandinavian 1100/1200 years ago, I am talking about the largest Canadian city in the province of British Columbia that's Burnaby 4 users support renaming the page for a city title from renaming those categories to be matched, go to this link, WP:CANSTYLE or WP:CANBOARD. Steam5 (talk) 01:32, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Jc37, firstly, this is consistent with the convention as written. The naming convention for Canadian city articles is consistent with the worldwide "only disambiguate when necessary" convention, not with the odd-man-out American "always disambiguate" convention, and this decision will be made according to the naming convention that applies to Canadian topics. Furthermore, "Burnaby, Ontario" will never qualify for its own separate category, as it's a ~~neighbourhood~~ four-house crossroads, which doesn't even have its own postal code, within the municipality of Wainfleet, Ontario, not an independent place in its own right — even in the highly unlikely event that we ever have more than a single article pertaining specifically to the one in Ontario (and right now we don't even have one), it will get Category:Wainfleet, Ontario, and will never merit a dedicated category of its own. Bottom line, there's no valid reason to override WP:PLACES here. And finally, any emerging "always disambiguate city titles in category names" practice on CFD is going to become a flop for the history books the moment somebody tries to force Category:London, England instead of Category:London, so let's not pretend that it has any validity or weight outside the US. Support move. Bearcat (talk) 01:59, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. There is no indication that there is another location named Burnaby with an economic or sociocultural impact as significant as the city in British Columbia. The main article was moved based on the conventions used for naming Canadian settlements (see WP:CANSTYLE and WP:CANCITY) and WP:PRIMARYUSAGE. The category's name should follow from WP:CATEGORY, as rightfully indicated by other editors above, that requires the category name to be the simplest form possible that will not cause ambiguity. In this case, it doesn't seem likely that any other category with this name will ever be created - we certainly won't have one for a surname, and all other locations don't seem to have sufficient material (or potential for such) to necessitate a category. Mind matrix 13:56, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose following the arguments of jc37. For categories, this is the practical way to help people get it right. DGG (talk) 08:39, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that ignoring all the applicable naming conventions is "practical". --Skeezix1000 (talk) 20:18, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support If Burnaby met the criteria for WP:PRIMARYUSAGE, as I believe it does, then the categories should follow article's name.--Ducio1234 (talk) 00:03, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Wikipedia:Disambiguation (where WP:PRIMARYUSAGE redirects to) applies to article space NOT categories. So if Burnaby met the criteria for WP:PRIMARYUSAGE, then certainly having it's article name un-disambiguated, may of coursebe appropriate. However, that doesn't apply to categories (for various technical reasons, among other things). As noted above, categories tend to require a bit more precision for clarity. - jc37 21:34, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, while not getting too excited about the issue. I can see both perspectives in this debate, and it seems to just be two different approaches. One approach wants to treat category space the same as article space, while the other wants to treat category space somewhat differently. One balance, I adopt the latter viewpoint. The WP:CANSTYLE guidelines would suggest a rename is in order, but at the same time I think it is important to recognize that many category names do not follow naming conventions in the same way articles do. WP:PRIMARYUSAGE especially applies to articles but not in the same way to categories. Since there are other places called "Burnaby", I agree that it should probably be disambiguated, even if the one in BC is the primary usage of the place name. As a Canadian in general, I have no qualms with the current form and don't recoil in horror at the disambiguation adopted for U.S. place name categories. I personally would not have much of a problem with a disambiguation being added to most non-unique city names in categories, even ones as obvious as "Paris, France". Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:27, 16 April 2009 (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.