Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 March 10

< March 9	March 11 >

March 10[edit]

Rugby league player 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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:02, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Bradford Bulls rugby league players to Category:Bradford Bulls players
Category:Castleford Tigers rugby league players to Category:Castleford Tigers players
Category:Catalans Dragons rugby league players to Category:Catalans Dragons players
Category:Huddersfield Giants rugby league players to Category:Huddersfield Giants players
Category:Hull Kingston Rovers rugby league players to Category:Hull Kingston Rovers players
Category:Leeds Rhinos rugby league players to Category:Leeds Rhinos players
Category:Salford City Reds rugby league players to Category:Salford City Reds players
Category:Warrington Wolves rugby league players to Category:Warrington Wolves players
Category:Widnes Vikings rugby league players to Category:Widnes Vikings players
Category:Wigan Warriors rugby league players to Category:Wigan Warriors players
Nominator's rationale: Merge: These categories should be merged back into the original categories as it is misleading to have parallel categories for the same players. It seems that in 2008 user:Jeff79 took a dislike to the Category:Castleford Tigers players type categories I created back in 2007 and took it upon himself to create a hoard of duplicate categories instead of going through the usual process of proposing that the categories be moved, to make things worse he didn't bother to populate/depopulate most of the categories so we are left with these duplicate categories both partially populated making a right mess of Category:Rugby league players by club. The reason I believe that they should be merged back to the shorter version is that there is no need to disambiguate by adding "rugby league" in any of these teams. The only team that it is neccessary for is Harlequins Rugby League due to the existence of Harlequins rugby union. It is not normal practice for players by team categories to take the form category:club - specific sport - players as can be seen from the various examples listed below:
Category:Boston Celtics players not Category:Boston Celtics basketball players
Category:Sheffield United F.C. players not Category:Sheffield United association football players
Category:Nottingham Panthers players not Category:Nottingham Panthers ice hockey players
Category:London Wasps players not Category:London Wasps rugby union players
Category:Boston Red Sox players not Category:Boston Red Sox baseball players

-King of the North East 23:04, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support. We only need the sport when we're disambiguating, such as between college basketball teams of the same name.--Mike Selinker (talk) 23:08, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I was just trying to get them to match the way categories for rugby league players by Australian club are named. I suppose you're going to do it properly with a bot or something to tidy up all the categories and articles. I'm not very good with bots and things so was going about it the long way. I don't feel strongly about the inclusion of "rugby league" in the categories, as long as it's consistent either way. There are some cases where it will be necessary to include the sport and I thought I'd err on the side of caution and include it for all teams whether they need it now or not in case they do someday in the future. But I suppose if they need to be changed in the future, we can cross that bridge when we come to it. However, if the ones listed above only are changed back, then that will make a mixture of some categories including "rugby league" and some not. It'd be nice if we were consistent across the board with all clubs across wikipedia.--Jeff79 (talk) 14:19, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. GordyB (talk) 20:17, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If enough support is gained for the categories to be merged to the shorter form and this discussion is closed, I will propose moving the other categories (except in cases where disambiguation is neccessary such as the Harlequins category). King of the North East 19:42, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support. GW(talk) 21:59, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support per above. As Mike noted, we only need to add the sport when a disambiguation is needed—not just for college sports teams, but also for different sports within multi-sport clubs (e.g. Category:FC Barcelona footballers and Category:FC Barcelona basketball players). — Dale Arnett (talk) 23:55, 13 March 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:Crunk rappers[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. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:26, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete Fails WP:OVERCAT, subjective and unnecessary overcategorization. DiverseMentality 22:39, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That Category is to categories all the crunk rappers! Young Piece (talk) 23:46, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Category:Southern rappers is sufficient. Robofish (talk) 04:22, 15 March 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:Icelandic-language 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: Keep. Note, that if the others are to be renamed, someone needs to make that nomination.Vegaswikian (talk) 22:33, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Icelandic-language television series to Category:Icelandic-language television shows

Nominator's rationale: Rename. All sister categories in the parent Category:Television programming by language (recently renamed) use "shows" rather than "series". A rename to Category:Television programming in Icelandic in line with the parent would seem fine as well. When this finds a home, we can nominate the sister categories to match. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:04, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, and Rename the other categories here to 'X-language television series'. 'Television series' instead of 'television show' seems to be Wikipedia standard; see Category:Television series, of which some of these categories could be subcategories, whereas Category:Television shows is a redirect. Robofish (talk) 04:21, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename the others per Robofish; the standard in other related categories is "series" (or "program(me)s", when necessary), not "shows". Bearcat (talk) 19:20, 15 March 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:Georgian people[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: result to Category:People from Georgia (country). Vegaswikian (talk) 22:57, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Georgian people to Category:Georgian (country) people (or Category:Georgia (country) people)

Nominator's rationale: Rename. In light of this recent discussion it makes sense now to do this rename to cure ambiguity, and then all of the subcategories could be speedily renamed to match this renamed category. I know the proposed name is relatively inelegant, but for most of the subcategories it will be far easier to use "Georgian (country) foo" than trying to formulate a "special" naming format for the Georgian categories. I think keeping it simple yet unambiguous is the best solution here. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:49, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:People from Georgia (country). In the UK, "Georgian" is commonly used to refer to the Georgian era (1714 to 1830), and for those accustomed to that usage, "Georgian (country) people" reads like a category or non-urban folks from that time, whera "people from Georgia (country)" is unambiguous.
Whilst most other sub-categories of Category:People by nationality are named "Fooian people", we do also have Category:People from Northern Ireland, renamed at CFD in January because of terminological difficulties in Norrn Iron. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:09, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Of course, this option complicates things considerably. If such an approach is adopted, then for one it's inconsistent with the most recent discussion. Secondly, it means all the subcategories will require full CfDs to change the naming format: they will not qualify under speedy criterion #6. I can state right now that I'm probably not going to do those full nominations (too many scars from Category:Victoria (Australia)), though I would be willing to nominate them all for a speedy change if my suggestion were adopted. That is one reason I stated we should try to keep it simple yet unambiguous: adopting this rename will probably result in (1) this parent category being renamed, (2) with one subcategory already being renamed to "Georgian (country)", and (3) the rest not being changed at all. A big mess, in other words—just like Category:People from Northern Ireland, which still has many subcategories that use "Northern Irish" because the nomination was not followed up on and carried to its logical conclusion as applying to all subcategories. (Though I acknowledge that apparently even "Georgian (country)" is ambiguous, so my simple solution to this problem may not be a "good" one.) What about using Category:Georgia (country) people à la Category:Dominica people, Category:Republic of the Congo people, etc.? This would permit the changes to still be made speedily rather than slogging through a complete CfD that reformulates the name for every one. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:04, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply. Thanks for the pointer on my talk to your comment. The concern seems to be solely that the follow-up work cannot be speedied (though I'm not clear why), which seems to be a poor reason for choosing any option. Better, surely, to get things right? If this CFD settles on the Category:People from Georgia (country) option, I will make the necessary cleanup nominations. Nite that in any case the subcats of Category:Georgian people use a variety of formats: Category:People by city in Georgia (country) (which already uses my suggested format), Category:Ethnographic groups of Georgian people, and several "Georgian fooers" categories. These will in any case need separate attention. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:28, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - That's fine if you are willing to nominate the others. My only remaining observation would be that these are nationality categories, and someone can be of Georgian nationality and not be "from" Georgia. But that's probably a minor point not to be too worrisome. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:56, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:People from Georgia (country) per BHG's explanation. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:58, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Georgian (nationality) people. Mayumashu (talk) 02:44, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:People from Georgia (country) per BHG's explanation. Kittybrewster ☎ 11:21, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rename to Category:People from Georgia (country) per BHG's explanation. This is consistent with the practice of disambigating the Caucasus country from the US State. However the name change would need to be made to numerous subcategories. Can I assume that will follow? Peterkingiron (talk) 23:59, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see this as necessary; the adjective "Georgian" would and could never be applied to a subcategory pertaining to the US state. Bearcat (talk) 19:24, 15 March 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:Transiting planets[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:Transiting extrasolar planets. I know there was discussion on whether to use "exoplanets" or "extrasolar planets", but the main difference of opinion had to do with the size of the category name, nothing more. I went with "Extrasolar planets" because that's what WP seems to use on the various articles I read. In addition, I didn't go with "detected by", because as was pointed out in the discussion, that can mean to read "first detected by". Kbdank71 14:18, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I proposed renaming the Category:Transiting planets to Category:Transiting exoplanets because it is more specific because this category is only used for exoplanet articles. Transiting planets can also occur in our solar system, which are the planets Mercury and Venus can transit the Sun as seen from Earth. BlueEarth (talk | contribs) 21:44, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment it's only a two planet difference, why not also contain Mercury and Venus? 76.66.201.179 (talk) 04:32, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mercury and Venus are not important for transiting planets, this category is provided only for exoplanet articles that were transiting their stars as detected by transit method. BlueEarth (talk | contribs) 21:50, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Then it should be renamed Category:Exoplanets detected by the transit method, which is a far different animal, because several exoplanets detected by other methods are also transitting planets. That is not your rename rationale, and not the implied content of the suggested new name. 76.66.201.179 (talk) 04:01, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I say that renaming to Category:Exoplanets detected by the transit method that you came up with is really good idea, which is even better than Category:Transiting exoplanets. So we are going for Category:Exoplanets detected by the transit method. BlueEarth (talk | contribs) 23:29, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the main articles in the area of extrasolar planets use "extrasolar planet" rather than "exoplanet" in the titles (e.g. Extrasolar planet, List of extrasolar planets). If it is felt necessary to perform this move, the destination should be Category:Transiting extrasolar planets. Icalanise (talk) 23:13, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So the modified version would be Category:Extrasolar planets detected by the transit method then... 76.66.201.179 (talk) 05:14, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

subcategorize with Category:Extrasolar planets detected by the transit method seems like the way to go, which would make a exoplanet by discovery method cat, and keep a planet cat by property/orientation category. (and would keep Mercury and Venus as members, since a two planet difference isn't big enough for me to exclude solar planets) 76.66.201.179 (talk) 05:18, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think that exoplanets detected by transit method (without 'the' between by and transit) would be better since it takes up less space in the category bar than extrasolar planets detected by the transit method. BlueEarth (talk | contribs) 21:42, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not sure the "detected by" bit is helpful, as it may imply "first detected by". Some planets were first detected by transit and followed up by radial velocity later, some were detected by radial velocity and found to be transiting later. "Transiting extrasolar planets" is more concise without sacrificing the grammar as "extrasolar planets detected by transit method" does. Icalanise (talk) 08:52, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going for this format, but instead of transiting extrasolar planets, we should go for transiting exoplanets as I originally going to rename to this as per my first comment just below this section title. As transiting extrasolar planets is a long category text with three words, transiting exoplanets has only two words and take up less space in the category bar. BlueEarth (talk | contribs) 19:15, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm still unconvinced that breaking format with the main article titles, or Category:Extrasolar planets is a good idea. Icalanise (talk) 23:52, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  An another reason why I chose transiting exoplanets because I’ve been finding transiting exoplanets as a text more frequent in websites outside of Wikipedia than transiting extrasolar planets. BlueEarth (talk | contribs) 22:49, 17 March 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.

Culture[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 most per nom.

(I'll be deleting the 2 brass band categories boldly, an action which should not be considered part of this closure, even though the action was suggested by the nominator here. Therefore G4 should not apply to recreation in these 2 specific cases.)

As this group nom intends to deal with setting/preserving a "standard" naming convention amongst like categories, I checked the parents of the ones which would be changed beyond the City, State rename - the primary concern of the nominator as he states below, and which also seems supported by others' comments.

Based upon that. the following would seem to require further discussion, and so are excluded from the Rename result, and should instead be considered No consensus:

Category:Los Angeles art - per the parent Category:American art.
Category:Pittsburgh novels - per the subcats of Category:American cities in fiction.

The entire "music in x" section, due to a lack of a standard in the parent: Category:Music by city.

And while most of the sub-categories of Category:American musical groups by state follow the proposed standard, Category:American hip hop groups does not. So excluding those from this closure as well.

And finally, while going forth with the rename for Category:Philadelphia R&B and Soul musicians, I don't see any other category like this, and its further existence may warrant further discussion as well.

To be clear, this closure does not preclude these exceptions being immediately relisted for further discussion. (I honestly expect that they probably will be.) And that includes those which the nominator suggested for deletion, but which were really not much discussed. - jc37 07:39, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actors:

Propose renaming Category:Actors from Chicago to Category:Actors from Chicago, Illinois

Propose renaming Category:Actors from Cincinnati to Category:Actors from Cincinnati, Ohio

Propose renaming Category:Omaha actors to Category:Actors from Omaha, Nebraska

Propose renaming Category:Actors from Pittsburgh to Category:Actors from Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Arts and artists

Propose renaming Category:Artists from Cincinnati to Category:Artists from Cincinnati, Ohio

Propose renaming Category:Artists from Miami to Category:Artists from Miami, Florida

Propose renaming Category:Artists from Pittsburgh to Category:Artists from Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Propose renaming Category:Los Angeles art to Category:Arts in Los Angeles, California

Cultural structures:

Propose renaming Category:Fountains in Kansas City to Category:Fountains in Kansas City, Missouri

Propose renaming Category:St. Louis music venues to Category:Music venues in St. Louis, Missouri

Propose renaming Category:Restaurants in Tampa to Category:Restaurants in Tampa, Florida

Propose renaming Category:Theatres in Kansas City to Category:Theatres in Kansas City, Missouri

Propose renaming Category:Theatres in Omaha to Category:Theatres in Omaha, Nebraska

Creative works:

Propose renaming Category:Films set in Chicago to Category:Films set in Chicago, Illinois

Propose renaming Category:Lancaster, Pennsylvania in film and television to Category:Films set in Lancaster, Pennsylvania (preferably delete)

Propose renaming Category:Philadelphia in film and television to Category:Films set in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (see below)

Propose renaming Category:Pittsburgh in film and television to Category:Films set in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania (see below)

Propose renaming Category:Films set in San Diego to Category:Films set in San Diego, California

Propose renaming Category:Films set in San Francisco to Category:Films set in San Francisco, California

Propose renaming Category:Films set in Tampa to Category:Films set in Tampa, Florida

Propose renaming Category:Films shot in Los Angeles to Category:Films shot in Los Angeles, California

Propose renaming Category:Films shot in New Orleans to Category:Films shot in New Orleans, Louisiana

Propose renaming Category:Pittsburgh novels to Category:Novels set in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Propose renaming Category:Television shows set in Chicago to Category:Television shows set in Chicago, Illinois

Propose renaming Category:Theatre in Minneapolis to Category:Theatre in Minneapolis, Minnesota

Music:

Propose renaming Category:Music in Denver to Category:Music in Denver, Colorado

Propose renaming Category:Music of Detroit to Category:Music in Detroit, Michigan

Propose renaming Category:Lexington, KY Music to Category:Music in Lexington, Kentucky

Propose renaming Category:Music in Omaha to Category:Music in Omaha, Nebraska

Propose renaming Category:St. Louis music to Category:Music in St. Louis, Missouri

Propose renaming Category:Songs about New Orleans to Category:Songs about New Orleans, Louisiana

Musical groups:

Propose renaming Category:Boston, Massachusetts musical groups to Category:Musical groups from Boston, Massachusetts

Propose renaming Category:Buffalo, New York musical groups to Category:Musical groups from Buffalo, New York

Propose renaming Category:Fort Lauderdale musical groups to Category:Musical groups from Fort Lauderdale, Florida

Propose renaming Category:Indianapolis, Indiana musical groups to Category:Musical groups from Indianapolis, Indiana

Propose renaming Category:Jacksonville, Florida musical groups to Category:Musical groups from Jacksonville, Florida

Propose renaming Category:Los Angeles musicians to Category:Musical groups from Los Angeles, California

Propose renaming Category:Louisville musicians to Category:Musical groups from Louisville, Kentucky

Propose renaming Category:Miami musical groups to Category:Musical groups from Miami, Florida

Propose renaming Category:Nashville bands to Category:Musical groups from Nashville, Tennessee

Propose renaming Category:New Orleans musical groups to Category:Musical groups from New Orleans, Louisiana

Propose renaming Category:Omaha musical groups to Category:Musical groups from Omaha, Nebraska

Propose renaming Category:Orlando, Florida musical groups to Category:Musical groups from Orlando, Florida

Propose renaming Category:Philadelphia musical groups to Category:Musical groups from Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

Propose renaming Category:Pittsburgh musical groups to Category:Musical groups from Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Propose renaming Category:San Diego musical groups to Category:Musical groups from San Diego, California

Propose renaming Category:San Francisco musical groups to Category:Musical groups from San Francisco, California

Propose renaming Category:San Jose musical groups to Category:Musical groups from San Jose, California

Propose renaming Category:Seattle musical groups to Category:Musical groups from Seattle, Washington

Propose renaming Category:Tacoma musical groups to Category:Musical groups from Tacoma, Washington

Propose renaming Category:Tampa musical groups to Category:Musical groups from Tampa, Florida

Propose renaming Category:Los Angeles musical groups to Category:Musical groups from Los Angeles, California

Propose renaming Category:Louisville music groups to Category:Musical groups from Louisville, Kentucky

Propose renaming Category:Detroit hip hop groups to Category:Hip hop groups from Detroit, Michigan

Propose renaming Category:San Francisco Bay Area hip hop groups to Category:Hip hop groups from the San Francisco Bay Area

Propose renaming Category:New Orleans brass bands to Category:Brass bands from New Orleans, Louisiana (preferably delete)

Musicians:

Propose renaming Category:Musicians from Cincinnati to Category:Musicians from Cincinnati, Ohio

Propose renaming Category:Musicians of New Orleans to Category:Musicians from New Orleans, Louisiana

Propose renaming Category:Omaha musicians to Category:Musicians from Omaha, Nebraska

Propose renaming Category:Philadelphia musicians to Category:Musicians from Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

Propose renaming Category:Pittsburgh musicians to Category:Musicians from Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Propose renaming Category:Detroit hip hop musicians to Category:Hip hop musicians from Detroit, Michigan

Propose renaming Category:New Orleans jazz musicians to Category:Jazz musicians from New Orleans, Louisiana

Propose renaming Category:New Orleans brass band bandleaders to Category:Brass band bandleaders from New Orleans, Louisiana (preferably delete)

Propose renaming Category:Philadelphia R&B and Soul musicians to Category:R&B and soul musicians from Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

Propose renaming Category:Baltimore rappers to Category:Rappers from Baltimore, Maryland

Propose renaming Category:Rappers from Los Angeles to Category:Rappers from Los Angeles, California

Propose renaming Category:Rappers from Memphis to Category:Rappers from Memphis, Tennessee

Propose renaming Category:New York City rappers to Category:Rappers from New York City (this is an overwrite)

Propose renaming Category:Rappers from Philadelphia to Category:Rappers from Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

Propose renaming Category:St. Louis rappers to Category:Rappers from St. Louis, Missouri

Propose renaming Category:San Francisco Bay Area rappers to Category:Rappers from the San Francisco Bay Area

Non-profit organizations:

Propose renaming Category:Non-profit organizations based in Cincinnati to Category:Non-profit organizations based in Cincinnati, Ohio

Propose renaming Category:Non-profit organizations in Jacksonville, Florida to Category:Non-profit organizations based in Jacksonville, Florida

Propose renaming Category:Non-profit organizations in Louisville, Kentucky to Category:Non-profit organizations based in Louisville, Kentucky

Writers:

Propose renaming Category:Writers from Chicago to Category:Writers from Chicago, Illinois

Propose renaming Category:Writers from Cincinnati to Category:Writers from Cincinnati, Ohio

Propose renaming Category:Philadelphia writers to Category:Writers from Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

Propose renaming Category:Writers from Pittsburgh to Category:Writers from Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Nominator's rationale: For conformance with "city, state" parameters, and general cleanup. There's a lot here, but once I started pulling categories from Category:American culture by city, it was hard to stop. I'll save the Religion, Media, and "in fiction" subcategories for another day. Some specific notes:

The "brass bands" category contains only the "brass band bandleaders" category, which contains only one person; I would delete those.
I recommend changing the L.A. art category to "Arts" so it can go in the "Arts by city" tree.
All other non-profit categories contain the word "based."
The Lancaster film/TV category contains only one film, Witness, and is probably unlikely to contain another any time soon; I would delete that.
Finally, I moved all of the TV shows out of Category:Philadelphia in film and television and Category:Pittsburgh in film and television, so those should now only contain films set in those cities.--Mike Selinker (talk) 20:24, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename all per nom and support the tireless dedication of Mike Selinker to this Augean task. Occuli (talk) 20:30, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If only I could divert a river...--Mike Selinker (talk) 21:09, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Bearcat's remarks below about removing 'occupation-from-city' cats but they need a double upmerge. Suggest an initial rename per nom and relist the city/occupation ones. Occuli (talk) 21:56, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Is there a concensus established for this format somewhere? If not, can we work on building one on a project page? A number of these categories were just changed from the "-Occupation- from -city-" to the "-City- -occupation-" format 6 months ago. Changing this every 6 months seems like a bit of a waste of time. dissolve^talk 20:54, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Huh. I didn't know that. That does seem worth discussing.--Mike Selinker (talk) 21:09, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There was eg this cfd, 25 Jan 2009. Occuli (talk) 21:10, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm not at all wedded to the "City/occupation" format, and was just trying to get the state out of the middle of the category. But I'm fine with "City/state/occupation" as well, though I think it's a bit clunkier. The nomination Occuli quotes does support "Musicians from City, State," though.--Mike Selinker (talk) 21:09, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - I haven't heard any more support for this, so I'll reaffirm my original suggestion of "Musician from City, State" format. I think we can consider the merits of deleting some of these categories in another nomination, so I'd suggest this be closed on the merits of the state addition.--Mike Selinker (talk) 22:32, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete anything "occupation-from-city" rather than renaming; these constitute an unnecessary WP:OCAT intersection. Keep anything that's already in conformance with the "match category name to the article title" rule; i.e. if the city's article is at Chicago rather than Chicago, Illinois, then its categories are correctly named as "X from Chicago", not "X from Chicago, Illinois". Rename only categories that aren't covered by those considerations. Bearcat (talk) 19:29, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. --Kbdank71 14:59, 17 March 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:Towns with cathedrals in the United Kingdom[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. Kbdank71 13:52, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Towns with cathedrals in the United Kingdom to Category:Towns and villages with cathedrals in the United Kingdom

Nominator's rationale: Rename. This was originally for all cathedral towns in the UK (which according to one of the sources surprised even me where contained them). However, i've noticed that there were a couple of villages that had cathedrals and I feel a separate category would not justify this so this is to expand the scope. Simply south (talk) 18:39, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – which are the villages? There is Category:Settlements in the United Kingdom but not Category:Towns and villages in the United Kingdom. Occuli (talk) 20:17, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This category is not to include cities. Villages which include cathedrals (apparently) include Windlesham and Clogher from what i have found so far. I also wonder if Lismore, Scotland counts? Btw the sources used for this and the main category have been the list, the various cathedral categories and City status in the United Kingdom. Simply south (talk) 20:54, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Occuli (talk) 21:05, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Anywhere that had a medieval or CE/CofS/RC cathedral was a town at the time, eg Old Sarum. However should not this be restricted to major denominations? There are some odd cathedrals of minute groups that currently are not in the category and should not be. A rename to the traditional phrase Category:Cathedral towns in the United Kingdom would probably be preferable. Johnbod (talk) 20:39, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Your suggestion makes sense but what would count as major and what as minor?

One could just go for Anglican/Church of Ireland/Scotland/Wales (the usual meaning of "cathedral towns") or add RCC ones - that's it for major denominations with large cathedrals in the UK. Johnbod (talk) 21:22, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- I was thinking what to do with historical places and places with runied cathedrals. Maybe there should be Category:Former cathedral towns in the United Kingdom. Simply south (talk) 20:59, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Listify and delete the category by its terms excludes places with city status, which article tells us that city status carries no official distinction. Since that is the case, the category here is a triple intersection of (a) a town or village without city status; (b) has a cathedral (any demonination, perhaps); and (c) in the UK. Since the article shows that (a) isn't much of a distinction, this is overcat. All cathedral towns can be listified and the can be sourced as perhaps tabled with data such as when the diocese was established, the current cathedral building was dedicated, which denomination it adheres to, when it broke from Rome (if at all), and current (arch)bishop. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:53, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Carlos, listify if wanted. This seems like overcategorization for a place. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:13, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Kittybrewster ☎ 23:24, 15 March 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:Spaced repetition 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: delete. Kbdank71 16:59, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete Category is small with no likelihood of expansion unless many non-notable flash-card applications gain advertising/spam articles that aren't deleted. Carlh (talk) 17:57, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. SR flashcard programs are quite conceptually distinct from regular flashcard programs, and there are at least 2 indisputably notable and non-spammy ones (SuperMemo for originating it and for its coverage over decades, and Mnemosyne for the research). Seems like enough for a category to me. Not paper, after all. --Gwern (contribs) 03:30 11 March 2009 (GMT)
Delete (listify if wanted) - Categorising by the method the software presents information? I don't see anything close to this in Category:Educational software. ANd I just shudder at starting this as a trend... - jc37 11:21, 18 March 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:Malls built by Edward J. DeBartolo Corporation[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. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:23, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete We don't seem to have a precedent for this, so this is mostly a test-the-waters nomination. Edward J. DeBartolo Corporation doesn't even have an article, and I think it's kind of silly to categorize by that which does not exist; it's putting the cart before the horse. Also, there doesn't really seem to be a precedent for "Malls built by foo", as shopping malls can often be built by multiple developers at once (case in point, Ashland Town Center which was developed by DeBartolo, Crown American and Glimcher Realty Trust). Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 17:43, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – there are however Edward J. DeBartolo, Sr. and Edward J. DeBartolo, Jr.. 'Developments by developer' doesn't seem wholly unreasonable ... I await other views. There is Category:Ships built by William H. Webb but some other phrasing might be used (eg Category:Richard Rogers buildings). Occuli (talk) 18:11, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I still think it's a bit of a grey area. It's entirely possible that Edward J. DeBartolo could've been the leasing agent while another company actually built the mall, and it could be hard to verify who did what. Either way, I'm not big on parentless categories like this. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 18:35, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Shopping malls in the United States is a parent, assuming these are all US. And the company merged into Simon Property Group. So there is a possible blue link. Occuli (talk) 20:20, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This a variant of the categories deprecated at WP:OC#PERF, and it is particularly problematic in application to buildings, many of which are built by consortia, or by a prime contractor which sub-contracts all the actual work, or by a client which directly contracts a range of contractors for the different phases of construction. Just how much of the work does a business have to do to for a structure to end up in a "built by" category?
There would be no theoretical problem with including a list at Edward J. DeBartolo Corporation, if anyone ever writes the article. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:15, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete performer by performance; although I note that we do movies by director and buildings by architect, which second may be quite similar to this category - although less high brow, perhaps. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:55, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, rename to Category:Edward J. DeBartolo Corporation, and reparent to Category:Shopping malls by management company. Attempting to apply performers by performance to real estate development is a misapplication of the guideline. There's little chance that categorizing by developers would lead to category bloat. The category aids in the understanding of the company's impact on the landscape and historical role. - Eureka Lott 05:26, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - rename per Eureka Lott. It is a stretch to shoehorn this into performer by performance. It is arguably a subcat of Category:Simon Property Group. As to inclusion one would need a sentence, preferably sourced, such as 'this shopping mall was built/owned/managed by XXX' and most of the articles satisfy this criterion. Occuli (talk) 12:22, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - while I agree that the analogy to performer by performance is weak, categorizing property on the basis of who owns it is in the long run unworkable because property changes hands. Taking just the first mall in the category, Alderwood Mall, it's been owned and/or operated by Bartolo, the New York State Common Retirement Fund, Simon Property Group and General Growth Properties. So that's potentially four categories in the malls by owner/operator scheme, sitting in a clutterful list at the bottom of the page and not making any sense to anyone. A list which can include dates of ownership/operation is the far superior way to capture this sort of information should anyone actually be interested in it. Otto4711 (talk) 16:50, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree 100% with what Otto said. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 21:20, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, and per the arguments above. I agree that it seems odd to have a category here when an article on the corporation doesn't yet exist, but the very concept of the category seems problematic as well. Robofish (talk) 04:14, 15 March 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.

Superstars[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. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:27, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - the category for the show is small with no likelihood of expansion. The competitors category is performer by performance overcategorization. The competitors category was nominated for deletion once previously (at which time I argued for its retention; I've changed my mind) and closed as no consensus. If retained the show category should probably be renamed per possible ambiguity with for instance Warhol superstars. Otto4711 (talk) 17:36, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; if retained, the Category:Superstars should be renamed as most would assume some POV based collection of high end actors, sportspeople, or singers, who are more than mere "stars". Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:57, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both, per nom. Robofish (talk) 04:12, 15 March 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:Labor disputes in Ireland[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. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:32, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Labor disputes in Ireland to Category:Labour disputes in Ireland

Nominator's rationale: Rename to conform to the Irish spelling of "Labour", rather than the ugly vowel-starved version favoured by transpondians.

This renaming was suggested at a CFD discussion on renaming a similar category for the United Kingdom BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:55, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:56, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename indeed per nom. Occuli (talk) 15:37, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per proper Hiberno-English spelling. ww2censor (talk) 16:12, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well I'm not a "transpondian" but why not if some countries now use labour Hugo999 (talk) 20:30, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy rename, standard to use the relevant national variety of English. Timrollpickering (talk) 15:00, 13 March 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.

Basketball players from specific cities[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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:25, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Basketball players from Los Angeles to Category:Basketball players from California AND Category:People from Los Angeles, California

Propose merging Category:Basketball players from Chicago to Category:Basketball players from Illinois AND Category:People from Chicago, Illinois

Propose merging Category:Basketball players from Philadelphia to Category:Basketball players from Pennsylvania AND Category:People from Philadelphia

Propose merging Category:Basketball players from Baltimore, Maryland to Category:Basketball players from Maryland AND Category:People from Baltimore, Maryland

Propose merging Category:Basketball players from the Bronx to Category:Basketball players from New York AND Category:People from the Bronx

Propose merging Category:Basketball players from Manhattan to Category:Basketball players from New York AND Category:People from Manhattan

Propose merging Category:Basketball players from Queens to Category:Basketball players from New York AND Category:People from Queens

Propose merging Category:Basketball players from Brooklyn to Category:Basketball players from New York AND Category:People from Brooklyn

Propose merging Category:Basketball players from New York City to Category:Basketball players from New York AND Category:People from New York City

Propose merging Category:Professional basketball players from Kentucky to Category:Basketball players from Kentucky

Nominator's rationale: Merge per results of this debate, which ruled against separate basketball player categories by city. The last one follows a similar logic, as there are no similar categories with "Professional" at the front. I should say that these are the only categories of their kind in any sport.--Mike Selinker (talk) 06:29, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are ample athletes from these cities to merit categories based on these defining characteristics, ranging from a dozen to several dozen. Merging only loses useful information and harms navigation. Alansohn (talk) 18:23, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - per merge arguments in related cfd of 11 Feb 09 (Dallas). Occuli (talk) 20:05, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I certainly haven't changed my mind on those NYC borough sub-cats that I pointed out in the other CFD, which clearly need to be dispatched before they spawn the likes of (shudder!) Category:Basketball players from Park Slope and Category:Basketball players from Greenwich Village. But I have mixed feelings about Category:Basketball players from New York City and those for several other large cities, which are quite substantial categories.

So I am neutral on the sub-cats for Chicago, Los Angeles, New York City, and Philadelphia. The others (Baltimore & Kentucky pros) should all be upmerged as proposed -- except that the NYC boroughs should be upmerged to the NYC category if it's kept. Cgingold (talk) 21:12, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If we're going to have categories of the form Booers from Foo, breaking down along geographic subentity lines makes sense to keep the cats managably sized, so keeping cats that have sizeable numbers of articles: Los Angeles, for example, would be appropriate and deleting the small ones or the ones where the state category itself is small seems appropriate. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:40, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:10, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. --Kbdank71 16:22, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Occupation-from-city subcategories should frankly be considered WP:OCAT. There are better ways to manage category size than that — frex, we really need to fix the considerable number of people-from-city categories that are actually acting as people-from-city-or-its-suburbs metropolitan-level categories. Category:People from Baton Rouge, Louisiana should only be used for people who are from in Baton Rouge itself; it should not be acting as a replacement for nine separate parish-level subcategories just because those parishes happen to be near Baton Rouge. And on, and so forth. Bearcat (talk) 16:28, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Additional nomination. I found one more that fits this description: Category:Chicago golfers, which I would merge into Category:American golfers and Category:People from Chicago, Illinois. I can nominate this separately if desired.--Mike Selinker (talk) 20:14, 17 March 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.