Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 September 24

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< September 23 September 25 >

September 24[edit]

Category:Javanese Wikipedia[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 as proposed. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:35, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Too little content. Upmerge the main article to Category:Wikipedias by language and the other one to Category:Wikipedia. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:26, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as small internal category. SFB 21:31, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Bonnie 'Prince' Billy 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: merge. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:34, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Same artist, different stage name —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:32, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support There is no significant distinction between the releases under either name so makes sense to gather at real name category. SFB 21:32, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Oldham is an artist who uses several different pseudonyms for his solo work, with no real distinction between them except which name happens to be on the cover — so the most appropriate solution is to keep all of his solo albums one category at his real name rather than having a separate subcategory for each individual stage name. This does not apply to bands in which he is a member, however — those should remain catted separately. Bearcat (talk) 21:22, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Horses in Great Britain[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 as nominated. – Fayenatic London 13:00, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Clarity - otherwise this category will almost inevitably accrue pages like Mounted Games Association of Great Britain, Category:Olympic equestrians of Great Britain etc (see Category:History of Great Britain which currently has many inappropriate subcategories). See related CFD discussion below. DexDor (talk) 21:18, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:14, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: If no problems are raised regarding this renaming then I propose we have a separate CFD (or even just move them directly) to rename many other categories (e.g. Category:Peace treaties of Great Britain) from GB to KoGB to avoid any confusion with the modern meaning of GB (e.g. Category:Great Britain at the Olympics). DexDor (talk) 21:20, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support and also support Dexdor's proposal. The majority consider "Great Britain" as term describing the current union, not any specific historical one, so a movement to the "Kingdom of Great Britain" title would give much greater clarity. SFB 21:34, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, if you think about it the only present-day meaning of "Great Britain" is the geographical one, almost no one thinks of GB as a political entity, because it isn't one. The island of Great Britain is simply part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. As GB is not a present-day sovereign state, or country, or region, or indeed anything at all except an island, very few categories should require it to be used in its present-day geographical meaning. Moonraker (talk) 21:38, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose -- GB was not abolished in 1800. Any more than Maryland when it ceased to be a colony and became a state. Team-GB was actually in WP-terms properly Team-UK, since it included Northern Ireland. A few sports (including horse-racing) are organized on an all-Ireland basis and conversely a GB-basis. A GB category is properly applicable to anything that relates to the whole island of GB, whether the kings 1603-1800; the Parliament 1707-1800 or certain sports today. There is nothing to confuse. GB categories should perhaps be purged of anything (like Team-GB) which ought properly to be in a UK category. GB categories need a "see also" headnote, redirecting users to the UK category. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:52, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
At present the text of this category states it's for KoGB, (the content is all KoGB), the parent is at CFD for renaming to KoGB and the grandparent is KoGB. So, if you want a category that includes post-1800 horse racing in GB then this isn't it. In fact, this proposed rename would free up the category name for re-use in the way you describe. DexDor (talk) 20:41, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I created this category to provide an alternative to the incorrect use of a "United Kingdom" category before 1801. At first glance there is some ambiguity, as GB can also refer to the present-day island, but most categories with a geographical angle use the names of countries and former countries as parents, then the names of regions or counties or administrative areas, not the names of large islands which are not countries, regions, or areas with any status at all. The name of the kingdom of Great Britain was simply "Great Britain", not "kingdom of Great Britain", which is more or less an invention by Wikipedia. While the nominator's suggestion would remove all ambiguity, that can equally well be removed by a summary at the head of each GB category. Moonraker (talk) 21:24, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename. The ultimate parent is Category:Kingdom of Great Britain and the two subcategories use "Kingdom of Great Britain". Great Britain is about the island; Kingdom of Great Britain is about the political entity. Seems like a no-brainer from the standpoint of WP naming conventions. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:33, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename but to lowercase k i.e. Category:Horses in the kingdom of Great Britain as "kingdom of" is just disambiguation, not part of the proper name. The subcats should then be renamed to lowercase k to match. – Fayenatic London 14:36, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • While it's true that the official name of the state was "Great Britain", I think it's fair to say that when the state is referred to using the common name of "Kingdom of Great Britain", the "K" is almost always capitalized. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:26, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Absolutely. "Kingdom of Great Britain" is a proper name and should therefore be capitalised. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:00, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Blues Explosion 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: merge. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:30, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Merge. Same band, but name change. We don't make a new category for every iteration of a band's name (imagine what would happen with A Silver Mt. Zion!) —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:16, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Same band and lineage, second category not required. SFB 21:34, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Twee pop groups[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) 02:29, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Merge. Twee pop redirects to indie pop. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:50, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support We do not have an article distinguishing this one Indie pop, so categorisation is not useful at this time. SFB 21:36, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Atom and His Package 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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:28, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Per Atom and His Package/Adam Goren. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:49, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as main article has personal name, not band name. SFB 21:36, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:History of Great Britain[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. – Fayenatic London 07:40, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Kingdom of Great Britain is a history category in itself (18th century), a childcategory 'history of ..' is therefore not meaningful. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:37, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for the moment. Many of the sub-categories are currently incorrectly categorized (e.g. Category:21st century in Scotland is under this category). I suggest purging this category and possibly renaming some of the subcategories - then doing the proposed merge. DexDor (talk) 20:18, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as this clarifies that "Great Britain" we are talking about. SFB 21:37, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- More purging is still needed. "Marcher Lords" should be a Welsh subject, pre-1536, though a few lordships were then added to English counties.
  • Oppose. The category is perhaps not essential, but it forms part of a series on "history of" all other important countries and former countries. At first glance there is some ambiguity, as GB can also refer to the present-day island, but most categories with a geographical angle use the names of countries and former countries as parents, then the names of regions or counties or administrative areas, not the names of large islands which are not countries, regions, or areas with any status at all. The name of the kingdom of Great Britain was simply "Great Britain", not "kingdom of Great Britain", which is more or less an invention by Wikipedia. All possible ambiguity can be removed by a summary at the head of each GB category, which most of them have already. Moonraker (talk) 21:45, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • With respect to the series History of..., I would rather take it the other way around: none of the former countries should have a History of... child category, for the same reason as mentioned in the nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:14, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You can certainly hold that view, but if you feel that for former countries the whole system of the series "History of..." needs reform, then it would be better to propose that as an over-arching cfd, taking in all other categories affected, such as Category:History of Austria-Hungary, Category:History of the Roman Empire, Category:History of Yugoslavia, and so forth. It strikes me that in the fall-out from that reform there would be a lot of work to be done to make sense of the sub-categories, many of which would be affected. Such a restructuring really does need to be considered at a more strategic level. Moonraker (talk) 09:35, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In itself that's absolutely a fair point. Nevertheless I think this Great Britain nomination sets a good example in the sense that it shows that there need not be a problem in a merger like this. Can we agree on proceeding this nomination as an example, but not as as a precedent? Marcocapelle (talk) 12:18, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I don't agree that the nomination shows there are no problems in such a merger. And I wouldn't wish us to pick on one former country to make a change which either is or is not a good idea in itself. In my view, it's better to deal with the wider question rather than setting a precedent which may be the wrong one. Moonraker (talk) 20:29, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Moonraker: Could you indicate what exactly would be the objection(s) in this merger? I'm well prepared to withdraw this nomination in favour of a nomination for all former countries. Yet your answer on this particular GB nomination may well help in deciding whether or not a wider nomination should be pursued in the first place. Marcocapelle (talk) 00:18, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Marcocapelle: Happy to oblige. I see two main objections. First, we do need consistency across the structure for the history categories of former countries, and at the moment we have it. You have a different kind of consistency in mind, but that can only be achieved by tackling the elimination of all of these categories together. Second, there is the question of the history sub-categories, including some other series ("military history of", "political history of", and so forth), and branching those through the present structure makes for good navigation and also has other advantages. There is also the practical consideration that much work would need to be done to unpick the present structure, although that is really just a question of identifying someone to do it. Moonraker (talk) 16:12, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Moonraker: You're looking at it from quite a different angle than I do, which is absolutely fine. My perspective was rather that many childcats and articles seemm to be arbitrarily parented either to History of GB or to Kingdom of GB. I think that the consensus we may reach here is that we change the parenting of all childcats and articles from Kingdom of GB to History of GB, so that Kingdom of GB will have one childcat only (namely History of GB) and no single articles. So that would go without touching the overall structure. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:25, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Satyricon (band)[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. – Fayenatic London 07:47, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Too little content —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:34, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – it now has 3 valid subcats, generally thought to be sufficient. Oculi (talk) 09:18, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Turkish women's archers[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) 02:27, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The parent is "Female archers" and the category may contain non-adults, hence a preference for "female" rather than "women". (FYI - Previous speedy was rejected). SFB 17:52, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Fictional Puerto Rican 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: relisted at December 2. – Fayenatic London 21:11, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Should the "Fictional American people by state" sub-cats be changed to Category:Fictional American people from <-state->? --76.175.67.121 (talk) 15:50, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This nomination could inadvertently expand these categories to include robots, animals, etc. I don't think that's good or bad but just so it's considered. RevelationDirect (talk) 12:35, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Clear Channel Communications[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) 02:24, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Same reasons that are in Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 September 20#Category:Clear Channel radio stations (Company has rebranded -- "Clear Channel Becomes iHeartMedia") --Mega-buses (discusión / Talk) 14:03, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy per WP:C2D. Feel free to run these through the speedy process rather than here, if they're non-controversial. RevelationDirect (talk) 14:26, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Vienna Secession architecture[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/rename. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:22, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Vienna Secession is just what Art Nouveau was called in the Austro-Hungarian Empire (of which Slovenia was a part at the time), just as it was called Jugendstil in Germany. In the English-speaking world, however, we generally use the French term Art Nouveau, so for consistency with other categories it should be renamed. There is nothing which specifically defines Vienna Secession architecture compared to any other Art Nouveau architecture. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:02, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge All for now. I'm not sure if there is any distinction between VS and AN architecture but, until if and when a lead article is created, this category should go. RevelationDirect (talk) 19:25, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Pakistan–Scotland relations[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. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:41, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Merge. For the entirety of Pakistan's existence as a state, it has been the United Kingdom which has been responsible for the foreign relations of Scotland. Categories for foreign relations of Scotland only really make sense if they deal with issues pre-1707. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:51, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support It looks like the contents are largely cultural rather than governmental, but putting sub-national entities in the bilateral relations tree will get messy. Do sports team from London on goodwill tours get their own categories for each country they visit? RevelationDirect (talk) 11:46, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The category can be used for cultural relations, which include diaspora, sports, associations and organisations etc. Mar4d (talk) 08:22, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Mar4d's interpretation is invalid as this is part of Category:Bilateral relations tree (per Bilateralism this relates to sovereign states only). The above usage is no different from if we started Category:Pakistan–New York relations, for example. SFB 21:46, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- Scotland has not (save occasionally in 17th-century) had foreign relations since 1603. Its ambassadors have been those of his or her Britannic Majesty. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:14, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename or Keep. I fear that the endless complications of the UK being a 'nation of countries' are often rather tedious. On the one hand, it's quite true that official bilateralism is clearly an activity undertaken by the nation state of the UK, but that does not mean that 'relations' or, if you prefer, 'relationships' do not exist between the countries of Pakistan and Scotland. So no, it may be similar but it's not exactly the same as 'Pakistan–New York relations'. It seems to me that one option is to simply remove this cat from both Category:Bilateral relations of Pakistan and Category:Bilateral relations of Scotland. I can't see any harm in having all Scotland-Pakistan relationships within Category:Pakistan–United Kingdom relations and simply merging would make navigation harder for anyone interested in the specifically Scottish-Pakistan dimension. An alternative, if in this context 'relations' is and always is a synonym for 'official relations/bilateralism' then perhaps the existing cat could be renamed Category:Pakistan–United Kingdom relations (Scotland) or similar, removed from the two 'bilateral' cats per the above and added to Category:Scottish society. Ben MacDui 16:24, 23 November 2014 (UTC) PS To give you a flavour of this issue, please note that Humza Yousaf, who is of Pakistani descent, is currently the Scottish Minister for Europe and International Development.[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:Ossetic language[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) 02:18, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per Ossetian language/Ossetic language. I also just created the category into which I have proposed the merge (how I found this in the first place). —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:32, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as this will now match main article (no opposition to renaming main article if Ossetic is more prominent). SFB 21:47, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I merged it. 178.92.50.164 (talk) 05:57, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:BluegrassKY-stub[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. I will implement this by redirecting it, but it may be deleted once all transclusions are removed or replaced. – Fayenatic London 07:58, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete - no other region has its own stub tag. We tag articles by state and by type(i.e structure, geography, etc.), and occasionally by city or (mostly with geography) county. This stub tag does nothing byut add its artivcles to Category:Kentucky stubs, when many of the articles which would get it are in subcats. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 04:13, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Lots of regions have geography stub categories, and a few of these have main templates for them; however, no region (defined as part of a US state, other than Alaska, that is neither a county nor a city) which isn't made up of complete counties has even a geography stub category; nor does any region have regional stub tags upmerged into other categories. The Bluegrass region contains part of, but not all of, Casey, Lewis, Lincoln and Rockcastle counties. Your example of Category:Appalachian Ohio geography stubs actually agrees with the point - it's a geography category for a region defined by several counties, and the stub tag is there for the category. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 19:56, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Directly elected mayors 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: rename. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:16, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per main article Directly elected mayors in England and Wales. Speedy denied. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:17, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support unless and until Scotland or Northern Ireland start electing them. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:17, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:The Troubles (Northern 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: do not rename. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:14, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per main article The Troubles, unneeded dab. Cf. Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_May_2#Category:The_Troubles_.28Northern_Ireland.29 —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:15, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per previous CFDs. It is more important for category titles to be unambiguous than article titles. DexDor (talk) 05:56, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per previous CFDs, and per The Troubles (disambiguation). Oculi (talk) 09:56, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename Article Normally I defer to the article naming, but given the contents of Troubles (disambiguation) and because this conflict is thankfully less in the news, the article name is egregiously too vague and should not be copied. RevelationDirect (talk) 11:53, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP and Rename article -- Until the 1960s, the term referred to the events of 1919-23. Furthermore, occasionally, a category needs a disambiguator, where the article has note, to prevent the plain name picking up articles that should be in the dab-bed category. The classic case of Birmingham, whose categories are at Birmingham, West Midlands: to keep out articles on Birmingham, AL. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:26, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP and Rename article -- As noted above, the term has been around for a long time; see the article's last section (Usage of the term....). This category only seems to cover the recent conflict anyway, and not the War of Independence or other episodes of violence. Also, those prior uses concerned events across the whole island - or primarily the South in the case of the Civil War. They were not specific to Northern Ireland, so I believe that the proposed article renaming seems to be the best compromise. jxm (talk) 16:58, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose There is a linked disambiguation page as mentioned by previous talk editors. Further, when referencing The Troubles it is capitalized and considered a proper noun. When being written or spoken about no mention of Northern Ireland is made as the term has now become historical in nature, and the title should reflect this specific designation.Amcorbe (talk) 16:49, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_September_24&oldid=1138399963"