The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was superceded by [1] --Kbdank71 21:21, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Whoever worked on the topic loved to create hundreds of categories. Check List of military aircraft of Japan, there are 20 tyoes of Japanese military aircraft after 1945 and about 100 (I didn't count) in the period 1929-1945. Since the Japanese aviation industry was dismantled in 1945 and rebuild after 1960, there is a clear cut between the pre-war and post-war period. So basicly, we would be fine with 2 categories: Category:Japanese military aircraft until 1945 and Category:Japanese military aircraft after 1945. Now have a look at the category: There is a huge number of subcategories, like Category:Japanese fighter aircraft 1970-1979, and most only contain only one single plane! My suggestion, delete ALL subcategories, create the two categories I suggested, put all planes in one of the two. -- Mkill 01:43, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep all This is the same system as is being used for other countries. It may seem a little over the top, but it won't do to delete it for a single country, as that will just create inconsistency and mislead people about what articles are available on Japanese military aircraft. CalJW 02:59, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Mkill, and all the other military aircraft cats also need to be reorganized. The by decades system isn't very useful. - SimonP 19:51, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you want it this system changed, I think you should make a general proposal. CalJW 01:38, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - consistency is overrated. Ashibaka (tock) 23:17, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I don't mind consistency, but it should not be our top priority. The first and foremost use of categories is to help find articles. With the current order, you have to check 2 layers of categories to find a single plane, if you don't know the exact decade and purpose of it. There are ASW, attack, bomber, fighter, reconnaissance, rescue, trainer, transport or patrol aircraft of the 1930s, 1940s, 1950s, 1960s, 1970s, 1980s, 1990s or 2000s, creating 72 possible categories for under 140 planes, an average of under 2 articles per category. -- Mkill 00:21, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If you want this system changed, which may well be reasonable, please deal with it at a global level rather than just for one country. CalJW 02:04, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete the numerous categories by decade are pointless for one. One might want to find a World War II plane, but would that be 1930-1939 or 1940-1949? And the 1940-1949 is going to pointlessly lump a large number of WWII aircraft with a few post-war designs. However, these problems are not just for Japan but all through the aircraft sub-cats. Joshbaumgartner 00:01, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• NOTE: None of the subcats have been tagged with {{cfd}}. --Kbdank71 16:28, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per CalJW. Christopher Parham (talk) 21:59, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, I checked some other countries and the situation is the same. I will put up a request to delete all Military aircraft by decade categories. -- Mkill 23:23, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the by-decade subcats, Keep the by-type subcats. Grouping these by decade is not a useful gloss of grouping by era. siafu 00:18, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I UPDATED THE CFD FOR ALL COUNTRIES, SEE #Category:Military aircraft sub-sub-sub-categories. THIS ONE IS CLOSED.

• NOTE: None of the subcats have been tagged with {{cfd}}. I'll notify the nominator and keep this open. --Kbdank71 15:33, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, as requested I marked all categories I want to see deleted with {{cfdu|All subcategories of Category:Japanese military aircraft}}. -- Mkill 19:25, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep. Martin 11:02, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Both categories are 95% identical. Art in Japan that is distinctly Un-Japanese (what's that?) probably does not need a nationality category anyway, and Japanese art outside of Japan (i.e. Manga by American artists) would probably not be considered "true" Japanese art where the category would apply. Mkill 01:20, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose They should not be identical. "Xian art" should cover the visual arts, while "Art in X" covers all the arts. That is normal English usage. They may have been 95% identical when you made the nomination, but they aren't now. CalJW 01:35, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per CalJW. Postdlf 20:38, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per CalJW on merging, but do not agree that "Art" (singular) refers clearly to visual art. Category:Japanese art should be renamed to Category:Japanese visual art and split into sculpture, painting, film, etc. siafu 22:24, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per above. I like siafu's suggestion to run a big honking rename on Category:Art by nationality and make it Category:Visual art by nationality and all its subcats. There's also something to be said for a big honking rename(tm) of Category:Arts by country to Category:The Arts by country and its subcats, too. Thats a debate for another day, though The Tom 20:43, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Rename. Martin 09:58, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Woodwind is the more common term and includes instruments such as the flute that have no reed. It also would cause the category naem to parallel that of the newly-created Category:Woodwind musician stubs from the Stub Sorting project. Caerwine 23:12, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

saxaphone is reed but not woodwind. so what happens to sax players? BL kiss the lizard 00:46, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Saxophone is considered a woodwind--see Saxophone. Support. Chick Bowen 05:10, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename. Seems clear enough. siafu 22:27, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus --Kbdank71 21:37, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This clump of categories is a significant chunk of the remaining outliers to the by country/by nationality split. We have the general form Fooian radio/magazines etc., but the parent cats all use by country. I recommend firstly that we conclusively knock it onto one side or the other of this delimitation and then make the various subcats match whatever side it lands on (ie, keeping them Fooian media in the event we go to nationality, moving them en masse to Media in Fooland if we don't rename the parents)

I'm personally in favour of treating media as a fundamentally non-territorial concept, akin to a play or a literary tradition. While it would be possible to empirically file all media sources by the patch of ground on which their CEO's desk is or where the AVID unit that puts together that final cut of a news segment, I don't think gybes with how the average person identifies media: The Times of London is British the same way The Beatles are British, not "of the United Kingdom" the way Loch Ness is "of the United Kingdom." NBC is American the same way line-dancing is American, not "in the United States" the way the Sears Tower is "in the United States." (In fact, there's a whole WTO background to this issue that backs this up involving Sheila Copps and split-run magazines and a ruling by UNESCO that I can't go into at this time, but media studies sorts will no doubt get where I'm going) I think this is especially true in the general globalization-heavy millieu we live in: these days, printing presses and transmission towers and ownership groups or any media outlet that could be used to construct a geospatial frame of reference may be located on entirely different continents from the original cultural location, which endures in the form of the normative cultural identity we all commonly ascribe to that media outlet. (Exhale.) In other words, the BBC is "British media" even when the newscaster is South Asian coming from their Washington studio for broadcast outside the UK on the international service. The Jerusalem Post is "Israeli media" even though it was at one time owned by Canadian/British git. A category name like "Newspapers in France" that includes International Herald Tribune doesn't strike me as superbly effective.

So I'm going to say rename this, Category:Forms of media by country, and that cat's subcats. (I'll tag once I get some sense that I'm not all alone on this one.) The Tom 22:16, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose I agree that the media categories should be "Xish media" but I don't see that it follows the parent needs to renamed. Nationality is for people. I don't accept that there is an inconsistency and I'm happy with it as it is. Normal usage trumps academic nicieties in my opinion. CalJW 01:29, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nationality is not just for people. [2] You're thinking of definition three, which seems roughly synonymous with "citizenship." The first definition is "national character," which is what Fooish media means—Botswanan newspapers is generally taken to mean Newspaper of Botswanan national character, not Newspapers owned by corporations headquartered in the country of Botswana, right? The Tom 19:24, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename Fooian media and media of Foo to media in Foo. Create media by language and Fooian-language media when necessary. — Instantnood 15:15, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename. A subject like this is particularly co-opted for political ends oh so often would really be serve better as "by nationality" than as "by country"; Border blasters, despite being placed in Mexico, were very clearly American in nature. I'm also not convinced that common usage is against the "academic niceties" in this case; normal usage, IMHO, is to refer to media by its national and cultural context. Agree also that "by language" may become useful in the future. siafu 22:36, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Technically the nationality would probably still be "Mexican" and not "of the U.S.". -- User:Docu
• Oppose, keep consistent with Category:Newspapers by country, etc. -- User:Docu
  • Er, "Category:Newspapers by country, etc." is part of this nomination. By switching them in one fell swoop of course they'll be consistent The Tom 04:07, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I guess you had forgotten to tag the categories (it was just done yesterday (13 Nov), please move this discussion up to the correct date). -- User:Docu
• An advantage of using "by country" is that it avoids confusion with "by language" or "by ethnicity" etc. -- User:Docu
  • And unfortunately this confusion is inevitable with this topic. siafu 19:24, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Merge. Martin 11:01, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Straightforward merge and delete underspecific category. The Tom 21:44, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with extreme prejudice. siafu 22:40, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge. -- User:Docu

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus --Kbdank71 21:34, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There must be thousands of existing bios in WP that would need to go in this category, if it were accurately populated. Yeah, it's kind of interesting that Annie Sprinkle has a doctorate, and you could add Ahmad Chalabi or Mahmoud Ahmedinejad to a category called Category:People who hold a doctoral degree even though you wouldn't really think so, but the category as it stands doesn't strike me as very useful. --Trovatore 18:57, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I suppose I wouldn't object to a Category:Doctoral degree holders notable outside academics. --Trovatore 19:01, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • That name is a bit vague, as it could equally refer to public intellectuals like Richard Dawkins who hold a doctorate but are also celebrities. A better idea might be some occupations subcats. For instance Category:Politicians with doctoral degrees or Category:Actors with doctoral degrees could be interesting. These might be better served as a lists, which could be annotated with the institution and subject matter of the degree. Any list or cat would also need to exclude honourary doctorates. - SimonP 19:48, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Those suggestions aren't bad, except I don't think they should be subcats of Category:Doctoral degree holders, because the latter needs to be deleted. For any bio of an academic, it's just sort of the default. A more interesting category would be Category:Notable academics without doctoral degrees. A few people, like Donald A. Martin, just got busy producing results and never really bothered to get the piece of paper. --Trovatore 22:39, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • As regards the Dawkins objection, how about Category:Doctoral degree holders notable for unrelated reasons? I had in mind to exclude people whose notability comes from, say, applying their results in industry (e.g. Wolfram). But I'd want to include people like the Unabomber. --Trovatore 03:26, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • It would probably be better to separate them out according to what they are famous for. Then Theodore Kaczynski could be in Category:Terrorists with a doctoral degree and Angela Merkel could be in Category:Politicians with a doctoral degree. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 20:05, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't see the category being so large as to require such subdivision. But anyway, this is a side issue. Do people agree with me that (i) Category:Doctoral degree holders is currently populated with bios of people whose PhD status is a little bit of a surprise, (ii) if it were accurately populated it wouldn't be very interesting, and thus (iii) should be deleted? --Trovatore 20:11, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete; very closely resembles Category:Academics. The peculiar cases cited in arguments above would make good list-fodder. siafu 22:43, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, or rename per SimonP or Trovatore or Angr. — Instantnood 06:54, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Non-academics with doctoral degrees. Simple, dodges the "notable inside/outside" issue, allows for subcatting into "Politicians with doctoral degrees" and so on if the need arises. The Tom 20:51, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was No consensus. Martin 11:00, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This category is duplicative and unnecessary. It should be merged with Philadelphia, PA.

• Support. See Category:San Francisco County, California for identical situation. --howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 17:07, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and delete . -- Reinyday, 17:29, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose, first, the situation is not similar to San Francisco County, California in that San Francisco County, California and San Francisco, California are the same entenity. Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania and Philadelphia, Pennsylvania are seperate ententitys, as stated in Pennsylvania law and in thr Charte of Philadelphia, they happen to share the same goverment since the 1950's and the same borders since 1850. Lack of articles in a category is not a valad reason for merging, if that is the case then i will start culling categorties that have less then 10 articles as a now presedent will be set. Their are articles that have yet to be written of historical note concering the county, espically those of the boroughs, townships, and, districts that were previously part of the county and that have since been abolished. A merge will do nothing but discourage others from creating artciles that could be informative to other reeaders about historical aspects of the county that are unrelated to the city. That this megers is only a attept by Evrik (talk • contribs) to force a merge of the city and couty articles, which has been opposed by several regular editors to articles Philadelphia and related articles, the usere has also attempted to force a delete of the category by removing the category from articles with out diuscussion, under his userename and two annon accounts. The final thing i have to say is that a concenus of the wrong is still wrong. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 21:59, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the distinction sounds a bit technical, but potentially real, especially for historical articles. --Trovatore 03:22, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Boothy443 and Trovatore. They are not the same thing in their entire history. — Instantnood 15:18, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Any article that would be in a potential Category:Philadelphia County would fit just as well in Category:Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. --D Monack 00:11, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: This Category (and associated articles) have been the subject of a content dispute between User:Evrik and User:Boothy443, and this nomination (made by User:Evrik) seems to me like it is inappropriate while the dispute resolution machinery is still (potentially) at work, even though I agree that it is duplicative. --CComMack 19:24, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Rename. Martin 10:59, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Britain and Ireland" is ambiguous, since Britain may mean Great Britain (the island) or the United Kingdom, and Ireland may mean the island or the Republic. Further, it does not cover the Isle of Man. — Instantnood 16:34, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. --howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 17:05, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename . -- Reinyday, 17:28, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Rename - not just the Isle of Man, but the Channel Islands too. Grutness...wha? 00:25, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Guess the variety plants on the Channel Islands is closer to continental Europe than to (the rest of) the British Isles. :-) — Instantnood 05:41, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • And that's exactly the reason this needs to be specified. The Channel islands are part of the British Isles, but have many species of flora not found in the UK. The name needs to be clear as to whether these are to be included or not. Grutness...wha? 00:07, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Politically the Channel Islands are part of the British Isles, but I wouldn't say they geographically are. (That's why I put "the rest of" in brackets.) — Instantnood 13:25, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Reverve Merge. Martin 10:52, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I created the category Ecuadorian wars to keep the naming in line with the other categories seen in Categories: Wars by country (French wars, United States wars, etc.) I propose to delete "Wars of Ecuador". Andres C. 13:30, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. Firstly, there's no consistency in Category:Wars by country... Category:Wars of the United Kingdom, Category:Polish wars and Category:Conflicts in Canada seem to be rubbing shoulders already. I'd recommend against setting nationality-Foo as the de facto standard—I've long trumpeted the position that there ideally shouldn't be nationality adjectives in "by country" categories at all. Something like the format Category:Wars involving Fooland might be the best if we're looking for a clear standard. The Tom 21:31, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, the lot of them need renaming to "Wars of Foo" to match the "Battles of Foo" categories. Kirill Lokshin 00:24, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree. A clear standard is needed. Also, getting rid of the nationality adjectives altogether is not a bad idea. The thing is, according to the suggestions given by Wikiproject Military history , which I try to stick to, they're still in force. Moreover, the example using the "Hundred Years's War" algorithm specifically makes use of the terms English wars and French wars, hence my removing the articles in "Wars of Ecuador" to "Ecuadorian wars", and my request to delete Wars of Ecuador. I'm not a member of the project, but I'd suggest changing that algorithm to show there's a current discussion going on regarding categorization. Cheers everybody. --Andres C. 20:52, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose, as above, Fooian wars should become Wars of Foo. Joshbaumgartner 00:07, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and reverse merge per above to match Category:Battles by country. siafu 00:08, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Merge into color, as colour only had one article in it. Martin 10:48, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merge (and redirect if possible, but I don't know how that works with categories). I don't have a problem with one spelling or another, so I support a merge the other way too, but clearly there shouldn't be parallel mirrored categories. Interiot 12:44, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge, the main article has Colour redirecting to Color. I can't think of a good reason to have the categories treated differently — Graibeard 13:20, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge in either way, keep the other as {{Categoryredirect}}. — Instantnood 15:15, 8 November 2005 (UTC) Merge to category:colour as per Trovatore and Radiant!. — Instantnood 15:23, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and category redirect, instead of removing Category:Colour, as described above. TexasAndroid 16:28, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to match article. -- Reinyday, 17:30, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

• Keep or merge Color to Colour, the reason for the syndication of the articles with correct spelling of Colour for the 251 countries who spell it that way was to prevent Wiki being seen as less of a resource to local high-schools. I made these changes after a conversation with an associate of mine who is a principal of a college nearby who mentioned that minority-typographical articles make Wiki moot as a learning resource for all but American teens. So to prevent bad habits forming young, it is quite common for Wiki to be overlooked. If anyone can provide a better alternative to handle this situation, it'd be greatly appreciated, but arbitrarily deleting or merging the category won't fix the problem. Jachin 04:08, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• The rule for articles is, first, if the topic is specific to one country/culture/etc you use the preferred spelling there; otherwise, you use the style that the article had initially. Generalizing, whichever of the two categories was first should be the one that keeps its spelling, merge the other one. (BTW I am, to put it mildly, not impressed with the reasoning offered above.) --Trovatore 04:19, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to coloUr, per Trovatore. The only objective criterion we have is using the spelling that happened to be used first. Category:Colour dates August 21, 2004, Category:Color dates September 12, 2004. And use a category redirect. Radiant_>|< 14:37, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the broader sense, if Wikipedia lasts a couple hundred years, the "first spelling" rule will be rediculous, as preferred spellings change over time. However, I do think that "colour" is clearly an alternative that's used in many places, and I think it should appear on Wikipedia sometimes, if only to educate Americans like myself. --Interiot 21:12, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I do agree that the rule is a bit ludicrous, but it's the only objective one we have and any other attempts at creating such kind of rules (e.g. the AD/CE debacle) have been flamed down. Radiant_>|< 00:58, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to color - the article on Color came first and it'd be really bizarre to have the category take the other spelling just because the category name was created that way first when the article name was created the other way before that. And I have to say that User:Jachin's arguments above are offensively jingoistic and contrary to Wikipedia standards. DreamGuy 16:02, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• MERGE to COLOUR to keep both sides of the spelling debate happy, one gets the article name, the other gets the category name. 132.205.45.110 18:10, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Yet another example in my personal belief why Wikipedia will sooner or later need to bite the bullet and start en-us and en-uk wikipedias or find some other mechanism to handle the fact that America and Britain have closely related languages that aren't really the same language. If we can support two separate wikis for the two different Norwegian orthographies, why not for the the different English orthographies? Caerwine 07:10, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that would be terribly wasteful. We can understand each other, so we ought to be editing the same articles, bringing the most possible expertise into each one. The linguistic differences are just not important enough to be worth losing that synergy. All it takes is a little flexibility on everyone's part, and a willingness to leave nationalism, international politics, and so on, out of it. --Trovatore 07:28, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the mention of the BCE/CE/BC/AD issue was very salient. There are several relatively small issues that reasonable editors disagree over, they aren't all necessarily related to the specific country you live in, and in many cases, the best solution is more respect and courtesy by editors. (and/or arbitrary rules like "once someone writes it one way, leave it alone") --Interiot 17:40, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Category:Colour because the article is at Color. The suggestion that American English and British English aren't really the same language because of differences in spelling is ridiculous. Written language isn't language, don't forget. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 20:09, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Move both to Category:Hue, and place category redirects for color and colour. Assuming of course, that we all spell that the same way. siafu 00:12, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Reverse merge. as per User:Angr, to balance that the article uses one English spelling and then the category, the other - in the name of fairness -Mayumashu 14:32, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Reverse merge per Radiant and per Angr. Hiding talk 19:31, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Colour with a U per Radiant - SoM 13:53, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was merge. Martin 10:19, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There are no other subcategories in category:Cartographers and I don't see that there will or should be. This is just another think to click through. It makes it harder for readers to see what is available and discourages categorisation. Merge into Category:Cartographers. CalJW 02:56, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. It is part of the occupations by nationality scheme. -- Reinyday, 17:32, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
  • I was perfectly well aware of that as I may well have done a huge amount of work on the classification of people, but there is no reason why Category:Cartographers can't be placed in Category:Occupations by nationality. CalJW 01:31, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge. I don't like having a separate category for "_____ by nationality". Ashibaka (tock) 23:16, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom, unless or until a new and pertinent way to divide cartographers is presented (i.e., a reasonable other subcat emerges). siafu 00:13, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge as sugguested. Honbicot 23:46, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge, as long as it's placed under category:occupations by nationality. — Instantnood 06:55, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Rename. Martin 10:11, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

For consistency with the other state categories of lakes:

• Category:Lakes in Indiana --> Category:Lakes of Indiana
• Category:Lakes in Maryland --> Category:Lakes of Maryland
• Category:Lakes in Michigan --> Category:Lakes of Michigan

Rename all. — Fingers-of-Pyrex 01:56, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename all CalJW 02:56, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all - Darwinek 11:03, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename to Category:Metalworking measuring instruments --Kbdank71 21:31, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I know there is a slight difference between a tool and an instrument, but after all, both categories are about "an item that is used for measuring". For the sake of simplicity, merge them. Keep the second one because it is shorter -- Mkill 01:26, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This category was setup to provide a place for those measuring tools as used in Metalworking. Admittedly this isn't obvious from the title but adding Metalworking to the title would have made it even more unwieldy. I've now included it as a subcat of Category:Measuring instruments and added a short intro. to the Category which will hopefully satisfy. This is all part of WikiProject Metalworking which is slowly implementing the changes, time permitting. — Graibeard 02:37, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you give your category a name that is exactly what you intended it for: Category:Measuring tools used in Metalworking. This is still shorter than Category:Entertainers who committed suicide in their 20s (yes, weird example, but you get my point?). As it is now, the name doubles with Category:Measuring instruments. -- Mkill 00:26, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per Mkill. The category name should be what the category is, otherwise it's just misleading. Potentially, it could be Category:Metalworking measuring instruments, which at three words is unlikely to produce undue manual and mental strain. siafu 00:16, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per above Category:Metalworking measuring instruments seems suitable, I'll go with that one. — Graibeard 01:29, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, me too. I change my CfM to Rename per siafu. -- Mkill 19:02, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. Martin 10:07, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nominated for quick deletion. It seems that its author wanted a category without "h" (Antony) but instead of CFD have just emptied it. -- Goldie (tell me) 12:37, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete summa cum laude The Tom 20:54, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was No consensus. Martin 10:06, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm migrating the discussion at Category talk:The Beatles songs#Rename? so that I don't have to write all of that over again; hope that's O.K. --Blackcap | talk 18:11, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

(begin migration)

Shouldn't this be titled Category:The Beatles' songs? Having the title not be a possessive sounds horrible. I'll do the change myself if there's no objections. Blackcap | talk 02:26, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've found a precedent: Category:The Rolling Stones songs. After thinking about this for a while, I realized that this title isn't an article (the), a noun (Beatles), and an object (songs), but a compound noun (The Beatles songs) comprised of a noun adjunct (The Beatles) and a noun (songs). I had trouble with this at first because of the article "the" in the name (it's easier to think about it as "Beatles songs"), but I think it's grammatically correct as it is. So, forget the move. Blackcap | talk 17:01, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

After thinking more about this, I've found that this is in violation of Wikipedia:Naming conventions#Avoid the definite article ("the") and the indefinite article ("a"/"an") at the beginning of the page name, which says:

If the definite or indefinite article article would be capitalized in running text, then include it at the beginning of the page name.

Per this, this, and my own personal feelings about how poor this title sounds, I'm going to list this on WP:CfD with the suggestion that this be renamed Category:Beatles songs. I'll do the same with the Rolling Stones category. Note that at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (definite and indefinite articles at beginning of name)#Names of bands and groups there is a brief section covering band names with the word "the" capitalized in front of them (including the Beatles, acually), but since common usage says to leave the "the" uncapitalized, I think it's worthy of bringing up. --Blackcap | talk 17:36, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

(end migration)

• keep the band is called The Beatles. noone calls the band Beatles. BL kiss the lizard 00:49, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's somewhat true. I'd like to note that I, at least, commonly abbreviate the name to just "Beatles" (e.g. "Have you heard this Beatles song?"). However, there are several other points. One is that, as the "the" in "the Beatles" is generally not capitalized, it shouldn't be at the beginning of the cat title, per Wikipedia:Naming conventions. Another is that the grammar in the title is not as clear with the "the" in it, and the alternative title I thought of, The Beatles' songs, doesn't sound good to me (and I think there's a rule somewhere that discourages possessive titles). This seemed like a good alternative, and one that fitted with WP:NC. --Blackcap | talk 05:13, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename as per nom. Consider this example: - "Yesterday is a Beatles song" v. "Yesterday is a the Beatles song". Clearly the first is grammatical standard English and the second is not. Valiantis 13:53, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand, do you want "'Yesterday' is a song by the Beatles", or "'Yesterday' is a song by Beatles"?? 12.73.196.123 03:27, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously the second. Are you proposing the category be called Category:Songs by the Beatles? If so, fine. However, if the choice is between Category:Beatles songs or Category:The Beatles songs then only the first of these is grammatical. Valiantis 14:24, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. If we ask ourselves what this category is for, we can respond either for Beatles songs or for The Beatles songs. Since the band are The Beatles, I think that should be the desired term. Also note, Yesterday can be the Beatles song, as in "Yesterday is one of the Beatles songs", which is how we are referring to it here by categorising it. Hiding talk 19:25, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Either the article "the" qualifies "songs" in the sentence you quote, not "Beatles", or it would be better written with an apostrophe - "the Beatles' songs". I am bemused that I am having to debate this with native speakers of English... Valiantis 13:38, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Okay, what we are doing here when categorising is classification, not creating sentences. When categorising songs, the band name The Beatles becomes a "class", and the term "songs" also becomes a class. Neither class actually has ownership of the other, therefore no apostrophe need come into play. Yes the grammar sounds clunky due to the band name being a plural and containing a definite article. However, perhaps it would help to think of an alternative, such as Neil Diamond. Does my explanation help, when picturing and sounding out this example of classification: Neil Diamond songs? That "The Beatles" contains a plural term and a definitive article does not make the above usage grammatically incorrect for purposes of classification, something perhaps I see clearer because, tongue slightly in cheek, I'm a native English speaker? Hiding talk 14:25, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep.--Fito 03:21, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as is, see guidelines at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Music#Albums.2C_bands.2C_and_songs (#12). pfctdayelise 02:21, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Irrelevant link. The band are indeed called The Beatles as this link states but their songs are Beatles songs (or they are "the Beatles' songs" with an apostrophe or "songs by the Beatles". This is a question of grammar, not one of the nomenclature of the band. Valiantis 13:38, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom - SoM 13:56, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename -- It's a simple matter of grammar. DreamGuy 14:32, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was No consensus. Martin 10:06, 15 November 2005 (UTC) Rename per Category talk:The Beatles songs#Rename?. --Blackcap | talk 18:31, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Note: That conversation has been migrated into the above section, #Category:The Beatles songs to Category:Beatles songs. --Blackcap | talk 18:38, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• keep the band is called The Rolling Stones. noone calls the band Rolling Stones. BL kiss the lizard 00:49, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please see my reply above at #Category:The Beatles songs to Category:Beatles songs, to your similar comment there. --Blackcap | talk 05:16, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename as per nom. Consider the following example: - "Brown Sugar is a Rolling Stones song" v. "Brown Sugar is a the Rolling Stones song". The first is grammatical, the second isn't. QED. Valiantis 13:58, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per easons at #Category:The Beatles songs to Category:Beatles songs. "Brown Sugar is one of The Rolling Stones songs". Where do we place Brown Sugar? In with the rest of The Rolling Stomes songs. Hiding talk 19:27, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • See my comment above re: the Beatles. If you change the grammar of the sentence you get a different result of course - in the sentence you quote the article is part of the construction "one of the", it is not part of "Rolling Stones songs". But you canot use an indefinite article ("a") with "the Rolling Stones" - e.g. "this is a the Rolling Stones song" - hence the root compound noun is "Rolling Stones song". Valiantis 13:45, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • As per my response above, this is not sentence structure but a classification system. "Brown Sugar" is a "song", and is by "The Rolling Stones", something which the classification system, in this case categories, reduces to "The Rolling Stones" "songs". Also note that The Rolling Stones, in the above sentence, is a name, and in that instance "The" is a part of that name or noun, not acting as a definitive article. Granted it is confusing, given the very fluid nature of English, but the syntax in this case is correct insofar as the band name is "The Rolling Stones".
• Keep as is per guidelines at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Music#Albums.2C_bands.2C_and_songs (#12). pfctdayelise 02:22, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • See my comment re: the Beatles above as to why this is irrelevant. No-one is disputing the name of the band, this is a query about grammar. Valiantis 13:45, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per above. Simple matter of grammar. DreamGuy 14:40, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment I think you too are misled by the name of the band. Does Category:Elvis Presley songs help illustrate how the classification system works? Hiding talk 16:08, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. - SoM 15:18, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Rename. Martin 10:05, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per Category talk:Music occupations#New name?. I've migrated the talk here for easier use. --Blackcap | talk 18:37, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

(begin migration)

Seems to me like this ought to be Category:Musical occupations, as "music" is a noun (and should be an adjective). Another option is Category:Occupations in music. I'll make the change if there isn't any opposition in a few days. Blackcap | talk 22:59, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm listing this on WP:CfD, with the proposed change to Category:Occupations in music due to grammar and that a number of "musical occupations" aren't really musical, such as A&R and some of the sub-cats, like Record producers, Managers, and American music industry executives. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories)#General naming conventions says:

Categories should be more or equally as broad as the articles they contain; articles should be more or equally specific as the categories they are in.

Seeing as more than purely musical professions (e.g. Bassist, Clarinetist, Hornist, etc.) are in this cat, I would think that by this guideline the name should be "Occupations in music" rather than simply making the noun "music" into an adjective and so having "Musical occupations." Blackcap | talk 17:55, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

(end migration)

• Rename per nom. siafu 00:22, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was No consensus. Martin 10:03, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Empty category, redundant with Category:Government ministerial offices in Denmark. Relisted here, previously listed for speedy deletion. — Phil Welch 20:44, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Very obviously two different things. I will make a start on populating it. The categorisation of government ministers is a mess for most countries and needs a huge effort to be put in to sort it out. I think "Xish ministers" should be a standard parent category below offices holders and should contain a category for the offices and categories for holders of each office. I will make Category:Government ministerial offices in Denmark a subcategory of Category:Danish ministers CalJW 01:40, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've started to put things into order, but much more work will be needed. There are a lot of problems in this general area. The "lists of ministers" categories are somewhat confusing at they contain the main articles about the offices and they should probably be renamed. There are lots of quirks for each country. The whole ministers and office holders area needs a huge amount of time spent on it. CalJW 02:00, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please, please do not perpetuate "Fooish ministers". As Category:Political office-holders in Canada notes, these categories are organized on the basis of what political jurisdiction each office is created by, not by the nationality of the person who holds the title. That's why it isn't a by-nationality category like Category:Canadian politicians, where the people are treated like any others. The Tom 07:59, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose It is very relevant to be able to assign the articles about the individual holders of a cabinet office to the same category. Most importantly, a single category will00 make it obvious to editors which articles already exist. It should be a simple matter to have a quick check and see if a particular government minister already has an article or not. --Valentinian 09:27, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Ministers of Denmark, unless there's enough concern of confusion over the word minister (government official vs. member of the clergy vs. diplomat). Agree that "offices" and "people" are not the same thing. siafu 00:25, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Government ministers in Fooland is the current standard The Tom 19:08, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.