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

The result of the discussion was: rename all. — ξ^xplicit 22:37, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Rename per this discussion and this CfD. ^{şṗøʀĸɕäɾłäů∂ɛ:τᴀʟĸ} 01:28, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, but let's get the rest of these country categories into this nomination whenever the nominator has time. We have precedent, so there's no need to wait.--Mike Selinker (talk) 02:15, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note still adding. Help would be nice, it is not hard, just boring, since it is mostly copy and pasting. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:34, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm sorry, but I thought we had a bot for this. Can we use it?--Mike Selinker (talk) 04:12, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment We seem to be on parallel paths here; I just encountered this CfD on Category:Former populated places in Mexico where I was about to place a CfR to Category:Formerly populated places in Mexico. I've already done so on the parallel Canada, Greenland, Central America ones and am about to do the same to "in the United States". Please be mindful of correct English grammar/usages when proposing/changing category names!!Skookum1 (talk) 22:26, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • That was discussed in the early changes of the former categories. I believe the consensus was to use former over formerly. Anyone have the time to look up that discussion? Vegaswikian (talk) 23:05, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually there were two previous nominations in this area. The last was here and the first where the former v formerly issue was raised. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:12, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I proposed "Formerly" before, but quickly withdrew the suggestion after it was made clear that it wasn't "places that were once populated" but rather "Populated places that have lost their designations."--Mike Selinker (talk) 04:12, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. I consider this to be mere rubber-stamping as there has already been a comprehensive discussion in a previous debate. __meco (talk) 07:14, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You realise that you've missing tons of existing sub categories which are still named c , t and v in /.. Province. What about Afghanistan, Nepal, Bulgaria Category:Settlements in Brazil by region etc? It isn't just Syria, it is tens of other countries. If you are changing the parent categories then you must also change the sub categories from cities, towns and villages. You've even missed countries like Category:Cities, towns and villages in Costa Rica. If this must be done please esnure that all categories which have the cities, towns and villages naming or "Settlements" naming are fully changed. I suggest you carefully go through each country and list the ones which are split into provinces ordering. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 21:27, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at this subsequent nomination.--Mike Selinker (talk) 02:58, 22 May 2010 (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.

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. For the time being, I'm going to merge this so that the convention of Category:South African football (soccer) players is followed. Among its six sub-cats, Category:South Africa international footballers is the odd man out, so it will be merged into Category:South Africa international football (soccer) players for now. A full changeover to using association football should be done by nominating the entire South African tree, not one piece at a time. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 05:27, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:South Africa international footballers and Category:South Africa international football (soccer) players

Nominator's rationale: No need for both cats. Consensus should be reached about a rename. Perhaps including "association football" in title to avoid disambiguation with other football codes common in South Africa. DjlnDjln (talk) 23:02, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge both to Category:South Africa international association footballers for clarity, particularly within the SA context. Mayumashu (talk) 00:46, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nomination. We should not be doing the transition to "association footballers" piecemeal. I do support that change overall, but in a deluge, not a trickle.--Mike Selinker (talk) 20:46, 23 May 2010 (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.

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

The result of the discussion was: rename all. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 09:46, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:TAD albums to Category:Tad (band) albums

Propose renaming Category:TAD video albums to Category:Tad (band) video albums

Nominator's rationale: Per main article, Tad (band). —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:43, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. Occuli (talk) 22:55, 15 May 2010 (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.

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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:17, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:List of Palestinian record producers redundant to Category:Palestinian record producers

Nominator's rationale: "Palestinian record producers" would be a more suitable name; redundant. Airplaneman ✈ 21:49, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. Both categories were created just a few minutes apart, with the correctly-named one coming later, so it's possible this was just an error that didn't get fully corrected. But it's true that they are redundant and the target is named properly. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:10, 17 May 2010 (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.

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. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 09:48, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Pacific Northwest Ballet to Category:Ballet companies in the United States and Category:Pacific Northwest

Nominator's rationale: Merge. Merge into both parents. Single entry category with limited short term expansion. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:36, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ξ^xplicit 19:58, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support merge per the nominator's rationale. Airplaneman ✈ 21:59, 15 May 2010 (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.

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: Triple upmerge into proposed targets and Category:Controversies in the United States. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:20, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:2006 controversies in the United States to Category:2006 controversies and Category:2006 in the United States

Propose merging Category:2009 controversies in the United States to Category:2009 controversies and Category:2009 in the United States

Nominator's rationale: Merge. There are not so many articles in the parent controversies by year as to require further subdivision by country. Tim! (talk) 17:35, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ξ^xplicit 19:58, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Upmerge both per nom, but also to Category:Controversies in the United States (3rd parent). Occuli (talk) 22:58, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge to all three per Occuli. JackJud (talk) 11:08, 17 May 2010 (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.

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. — ξ^xplicit 22:37, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming category:QWERTY smartphones to category:QWERTY mobile phones

Nominator's rationale:QWERTY mobile phones are not necessarily smartphones. There are a few QWERTY keyboard mobile phone that are not clearly smartphones e.g. LG KS360 and Nokia C3. No dedicated category QWERTY feature phones exists, nor should it be created because QWERTY phone is more or less independent from feature phone versus smartphone. Andries (talk) 16:17, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• • See also [1] The definition of a smartphone was updated recently. Andries (talk) 11:27, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note. Category is not tagged. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:28, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support rename - The proposed name more accurately describes the articles in the category, as the nominator said. Airplaneman ✈ 22:01, 15 May 2010 (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.

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. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 04:39, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Mexican Plateau states by state to Category:Mexican Plateau states

Nominator's rationale: Rename. "by state" is unnecessary here. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:49, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support rename - the "by state" isn't necessary, as the nominator said. Airplaneman ✈ 22:02, 15 May 2010 (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.

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

The result of the discussion was: rename all. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 09:53, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming:

• Category:Loyola College in Maryland to Category:Loyola University Maryland
• Category:Loyola College in Maryland alumni to Category:Loyola University Maryland alumni
• Category:Loyola College in Maryland faculty to Category:Loyola University Maryland faculty

Nominator's rationale: Rename. The school adopted the "University" designation in August 2009. Dale Arnett (talk) 05:13, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support rename of all per the university's new name: Loyola University Maryland. Airplaneman ✈ 22:03, 15 May 2010 (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.

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. — ξ^xplicit 21:04, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Activists for Japanese-American civil rights to Category:Japanese-American civil rights activists

Nominator's rationale: Restore the previous name for the category, as not all members of the category were activists specifically for Japanese-American civil rights. Some petitioned for Asian American civil rights. Others such as Richard Aoki participated in larger civil rights movements.Myasuda (talk) 04:30, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Request - could we have some info on why the previous one was renamed, and how? (It seems to have been Category:Japanese American civil rights activists.) The 2 categories seem to me to be quite different. Occuli (talk) 13:47, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also curious about the rationale for the prior rename -- I took a quick look for the related discussion but couldn't find it. Since the history of Category:Activists for Japanese-American civil rights mentions the user Mayumashu, I've placed a request at User talk:Mayumashu for more information. — Myasuda (talk) 14:10, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Google suggests it was a speedy nominated by Mayumashu. See eg cached page. It shouldn't have been a speedy. Category:Latino civil rights activists is being speedied by M at the moment, but in a different direction. Occuli (talk) 14:57, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename (then) to Category:American civil rights activists of Japanese descent (as per standard Category:American people of Japanese descent). I thought that listed were activists for Japanese-American rights, but if some petitioned for Asian-American rights and not particularly Japanese-American ones, then, indeed, the rename was erroneous. Mayumashu (talk) 15:35, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• remame per nom A review of the articles shows the people worked for civil rights (Japanese or more general), not just 'activism', whatever that is. Hmains (talk) 17:56, 15 May 2010 (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.

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

The result of the discussion was: Rename all. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:38, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming:

Nominator's rationale: Rename all, following my proposal and ensuing discussion (permalink) at WT:ALBUMS. To summarize, I made this proposal to rename all the categories and subcategories of Category:Albums by artist to use the Albums by Fooian artist, as opposed to its current scheme, Fooian albums. This is preceded by Category:Films by director, as the scheme used by its subcategories is Films by Fooian directors, not Fooian films by director. Basically, the artists are the subjects that are being defined by nationality, not the albums themselves. Although albums can be nation-specific (for example, if an album is released only in Canada, I suppose it can be called a Canadian album), this category is not grouping albums by this method, nor do we currently categorize albums by nation-specific release; my arguments against such categorization can be found in the discussion linked in the opening sentence.

Anywho, back to my proposal. I feel that categorizing albums under Category:American albums, Category:British albums, etc., is both misleading and incorrect. An album can't possibly be nationalized, especially if the album is recorded in a different country than that of the artist, or recorded in multiple countries. As the categories become more refined, the problem becomes all the more evident. For example, take a look at Category:French hip hop albums. Personally, I see a big problem here. Are these pages categorized by albums of French hip hop? Perhaps hip hop albums in the French language, but not necessarily by French people? Or maybe exactly what it's supposed to be categorizing: hip hop albums by people of French nationality. And this is just one category. There are others with this exact same problem; there are categories that don't even exist yet, but would run into the exact same problem once they are created.

I find that this current naming scheme is ambiguous at best, downright confusing at worst. The proposed renames of the categories would remove any confusion and would more adequately describe the contents of these categories. — ξ^xplicit 00:02, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename as nominated. This is a fantastic idea. These have always irked me because of their ambiguous/incorrect meaning. They always sound to me as if we are categorizing based on what country the album was produced in, which is not at all what is intended. This brings a lot of clarity to what now is, frankly, a long-standing dogs breakfast. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:36, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

produced? rather, where they were sold. There was a time when UK and US releases were quite different. But it's so far gone, it hardly matters now. Are they still presing hardcopy CDs at all? East of Borschov (talk) 14:25, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong rename I have talked with Explicit about this same issue and I fully support his proposal. Is an "American album" one that was recorded in America? By Americans? For the American audience? These proposed names are more cumbersome, but more intelligible. Note that I have also nominated Category:Compilation albums by country for renaming. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:52, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all Per nom. Lugnuts (talk) 09:05, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. I was never confused about what was intended here, but enough other people were that it's certainly worth choosing a clearer and more transparent naming format. Bearcat (talk) 18:27, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Agree. Should it be Category: Albums by Fooian artist or artists, following the convention of the parent Category:Albums by artist (or maybe that one should be changed to artists). The similarly-named song categories should follow suit. And should the genre cats be Category:Albums by Fooian artists by genre rather than Category:Albums by genre by Fooian artists? --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 20:42, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  The nomination pluralizes the Albums by Fooian artists as the subcategories of Category:Films by director do; I'm not entirely sure if this follows a set naming convention, but it makes more sense to me. I do plan to bring Category:Songs by country and several other categories that use the Fooian subject as opposed to Subject by Fooian whatever where needed. I didn't want to rush these nominations if they would fall through (although, this nomination seems to be running by smoothly). As for your last point, I think you're right, and I've amended six of the nominations under "Fooian albums by genre" accordingly. — ξ^xplicit 21:01, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename all to "by artist" rather than "by artists". All of the parallel categories—Category:Films by director, Category:Games by designer, et al.—do not pluralize. There's no reason to violate that protocol here.--Mike Selinker (talk) 02:19, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Category:Albums by artist isn't being nominated, but the subcategories within. The subcategories of the examples you gave both have pluralized subcategories—just as examples, Category:Films by American directors, Category:Robin Laws games and so on. — ξ^xplicit 02:34, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  You are most correct. Changing my vote to Rename all.--Mike Selinker (talk) 16:50, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename all per nom. – IbLeo^(talk) 14:25, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment Please include Quebec in the renaming proposed. Quebec is a regional music category, but I am told they are about to get their own portal. They must follow the new naming conventions proposed. Argolin (talk) 06:06, 21 May 2010 (UTC) [reply]

• Which category would that be? I don't think I came across any type of Quebec albums or similar categories. — ξ^xplicit 06:35, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename. Concern considered by nominator. Argolin (talk) 02:31, 22 May 2010 (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.