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: listify. Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:33, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Patrons of the Girls' Day School Trust ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: OCAT and not a defining characteristic for the individuals. It currently has only two members and I'm not sure if this can be expanded since it may not be defining for most members. Vegaswikian1 (talk) 22:32, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Listify in Girls' Day School Trust - Princess Louise is mentioned, but not Princess Alice. Nom is correct in pointing out that being Patron of a society is hardly defining, particularly for members of the Royal Family who are patrons of many, many such organizations, which would lead to great category clutter. Bencherlite^Talk 07:49, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Listify/mention in article, per Bencherlite. Johnbod (talk) 18:12, 29 June 2008 (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: delete. TPH's rationale makes sense. Wizardman 19:50, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Songs written by Anthony Smith ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete He's only had about five or six cuts that were singles, and maybe three at the most are worthy of pages. This category is underpopulated and likely to stay that way. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:12, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep part of wider scheme. Like albums, this only needs one, no? Johnbod (talk) 01:42, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not sure. But just in case anyone's wondering, Lonestar's "What About Now" was written by a different Anthony Smith (as verified per BMI). Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 17:36, 1 July 2008 (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 Category:Stacks to Category:Stacks (geology) per the longstanding custom of article dogs wagging category tails. If and when the article is renamed, Category:Geological stacks will be appropriate. Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:39, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Stacks to Category:Geological stacks

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Current name is ambiguous. Main article is at Stack (geology) so Category:Stacks (geology) is another possibility but I don't care for parens in category names unless absolutely necessary. Otto4711 (talk) 22:06, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Category:Stacks (geology) to match the article, unless we want to move the article to "Geological stack". — CharlotteWebb 14:35, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. 70.55.86.157 (talk) 04:22, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename, preferably per nom. Johnbod (talk) 18:13, 29 June 2008 (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. Kbdank71 13:18, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Logical languages to Category:Engineered languages

Nominator's rationale: Rename. In the article on Constructed language, as well as Engineered language, logical languages are treated as a subset of the latter. In my opinion, it would be good if our categorisation followed the same pattern. Also, there are several languages that would qualify as engineered languages but not as logical languages; currently, for the lack of an alternative, they are classified under Category:Constructed languages, but would easily find a better home in the new category. —IJzeren Jan _Uszkiełtu? 20:57, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since my proposal doesn't seem to evoke much discussion (not that I would have expected that, since the subject is rather specialistic), let me add an argument in favour of renaming. At least half of the languages in this category are not strictly "logical languages". Logical languages are languages based on predicate logic, and there are in fact only two of those: Loglan and Lojban; a third one, Ceqli, has been deleted before. "Engineered languages" is an accepted term nowadays. Now that I think of it, one might as well call them "conceptual languages". These encompass not only the logical languages, but also the philosophical languages and a few other experimental languages. It could be an alternative solution to preserve Category:Logical languages, create subcategories for the other two groups as well, and turn all of them into subcategories of a newly created Category:Engineered languages. But frankly, I don't think that would be a good idea, as all three new subcats would be small; without subcats, a Category:Engineered languages would be nicely populated, but not overpopulated. Also, other conlang types aren't subcategorised to such a degree either. —IJzeren Jan _Uszkiełtu? 07:37, 6 July 2008 (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: delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:43, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Athletes by city ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: only sub cat page listed for this cat page is nominated for merger, two nominations down this page; participates in athletics by city is unlikely to be a necessary supercategory at any point Mayumashu (talk) 20:52, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Johnbod (talk) 18:14, 29 June 2008 (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: NO CONSENSUS. Postdlf (talk) 05:38, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Oklahoma (state) actors to Category:Oklahoma actors

Nominator's rationale: To match the naming convention of all the subcats of the parent category (with the obvious exception of Georgia). No need to disambig to confuse it with actors who've appeared in adapations of Oklahoma, as that category can't exist due to Overcat by performance. Lugnuts (talk) 20:00, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - cat was originally named per the proposal but was changed for exactly that reason, to avoid the ambiguity. Otto4711 (talk) 20:44, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. As Otto4711 said, Category:Oklahoma actors is ambiguous. Vegaswikian1 (talk) 22:04, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What ambiguity? Oklahoma the state and Oklahoma! the show. Lugnuts (talk) 08:13, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Better idea would be Category:Actors from Oklahoma (as part of a mass CFD), unless there is some reason for occupation-by-state categories not to follow the example of people-by-state parent categories (see Category:People from Oklahoma, and not Category:Oklahoma people). — CharlotteWebb 14:28, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I think the reason is category name brevity. Foo actors is shorter than Actors from Foo. But the scheme is hardly consistent across state and national lines so I have no objection to making the entire structure Actors from Foo. Otto4711 (talk) 12:27, 29 June 2008 (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. Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:42, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Athletes from Omaha, Nebraska and Category:Omaha sportspeople to Category:Nebraska sportspeople (part of Category:American sportspeople by state)

Nominator's rationale: no precedent for Category:American sportspeople by city Mayumashu (talk) 17:50, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge both to Category:Nebraska sportspeople and Category:People from Omaha, Nebraska. (Category:American sportspeople by state is surely also dubious as well, as most states are not represented.) -- roundhouse0 (talk) 18:48, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Following the rule of WP:BOLD, I created the category with the logic that we list dozens of other occupations by city, and thus, why not athletes? This could be a significant - and useful - addition to the realm of categorization this falls within. • Freechild'sup? 01:16, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait - Rereading this nomination, I believe now that it is far too broad to actually execute. This would actually setback the categorization of people by profession. In the case of Category:Athletes from Omaha, Nebraska, Category:Omaha sportspeople and Category:Nebraska sportspeople upon review you will find that the Omaha categories are more heavily filled than the state category. Not having a category is not an excuse to not create a category; it is actually all the more reason to - that is how WP grows. So I change my note to Strongly keep. • Freechild'sup? 01:26, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If the talk here in the end supports keeping this cat page, I support a rename to Category:Sportspeople from Omaha, Nebraska, to avoid possible confusion with track and field athletes Mayumashu (talk) 02:09, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• It is true that there has been an attempt to start Category:People from Omaha by occupation (unlike say Category:People from London or Category:People from New York City). It is my view that 'people by city by occupation' is a bad idea. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 09:15, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it certainly opens things up for a whole extra layer that doesn t exist now. I personally don t mind what many would see as clutter, in having someone listed as a Omaha sportsperson, Nebraska sportsperson, and an American tennis player, without having one be a true subcat of the other Mayumashu (talk) 18:19, 27 June 2008 (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: withdrawn by nominator. Enigma ^message 21:37, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:American women judges to Category:American female judges

Nominator's rationale: If this category should be kept, it should be under another name. Enigma ^message 17:42, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - as subcat of Category:Women judges, Category:American women by occupation. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 08:54, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• keep we are talking about 'women' here, not 'females' which includes children. We do not have children as judges in the US. Nominators should read the parent categories before nominating. Hmains (talk) 23:13, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• keep Consistant with its parent category. Dimadick (talk) 17:26, 28 June 2008 (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 Category:Shanti Bahini to Category:Chittagong Hill Tracts Conflict. Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:45, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Shanti Bahini to Category:Chittagong Hill Tracts Conflict

Nominator's rationale: Shanti Bahini is a militia that is part of the Chittagong Hill Tracts Conflict and not the main article. Right now the Shanti Bahini category contains many articles not related to the militia itself but the broader conflict. Vishnava _talk 17:04, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• rename per nom. A reasonable change, given the contents. Hmains (talk) 03:16, 28 June 2008 (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: delete/rename/merge per nom. Per discussion here and precedent regarding "failures" in other CFD's and at AFD. Kbdank71 13:26, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Commercial failures ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) → delete

Category:Failed airliners ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) → Category:Category:Discontinued airliners

Category:Failed Microsoft initiatives ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) → Category:Uncompleted Microsoft initiatives

Category:Commercial failure lists ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) → merge to Category:Business lists

Nominator's rationale: Discuss - this category structure has been to CFD twice before, with both the first and the second closing no consensus. However, mixed in amongst them two of the subcats, video game failures and automobile commercial failures were CFDed separately and deleted. My suggestion, from the last structure-wide CFD: rename Category:Failed airliners to Category:Discontinued airliners and parent it under Category:Airliners; rename Category:Failed Microsoft initiatives to Category:Uncompleted Microsoft initiatives and parent under Category:Microsoft initiatives; upmerge Category:Commercial failure lists to Category:Business lists; delete Category:Commercial failures both as unacceptably POV/subjective and because it would then be empty.. Otto4711 (talk) 16:18, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support all actions per nom as current structure is unacceptably biased. — CharlotteWebb 17:56, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all except the Microsoft one, which rename. These are not the solutions. It is silly to create Category:Category:Discontinued airliners, which potentially would include several hundred articles, just for fewer than ten notable commercial flops. What is the point of losing the list sub-cat in a huge head cat? Johnbod (talk) 01:49, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• If you feel that strongly about it, make a list article and source the entries. Otto4711 (talk) 01:18, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Category:Commercial failure and Category:Commercial failure lists. The first is completely POV, with random inclusions and questionable basis of inclusion. The second is an arbitrary category with little content. Support the other two suggestions. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:29, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. "Commercial failure" is not POV as long as each article has references to back it up. Feezo (Talk) 06:13, 28 June 2008 (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: not renamed. The nominator's asserted analog, Category:Mesoamerica scholars, actually contains culture-specific subcategories, including Category:Aztec scholars. As the rename here would be contrary to that structure, it should at the very least not occur without express support. The nominator is, of course, free to create Category:Andean scholars as a parent category for Category:Incan scholars, if appropriate. Postdlf (talk) 05:52, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Incan scholars to Category:Andean scholars

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Incan scholars is a narrow concept akin to "Aztec scholars". A wider and more frequently used concept is "Andean scholars" which refers to the whole cultural area in which the Incas and other civilizations developed. This would make this category similar to Category:Mesoamerica scholars. Victor12 (talk) 04:14, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Re-listed from Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 June 26#Category:Incan scholars due to lack of participation. No opinion on whether to rename this. — CharlotteWebb 13:05, 26 June 2008 (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: } delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:46, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Role-playing languages ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Completely redundant category. Contained only one article that was also categorised in category:fictional languages anyway. —IJzeren Jan _Uszkiełtu? 10:56, 26 June 2008 (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: delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:47, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Kitty Girls ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete as eponymous overcategorisation. Category is not needed for one article and an image that is already in the article. Bencherlite^Talk 08:00, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - very true. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 09:10, 26 June 2008 (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: delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:51, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Notable Members of the Girls' Day School Trust to Category:People associated with the Girls' Day School Trust

Nominator's rationale: Rename to avoid use of "notable" in category title. Bencherlite^Talk 07:16, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete pending some evidence that this is a defining characteristic for these people. Clearly, category:Patrons of the Girls' Day School Trust is OCAT and will be nominated for deletion. It is possible that Category:Presidents of the Girls' Day School Trust might be defining but when you remove the articles that don't include a mention, you are left with only 1 article. Bottom line all three of these probably should simply be deleted as OCAT. Vegaswikian1 (talk) 22:28, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have no strong views about whether this category should be retained – I found it cleaning up the Orphanage. Both Grey and Shirreff are already mentioned in Girls' Day School Trust so no listification is required. Bencherlite^Talk 07:54, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as small & unlikely to expand, unless someone is preparing to write a series of biographies of girls' school heasteachers. Johnbod (talk) 18:16, 29 June 2008 (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: moved to Wikipedia:User_categories_for_discussion#June_26. Bencherlite^Talk 08:26, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:User Hindi to Category:User hi

Nominator's rationale: Unneeded duplication of Category:User hi, which it is a sub-category of --Snigbrook ^(talk) 01:18, 26 June 2008 (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: moved to Wikipedia:User_categories_for_discussion#June_26. Bencherlite^Talk 08:26, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who support the headscarf in Turkey ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Unencyclopedic category per WP:SOAP, not useful for collaboration as only encompassing users with the same point of view on the issue. Additionally, although it is currently only being used by one user, it is a category included as part of a userbox. --Snigbrook ^(talk) 00:58, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• ...in which case, you should have listed this (and the one above this) at Wikipedia:User categories for discussion, not here, no? Grutness...wha? 03:24, 26 June 2008 (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. — CharlotteWebb 14:21, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Ministers of Education and Science of the Republic of Lithuania to Category:Ministers of Education and Science of Lithuania

Nominator's rationale: Rename. "the Republic of" is not necessary since the Republic of Lithuania is called Lithuania in the English WP. Notified creator with {{subst:cfd-notify}} Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:58, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I do not have objections.--Lokyz (talk) 01:06, 26 June 2008 (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. Kbdank71 13:37, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Hokkaidō Prefecture to Category:Hokkaidō

Nominator's rationale The category (and all its subcategories) are based on the article for Hokkaidō. "Hokkaidō Prefecture" is not an accepted name for the island/prefecture of Japan. (The link for Hokkaidō Prefecture redirects to Hokkaidō, etc.) Douggers (talk) 00:37, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose the target is ambiguous. Categories should not be ambiguously named. I think that the island is also more likely to be thought of rather than the prefecture, in the English-speaking world (ie. WWII - Japanese Home Islands). You could rename it Category:Hokkaido (prefecture)... 70.51.8.247 (talk) 05:09, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that it is ambiguous because the category is based on the article Hokkaidō, which starts with "Hokkaidō...is Japan's second largest island and the largest, northernmost of its 47 prefectural-level subdivisions." That shows that it includes both the island and the prefecture. Douggers (talk) 05:22, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is not an article, so people will not read the article before categorizing things in it. If you rename it, you will need to police it to keep it properly populated, more than is currently necessary, because people will invariably categorize things more properly categorized for the island in the prefecture category, thus leaving the island category underpopulated. 70.55.85.123 (talk) 04:28, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that people might not check the article, but the article shows that the prefecture and the island are commonly accepted as synonymous terms and having separate categories would be confusing and redundant. Douggers (talk) 04:56, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support As already established in the manual of style it is unnecessary to include prefecture behind the name Hokkaidō since -dō is aready included in the name. The island and prefecture are virtually synonymous. As far as these categories are concerned they are synonymous as well.imars (talk) 06:25, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I misread the MOS. I think we should be able to leave out the prefecture.

This is not an article. 70.55.85.123 (talk) 04:28, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. See the related Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (Japan-related articles)#Proposal to change Manual of Style: Write "Hokkaidō" without "Prefecture", which four people have supported and none have opposed so far. The proposal would cover articles and categories. Fg2 (talk) 00:53, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose in this one case because you can not have category redirects (or at least they do not work well), and this needs to be specific and consistent with the other prefecture categories. or all other uses, I support dropping the "Prefecture". ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 04:41, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But having a article and a category with different names that cover the same topic is confusing. Most of the people doing the categorizing will know the topic, so keeping "Prefecture" attached in this one instance seems to be more of a hindrance than a help. Why would Hokkaidō be in the category "Hokkaidō Prefecture" if it's never called by that name? I made this proposal for consistency.

Consistency is bad when it leads to ambiguity because of maintenance issues. I also doubt that many people doing the categorizing will not assume the category is for the island, since in the English speaking world, the island is more widely known than the prefecture. They'd have to look at the article. Considering how people categorize things right now, I doubt that alot of people know category trees all that well, since they don't categorize that well. 70.55.202.181 (talk) 23:19, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the complete list of Hokkaidō related categories:

• Category:Hokkaidō region — Could apply to the prefecture or the island.
• Category:Hokkaidō Railway Company — Not relevant to our discussion unless you want to rename this to Hokkaidō Prefectural Railway Company (joke).
• Category:Hokkaidō Prefecture — Refers to the prefecture.
• Category:Hokkaidō geography stubs — Could apply to the prefecture or the island.
• Category:Hokkadio region — Same as above without the macron.
• Category:Hokkaido railway station stubs — Could refer to the prefecture or the island.
• Category:Hokkaido Prefecture — Same as above without the macron.
• Category:Hokkaido Nippon Ham Fighters — Not relevant to our discussion.
• Category:Hokkaido Nippon Ham Fighters players — Not relevant to our disucssion.

So only the catagory Hokkaidō Prefecture makes the distinction between island and prefecture. Douggers wants to make our use of these categories consistent. Rishiri Island is a Hokkaidō geography stub. Technically it is not part of the island, but it is part of the prefecture. Should we have separate prefecture and island geography stubs? I say no because nobody draws a distinction between the two. User 70.55.202.181 is trying to establish a distinction that does not exist in practice.imars (talk) 06:23, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the list and support, but don't forget subcategories (eg. Category:Cities in Hokkaidō Prefecture, etc.) There are about 13 of them, I believe, and they can be found here: Category:Hokkaidō Prefecture. Douggers (talk) 07:26, 2 July 2008 (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 Category:Fantasy novels by series to Category:Fantasy novel series. Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:52, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Fantasy novels by series to Category:Fantasy novel series

Nominator's rationale: Moved from speedy, see below for rationale. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:05, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fantasy novels by series to Category:Fantasy novel series — To conform with Wikipedia naming conventions for categories (as seen in similar categories Category:Novel series and Category:Crime novel series. Mr. Absurd (talk) 19:45, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • Not a speedy candidate. To qualify, it must be specifically addressed at Wikipedia:Naming_conventions (categories), not just be out of whack with all the other categories you can find. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:14, 22 June 2008 (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.