Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 August 27

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:Famous Squatters to Category:Squatters. --Xdamr^talk 19:48, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Famous Squatters to Category:Squatters

Nominator's rationale: Rename. "Famous" is unnecessary. If they have an article on WP, in theory they are notable; i.e., "famous", in a way. (I'm not sure how defining this is for some of those included, though.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:46, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. "Famous" is just WP:PEA. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:14, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename. Makes sense. "Famous" is a subjective term, and any notable person who can verifiably be included should be included, regardless of being "famous" or not. Jafeluv (talk) 09:15, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per all above. Debresser (talk) 22:27, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Rename to remove puffery. Alansohn (talk) 20:45, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. --Xdamr^talk 14:27, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:People from Gulf Province to Category:People from Gulf Province, Papua New Guinea

Nominator's rationale: Way too vague; a lot of countries have gulf regions, provinces, etc. Seems like a no-brainer and a win-win suggestion. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 22:45, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I don't necessarily disagree with the proposal, but as far as I am aware there is only one Gulf Province, meaning disambiguation would be unnecessary. The only place categories that we seem to always disambiguate for, even when it's "unneeded", are those of U.S. cities. The parent category is Category:Gulf Province. Category has not been tagged. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:48, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category tagged, sorry my bad. Hope I did it right. Thanks for the reminder. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 23:56, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree with a rename specifying the country, since I have long believed all towns and provinces should carry a country qualificator. Otherwise we are likely to get into trouble with systematical bias on Wikipedia. Debresser (talk) 22:26, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure. I appreciate the support, but I was not thinking on any such grand scale. I was referring solely to the Papuan Gulf Province for the reasons above. I think any such broad-based change would require extensive discussion at a more appropriate venue. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 16:06, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since the article for the place in question is at Gulf Province, what exactly is the threat of confusion in this case? Or is it just theoretical? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:26, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Rename As a matter of standard, we should have category titles directly corresponding to the title of the parent article. As all the geographic points at the provincial level worldwide appear to be adequately cataloged, this appears to be the only Gulf Province and the category title should be the same. If there is some other Gulf Province and this article is disambiguated in the future, then -- and only then -- should we rename the category. Alansohn (talk) 23:55, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

:I still like Category:People from the Papuan Gulf Province but I'm not attached to it. I would say as nominator that it's probably time to close out but there does not appear to be a clear majority either way. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 22:18, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Emphasize original nominating position

Hey everybody -- I just came across this (Category:People_from Central Province (Papua New_Guinea)), which shows that there is more than one vague province in Papua New Guinea and contradicts, with all due respect, the position of User:Good Olfactory that "The only place categories that we seem to always disambiguate for, even when it's "unneeded", are those of U.S. cities." Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 22:58, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, I think you've misunderstood. Category:People from Central Province (Papua New_Guinea) and Category:Central Province (Papua New Guinea) are disambiguated because Central Province is ambiguous—it is a disambiguation page. In contrast, Gulf Province is not, as far as WP demonstrates—ambiguous. Gulf Province is not a disambiguation page. That's why the distinction exists. Whether we should disambiguate all categories whether they need it or not, as we do with U.S. cities, is a completely different issue, one that we probably can't tackle in this limited nomination. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:45, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, I understand that and as I mentioned earlier I definitely am not suggesting that we start disambiguating foreign countries cities, etc. when it isn't necessary. Also I agree this is certainly not the venue for any such discussion. How does Category:People from the Papuan Gulf Province sound? Maybe we should consider closing out given the stalemate. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 00:43, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused then. If you are not suggesting we disambiguate when it isn't necessary as a general rule, why do you say disambiguating in this case is appropriate? What is the other "Gulf Province" we are referring to that confusion could result with? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 11:18, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is no other "Gulf Province" that I am aware of, but there are plenty of geographic names that include the word "Gulf", i.e. Persian Gulf, Gulf of Mexico, Lingayen Gulf, Gulf Savannah, Gulf Coast, Gulfport, Gulf of Tonkin, Bohai Gulf, et al. (I still like Category:People from the Papuan Gulf Province). Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 14:20, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Why do you get more aggressive after I suggest we close out, instead of just agreeing? There are not enough votes for my nomination and this is not an important matter, so I just don't get it. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 14:20, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have not been trying to be aggressive at any point; I'm just trying to understand your rationale and comments. Sorry if I have been misunderstood. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:01, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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:Retailers by country to Category:Retail companies by country. --Xdamr^talk 19:49, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Retailers by country to Category:Retail companies by country

Nominator's rationale: Rename. To reflect in the name the fact that this is for companies as indicated by it's parent category, Category:Companies by industry and country and the actual contents of the subcategories. It is possible that some minor cleanup may be needed in the subcategories after this clarification of purpose is implemented. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:56, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• comment many of the subcats of Category:Retailers by country also need to be similarly renamed. Hmains (talk) 03:01, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • All of them have already been nominated - the discussion concerned is awaiting closure. See here. Grutness...wha? 22:29, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nominator, and thumbs up for his initiative. Debresser (talk) 22:23, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename following the sub-cats and parent. Some members of Category:Shops in England may not be companies but the overall picture is clear. - Fayenatic (talk) 22:52, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose -- Retailers are not necessarily companies. They may be sole traders or partnerships. A sole trader with a shop (or a small chain of shops) would probably be NN in that capacity, but might well be notable for other reasons. This will apply particularly historically, when incorporation was less common. For example Jesse Boot, 1st Baron Trent, founder of Boots the Chemists was clearly a retailer, though more specifically categorised. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:14, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The fact that there will be a few exceptions that will need to be addressed does not mean we should avoid a rename to reflect the vast majority of what is contained. It will be much easier to clean up a few exceptions then to manually move all of the companies. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:38, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also, this objection can be addressed by adding CatRel to link to Category:Businesspeople in retailing (and its national sub-cats). - Fayenatic (talk) 18:56, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Rename to match the prevailing standard in the parent Category:Companies by industry and country. Alansohn (talk) 23:58, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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:Murasame class destroyers to Category:Murasame class destroyers (1994). --Xdamr^talk 19:50, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Murasame class destroyers to Category:Murasame class destroyers (1994)

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Disambiguated category name to parallel main article, Murasame class destroyer (1994). (Compare: Murasame class destroyer (1958) and Category:Murasame class destroyers (1958).) — Bellhalla (talk) 21:27, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nominator. Debresser (talk) 22:22, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Rename to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 00:00, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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:Akatsuki class destroyers to Category:Akatsuki class destroyers (1931). --Xdamr^talk 19:50, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Akatsuki class destroyers to Category:Akatsuki class destroyers (1931)

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Disambiguated category name to parallel main article, Akatsuki class destroyer (1931). (Compare: Akatsuki class destroyer (1901) and Category:Akatsuki class destroyers (1901).) — Bellhalla (talk) 19:12, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nominator. Debresser (talk) 22:21, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Rename to match title of parent article and to properly disambiguate. Alansohn (talk) 00:01, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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:LGBT military personnel from the United States to Category:American LGBT military personnel. --Xdamr^talk 20:00, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:LGBT military personnel from the United States to Category:American LGBT military personnel

Nominator's rationale: Rename - per all other categories in Category:Military personnel by nation. This is probably speediable under C2 but with the additional modifier I thought it best to check in here. Otto4711 (talk) 16:18, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename, for consistency with sibling categories. You're right to bring it here, since moves from country names to adjectives are explicitly not included in the speedy move criteria. Jafeluv (talk) 00:24, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose -- WP uses United States, not American, for USA, because Canadians and Mexicans are also north Americans, while Argentinians are also American. Category:United States LGBT military personnel would be acceptable. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:16, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:American people says different, specifically Category:American military personnel. Where "in the United States" tends to be used is when there is a further sub-categorization by geo-political division, i.e. Category:People by state in the United States, Category:People by territory in the United States, etc. Of course, contrarians that we are, Category:LGBT people from the United States is an exception but the sub-categories are mixed. We also use Category:Mexican people, not Category:People from Mexico (redirect to Mexican people), Category:Canadian people, not Category:People from Canada (redirect to Canadian people) and Category:Argentine people, not Category:People from Argentina. Otto4711 (talk) 15:09, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Rename to match the Fooian format used in parent Category:Military personnel by nation. Alansohn (talk) 00:07, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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:Kamikaze class destroyers to Category:Kamikaze class destroyers (1922). --Xdamr^talk 20:00, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Kamikaze class destroyers to Category:Kamikaze class destroyers (1922)

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Disambiguated category name to parallel main article, Kamikaze class destroyer (1922). (Compare: Kamikaze class destroyer (1905) and Category:Kamikaze class destroyers (1905).) — Bellhalla (talk) 15:52, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nominator. Debresser (talk) 22:20, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Rename to match title of parent article and to properly disambiguate. Alansohn (talk) 00:12, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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:

• Category:Heroes by characteristics to Category:Heroes by role
• Category:Heroic stock characters to Category:Heroes by role

--Xdamr^talk 14:04, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Heroes by characteristics to Category:Heroic stock characters

Nominator's rationale: Merge Do people agree that all the articles and sub-categories in the source category are stock heroes in one form or another, and so would be equally at home in the target category (which is currently a parent category for the source)? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:27, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Merger is a good idea. What about renaming both to Category:Heroes by role, parallel to Category:Antagonists by role and Category:Protagonists by role? - Fayenatic (talk) 23:04, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that's an excellent suggestion. Yes, I agree with Category:Heroes by role as a rename for the merged category. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:00, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to closing admin: whatever happens, please maintain suitable links with Category:Stock characters, Category:Hero and Category:Characters by role in the narrative structure. - Fayenatic (talk) 23:04, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Keep all. Ruslik_Zero 18:17, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:Film series by number of entries (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  
• Category:Film trilogies
• Category:Film series with three entries
• Category:Film tetralogies
• Category:Film series with four entries
• Category:Film series with five entries
• Category:Film series with six entries
• Category:Film series with seven entries
• Category:Film series with eight entries
• Category:Film series with nine entries
• Category:Film series with ten entries
• Category:Film series with more than ten entries

Nominator's rationale: Delete or listify. Seems to me a non-defining characteristic of each film, overcategorisation, and sometimes nebulous per this edit. Is Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope three or six, or both, or seven if we count the animated Clone Wars? I notified Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Films. RobertG ♬ talk 11:49, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep in all cases. It is easy enough to figure out how many films exist within a film series, as with everything else it is just a matter of careful application. With regards to your Star Wars example, The Clone Wars is considered canon and was released theatrically, so it is clear cut that it would be listed as having 7 entries. Some series, such as Batman, would need seperate consideration, for example Batman-Batman and Robin would be a series of four films, whereas the reboot would be listed seperatley as having two (to date). It's really not that hard. magnius (talk) 12:07, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment - but you missed commenting on whether it's over-categorisation: since Star Wars was three, then six, and is now seven, the number of films in the series cannot be one of its defining characteristics. --RobertG ♬ talk 12:17, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment – if such a category would be misleading on Star Wars, the Category:Star Wars episodes could be thus categorized instead, where it would serve its purpose without misleading readers. There are only six Star Wars episodes. — The Man in Question (gesprec) · (forðung) 20:43, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• On the fence. It can be subjective as to how many parts a series can have. I disagree with the above editor's comment that Star Wars "is clear cut that it would be listed as having 7 entries". To my mind this is two trilogies, or a series of six films. It depends on how you look at it. And what about the Ewok films? Nominator mentions my Superman edit. It could be seen as a series of 4, 5, 6 or 7 films depending on how you look at it / interpret it. I prefer the categorisation method than the List of film series method, which is, quite frankly a mess. I think I'd like to see all of these type of articles disappear, but I know that they never will. Therefore maybe best to rationalise. Robsinden (talk) 12:23, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This category saves time by making any "List of trilogies" unnecessary — and people will be looking for such a list. If the precise number of entries is debatable, it goes in the plain "Film series" category. Compare it with this horror on the French Wikipedia. It's a much simpler and unobtrusive solution. Xanthoxyl (talk) 12:59, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment. Would this then give a legitimate reason for the List of film series, List of film series with two entries, etc., articles to be deleted? These are more of a problem than the categories I think. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robsinden (talk • contribs) 13:09, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't know. The lists look okay. Ultimately the problem is that the Wikimedia software just doesn't allow sophisticated searches. Xanthoxyl (talk) 13:31, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  So aren't the categories redundant? --RobertG ♬ talk 06:34, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  No, for the same reason that List of counties in Ohio doesn't make Category:Ohio counties redundant. Xanthoxyl (talk) 07:28, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I'm of the opinion that lists of film series with x entries is more appropriate than categories for the same purpose because lists can organize better than categories. I disagree that being part of a film series is not a defining characteristic; it's fair to assume that some people will want to know films that are related to each other through the same fictional universe or the same fictional elements. However, categorization is not a good way to accomplish this. If we ever start a discussion on criteria for lists, though, I'll be happy to participate to figure out how to best count and list related films. I'm neutral for now, awaiting other arguments. —Erik (talk • contrib) 13:13, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Film_series#What_should_be_included_in_a_series_of_films.3F Robsinden (talk) 13:16, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all that are five and above. Does anyone study films on the basis of their being exactly five, six, seven, etc. in the series? Does anyone even mention it when writing about films?
• Reverse merge the three and fewer to the Greek names. Common usage in describing such series. Upmerge Category:Film series by number of entries to Category:Category:Film series as an unnecessary level of categorization.

• Query - when you say reverse merge three and fewer to the greek names, that would only be "Trilogy". Personally I'm against using "Trilogy" as it can be subjective as to what forms a trilogy and what is simply a series of three. Robsinden (talk) 15:29, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• On the fence regarding tetralogies/four entries as to whether it should be kept but if so reverse merge it to the Greek for consistency. Otto4711 (talk) 14:41, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Query - surely for consistency, the Greek shouldn't be used. Robsinden (talk) 15:29, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:Film trilogies and Category:Film series with four entries is inconsistent. Otto4711 (talk) 16:21, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• agreed. so i think "trilogy" should be avoided, unless it truly is a "trilogy". for consistency, "series of three" should be used. Robsinden (talk) 23:04, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – my reading of this is that Category:Film trilogies should be populated with articles about deliberate trilogies (eg Lord of the Rings) whereas Category:Film series with three entries would have films that ended up with 3 entries (due to the unexpected success of the first and relative failure of the 3rd, perhaps). If this is correct then Category:Film trilogies captures a defining characteristic whereas Category:Film series with three entries does not. (How is the number of films in the Bond series a 'defining characteristic'?). Also the French seem to have a greater mastery of the Greek names than the English do (eg 215 seems to be a Dihectopentakaidécalogie). Occuli (talk) 16:19, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Can you offer some examples of "film series with three entries" that are not also "trilogies"? Certainly the examples currently in the category, High School Musical and Shrek, would qualify as trilogies under any reasonable definition. Otto4711 (talk) 16:23, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd disagree strongly that either of those were trilogies. A trilogy would have to have an overall purpose: an intent to be a trilogy. I read somewhere that a trilogy could just as easily be seen as a whole as it could its three parts. I think that sums it up. A film and two sequels is NOT a trilogy in my book. Hence my point that "trilogy" is subjective, where "series of three" is not. Robsinden (talk) 23:04, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• So when they release the film of The Hobbit, Lord of the Rings will be a trilogy in a series of four films? The Hobbit will not be a trilogy, but will be one of four? And when they make Bridget Jones 3, when exactly will the fact that they made a third film suddenly become a defining characteristic of Bridget Jones's Diary? --RobertG ♬ talk 06:25, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, that's correct. Anything more complicated, or debatable, would just be under Series of films. As for the last example, if there is an article called Bridget Jones's Diary film series, which I doubt, the category would change when the film is released. The categories are for series, not individual films. Xanthoxyl (talk) 07:28, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Likewise, I would see Star Wars as two trilogies in a series of six films. Robsinden (talk) 09:03, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Requiring that a filmmaker have a clear and persistent vision of making exactly three films, no more, no less strikes me as a completely artificial and arbitrary standard to impose, bordering on original research by synthesis. Otto4711 (talk) 11:19, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• This is exactly why I think that if these categories are to stay, then "trilogy" should be avoided, and the neutral "series of three" be used instead. i.e. every trilogy is a series of three, but not every series of three is a trilogy. It's subjective as to what forms a "trilogy", but fairly clear (with some exceptions - see superman and star wars comments above) how many form a series. Robsinden (talk) 11:38, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Upmerge to Category:Film series. After reflecting on the points made and what exists in the mainspace, I think categories and lists of film series with x entries are too nebulous. The Star Wars example is a troublesome issue because there are two trilogies, the Clone Wars films, and the earlier, er, tripe... how to count them? Seems better to have List of Star Wars films in general and not worry much about the number of films (same logic would apply elsewhere). This is not the place to discuss overall handling of listing film series, but when it comes to categories, there seem to be too different interpretations of how to count up films in a series. Discussion should also be had for the lists, but not here. —Erik (talk • contrib) 17:29, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I created these categories as a better alternative to the infinitely annoying (and inaccurate) List of film series with eight entries, etc., articles. Also, Category:Film series with three entries and Category:Film series with four entries were (and are) already redirects to Category:Film trilogies and Category:Film tetralogies. The use of these two "Greek" names versus the others is the result of several debates around the "List of film series…" articles above and the Trilogy, Tetralogy, Hexalogy, and Heptalogy articles. "Trilogy" and "tetralogy" are the only commonly used terms. If "film trilogies" is to be used (as one would assume it would) then so is "film tetralogies", which uses a widely accepted word. Also of note: These categories reflect equivalent categories in literature (Category:Literary trilogies, Category:Literary tetralogies, Category:Literary series with five entries, etc.). — The Man in Question (gesprec) · (forðung) 20:37, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Having given the matter further thought, I agree/propose that film tetralogies should be redirected to Category:Film series with four entries, and that Category:Film trilogies and Category:Film series with three entries should coexist as separate categories. I have made equivalent changes to the literature categories. — The Man in Question (gesprec) · (forðung) 23:16, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment All of these pages are linked to the template {{works series}}. — The Man in Question (gesprec) · (forðung) 23:33, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete 1. a non-defining characteristic by all means. 2. a characteristic prone to change. 3. a characteristic not found in sources as a specific characteristic. Debresser (talk) 22:18, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I tried to get all the lists deleted last year, the cats will help get them deleted in future. Darrenhusted (talk) 19:16, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Question. Do we keep the categories in case they help to delete the lists, and do we keep the lists in case they might help delete the categories? --RobertG ♬ talk 22:39, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Some people want lists instead of arbitrary categories, and some people want categories instead of unmaintainable lists. But which is better, an edit war or a categorization war? If "number of entries" is not of interest -- and it looks that way -- then it would be much better to delete both lists and categories. Xanthoxyl (talk) 23:30, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Listify. This is not a defining characteristic. It is interesting to have information on these, but not as a category. The fact that this is for many of these a moving target says to me that this is really an arbitrary inclusion criteria. Why do we do 10 or more rather then say 5 or more? Again this is based on arbitrary inclusion criteria. I am not opposed to an outright delete in concept, but if that is the decision I suggest that it be implemented as an upmerge unless we are sure that all of the included articles will remain in this tree from another category. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:14, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge after 5 films. It is then not defining, to most people. To most users, is difficult to recall just how many are in the series... sometimes even when you have seen them all. While numbers were once added to many sequles, it not normaly stops now by the 4th or 5th. While I am a bit unsure if the best place to stop is after the 4th, 5th, or 6th... ten has to be too many. ^{Carlaude:Talk} 20:03, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge Category:Film trilogies into Category:Film series with three entries
• Merge Category:Film tetralogies into Category:series with four entries
• Merge [Film series with six entries], [... seven entries], [... eight entries], [... nine entries], [... ten entries], etc. into *Category:Film series with more than five entries and listify film series by number of entries.

• By "Category:series with four entries" do you mean Category:Film series with four entries? — The Man in Question (gesprec) · (forðung) 05:57, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 Category:Sister cities and twin towns to Category:Lists of twin towns and sister cities. --Xdamr^talk 22:56, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Lists of twin towns and sister cities (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: This category is redundant to Category:Sister cities and twin towns, which contains all of these articles and more. If this category were to be kept, we should 1. add all other lists from Category:Sister cities and twin towns, 2. remove them from Category:Sister cities and twin towns, 3. make this category a subcategory of Category:Sister cities and twin towns. Debresser (talk) 10:41, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments – this category should be retained (as its articles are indeed lists, rather than towns/cities). 1, 2 and 3 is one alternative; another is to delete Category:Sister cities and twin towns as apart from the main article Sister cities its articles are lists or lists of lists. Occuli (talk) 11:22, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Lists of sister cities and twin towns since the main article has been moved to Sister cities. Not sure if Category:Sister cities and twin towns should be deleted or also merged. I'd lean to merge with a cleanup afterwards. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:34, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comments – The culprit surfaces! I created the category (as an aside from adding to list categories) without realising there was another category containing most of the lists (as it was not named Lists of...), otherwise this discussion wouldn't have been necessary. I would keep and follow steps 1, 2, 3 by the nominator, leaving not too much in the original category (I cant find any other articles which belong) but leaves an article-space category and a list-space category as is usual on the category tree. Of course, I will sort this out if agreed (Crusoe8181 (talk) 11:35, 28 August 2009 (UTC))[reply]
• Merge and rename to Category:Lists of sister cities and twin towns, including "Lists of" for clarity. For primacy, follow the American usage settled in the main article, i.e. switch to "sister cities and twin towns", but only if someone can be bothered after closure of this one to nominate the sub-cats for renaming likewise for consistency. Otherwise, just merge to Category:Lists of twin towns and sister cities. - Fayenatic (talk) 00:13, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Reverse merge Category:Sister cities and twin towns to Category:Lists of twin towns and sister cities. If my understanding is correct, the first "twinning" was between the cities of Coventry and Dresden, both of which suffered terrible bombing in WWII; accordingly the concept of twinning should have priority. If US usage is different, there is no reason why any US category need be renamed. I have never heard of the concept of "sister cities" and presume this is purely US usage. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:26, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good points, which might justify a further debate on renaming the article. Saves work too. - Fayenatic (talk) 19:20, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Since a bot does the move, it really does not save work. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:53, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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:Environment of Cleveland to Category:Environment of Cleveland, England
• Category:Sites of Special Scientific Interest in Cleveland to Category:Sites of Special Scientific Interest in Cleveland, England

--Xdamr^talk 20:04, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Environment of Cleveland to Category:Environment of Cleveland, England

Propose renaming Category:Sites of Special Scientific Interest in Cleveland to Category:Sites of Special Scientific Interest in Cleveland, England

Nominator's rationale: Rename. To disambiguate and to match Cleveland, England and Category:Cleveland, England. Cleveland redirects to Cleveland, Ohio; see Cleveland (disambiguation). Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 10:23, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to match the articles. Occuli (talk) 11:32, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename definitely per nominator. Debresser (talk) 22:15, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. BUT should not Cleveland be the disambiguation page, rather than a redirect? As an Englishman, when some one says "Cleveland", I think of the area of the former metropolitan county in northeast England, not of Ohio. The name comes from the Cleveland hills which are close to there. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:32, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Relisted for further comment - Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 September 6#Category:Gastronomy-related organizations. --Xdamr^talk 23:00, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Gastronomy-related organizations to something?

Nominator's rationale: Merge. Don't know what to do with this one. I ran into it when Landry's Restaurants was added to it. Some of the parents seem odd to me (Category:Gastronomy, Category:Organizations by subject and Category:Medical and health organizations) since this categorizes Category:Food-related organizations as medical and health organizations. So we probably need to do something, the question is what? Vegaswikian (talk) 07:03, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• If the articles exist, rename to Category:Gastronomical societies - we have Txoko and Confrérie de la Chaîne des Rôtisseurs so there's two. Are there other such societies that are notable and have articles? Remove the medical and health parent and the food-related organizations sub-cat. Clearly restaurants should not be categorized either as gastronomical societies or as "gastronomy-related organizations", whatever they may be. Otto4711 (talk) 07:17, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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:Sports history of the German Democratic Republic to Category:Sports history of East Germany. --Xdamr^talk 20:05, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Sports history of the German Democratic Republic to Category:Sports history of East Germany

Nominator's rationale: Rename. To match East Germany, Category:East Germany and Category:Sport in East Germany. Naming conventions state:"For 'of country' and 'in country' categories, the name of the country should appear as it does in the name of the article about that country". Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:51, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nominator. Debresser (talk) 22:14, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment the name of the former country was GDR (or DDR in German), not East Germany, so that I am not clear why the country article was renamed. DDR was notably successful in sport, but (as we now know) due to drug misuse. The subject thus needs to be kept separate from sport in the eastern lander of the present Germany. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:36, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article about the eastern lander is at Eastern Germany. Those who want to move East Germany should have it out on the talk page for the article; for now, all the categories use "East Germany" to match the current article name. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:45, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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:

• Category:Yu-Gi-Oh! booster packs to Category:Yu-Gi-Oh! Trading Card Game
• Category:Yu-Gi-Oh! cards to Category:Yu-Gi-Oh! Trading Card Game

--Xdamr^talk 20:06, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Yu-Gi-Oh! booster packs to Category:Yu-Gi-Oh! Trading Card Game

Suggest merging Category:Yu-Gi-Oh! cards to Category:Yu-Gi-Oh! Trading Card Game

Nominator's rationale: Overcategorisation: there is no need to distinguish between the booster packs, cards and the card game. G.A.S^talk 04:52, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Overcategorisation. I really don't think that every single booster pack deserves an article or that every single card deserves an article. Those overcategorisations implies that to some extend. --KrebMarkt 05:40, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - especially considering most (all?) of those articles on booster packs need to be merged. 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 17:01, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nominator. For starters. Debresser (talk) 15:09, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. --Xdamr^talk 19:38, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:The Expulsion (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. The main (catmore) article for this is a dab page. The contents do not match what is normally considered "The Expulsion" in the English world. It is a small category with one article and one subcategory, so is too small to be needed. 76.66.192.144 (talk) 04:34, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom and WP:OC#SHAREDNAMES, as this is indeed a category for a disambiguation page grouping unrelated expulsions.Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:07, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per both arguments above. Debresser (talk) 15:08, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- The Expulsion its alleged main article is actually a dabpage. The main article should be Expulsion of Germans after World War II. The only other content is a subcat Category:Survivors of The Expulsion, which is under discussion and probably to be renamed Category:Germans expelled after World War II (see here). Expulsion of Germans after World War II will make a good main article for that category, after which this category will be left with no substantive content. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:44, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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:

• Category:Permanent Representatives to UNICEF
• Category:Permanent Representatives of Iran to UNICEF

--Xdamr^talk 19:39, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Permanent Representatives to UNICEF (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Permanent Representatives of Iran to UNICEF (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete both. I had these renamed not long ago from "Ambassadors to UNICEF". However, upon further inspection, I have learned that there is no such thing as a Permanent Representative to UNICEF. Countries are represented at UNICEF by their Permanent Representative to the United Nations. As far as I know, only one person was ever contained in this category tree—Fazlollah Reza—and I just removed him because (as a scientist) he was the Iranian diplomat at UNESCO, not UNICEF. I suspect the tree will remain empty since no one can legitimately be placed in the categories. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:10, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per all arguments of nominator. Debresser (talk) 15:07, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Keep. --Xdamr^talk 20:07, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Novels set in Roman Gaul (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: It is unlikely that many novels will fall under this criterion. The one page which was linked here — Clothar the Frank — is now located in the equally apt but less exclusive Category:Novels set in the Dark Ages. — The Man in Question (gesprec) · (forðung) 04:02, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Weakish Keep The Dark Ages has been for decades a concept historians only handle with long tongs and holding their noses. We should certainly rename that one. I have added one to the category, Henry Treece wrote at least one. These categories are little used, & we may well have many others. Johnbod (talk) 19:52, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • True (Roman Gaul vs. Dark Ages). I said that because Clothar the Frank deals with Arthur, which is the Dark Ages (and therefore the category was a misnomer). — The Man in Question (gesprec) · (forðung) 20:53, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• There are now a number of Novels in this category it should not be deleted. Besides Roman Gaul is not present during the Dark Ages. The dark ages follow soon after. SADADS (talk) 14:52, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep to match Category:Novels set in Roman Britain and tie in with the article Roman Gaul. I have moved Clothar the Frank back as the other books in the series are in Category:Novels set in Roman Britain and earlier added a couple of entries. Cjc13 (talk) 14:59, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Other articles are good, but Clothar can't take place in Roman Gaul and the Arthurian Cycle, unless the book itself is woefully inaccurate. — The Man in Question (gesprec) · (forðung) 20:54, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The date of Arthur is widely disputed. This series takes Arthur as being at the time towards the end of Roman Britain. Cjc13 (talk) 09:18, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Clothar the Frank sets Lancelot up as a Frankish/Gaulish person growing up in Bern and Roman Gaul, this book is there the second takes him to Britain. SADADS (talk) 00:11, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • See Germanus of Auxerre, apparently a character in the book, & certainly a figure of Roman Gaul. Johnbod (talk) 00:24, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- Novels based on Caesar's Gallic Wars could also go in here. The boundary between Roman Gaul and Merovingian France is inevitably blurred, so that the possiblilty of Clothar appearing in both should not be ruled out. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:49, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 Category:United Nations Secretariat people to Category:United Nations officials. --Xdamr^talk 20:08, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:United Nations Secretariat people to Category:United Nations officials

Nominator's rationale: Merge. Nominated category is redundant to the target category because every person who is an official of the United Nations (with the exception of the Permanent Representatives and Observers that represent states and organizations) is a member of the Secretariat. That's what the Secretariat is—the officials of the UN. Yes, there is Category:United Nations General Assembly officials and Category:United Nations Security Council officials for people who hold posts in organizations created by the GA and SC, but all of these individuals are members of the UN Secretariat, so having this category is redundant to the parent category Category:United Nations officials. [Quotes from UN Charter: art 97: "The Secretariat shall comprise a Secretary-General and such staff as the [UN] may require."; art 101(2): "Appropriate staffs shall be permanently assigned to the Economic and Social Council, the Trusteeship Council, and, as required, to other organs of the United Nations [e.g., the GA and SC]. These staffs shall form a part of the Secretariat."] Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:05, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Then perhaps we should merge the other way around, since Category:United Nations Secretariat people is the more correct name. Or, still better, Category:United Nations Secretariat officials. Debresser (talk) 15:06, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the broader name is probably more appropriate. No one speaks of "UN Secretariat officials"; it's usually just "UN officials". Also, if we keep the name broad, we can include the Permanent Representatives category, which are the only UN officials that aren't part of the Secretariat. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:55, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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:Bay of Plenty to Category:Bay of Plenty Region
• Category:Buildings and structures in the Bay of Plenty to Category:Buildings and structures in the Bay of Plenty Region
• Category:Schools in the Bay of Plenty to Category:Schools in the Bay of Plenty Region
• Category:People from Bay of Plenty to Category:People from the Bay of Plenty Region

--Xdamr^talk 20:10, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Bay of Plenty to Category:Bay of Plenty Region

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Per other recent renames of categories concerning New Zealand's regions, and discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject New Zealand. Bay of Plenty is about the bay itself, the article on the region is at Bay of Plenty Region. Including in this nomination several subcategories:

• Category:Buildings and structures in the Bay of Plenty → Category:Buildings and structures in the Bay of Plenty Region
• Category:Schools in the Bay of Plenty → Category:Schools in the Bay of Plenty Region
• Category:People from Bay of Plenty → Category:People from the Bay of Plenty Region

Grutness...wha? 01:45, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename all per nominator. Debresser (talk) 15:03, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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:HPA axis to Category:Hormones of the hypothalamo-pituitary-adrenal axis. --Xdamr^talk 20:11, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:HPA axis to Category:Hormones of the hypothalamo-pituitary-adrenal axis

Nominator's rationale: Technical nomination. Contents apparently moved to new category. Not a speedy criteria. Target category appears to not have been created. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:15, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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