Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 December 14

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 20:12, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Arran to Category:Isle of Arran

Propose renaming Category:People from Arran to Category:People from the Isle of Arran

Propose renaming Category:Arran Villages to Category:Villages in the Isle of Arran

Nominator's rationale: Rename. I suggest renaming this to match Isle of Arran. Arran is ambiguous. I have reformatted the last category to match the standard format for village categories. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:57, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:41, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom, to avoid ambiguity and to match the head article. Per Arran (disambiguation), lots of other entities share his name. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:14, 17 December 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 there are no objections. Kbdank71 20:13, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Andros Island to Category:Andros, Bahamas

Nominator's rationale: Rename. I suggest renaming this to match Andros, Bahamas. There is more than one "Andros Island"—see Andros—and the category as presently named is liable to be confused with Category:Andros. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:55, 14 December 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. Kbdank71 20:13, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Yell to Category:Yell, Shetland

Propose renaming Category:Villages in Yell to Category:Villages in Yell, Shetland

Nominator's rationale: Rename. I suggest renaming to match Yell, Shetland. Yell is ambiguous. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:51, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename Per nom. I saw this and instantly thought of the Yellow Pages website. Lugnuts (talk) 08:15, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, per nom. --vgmddg (look | talk | do) 23:36, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom, to avoid ambiguity and to match the head article. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:15, 17 December 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. Kbdank71 20:14, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Tortuga to Category:Tortuga (Haiti)

Nominator's rationale: Rename. I suggest renaming to match Tortuga (Haiti). Tortuga is ambiguous. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:46, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Main article and categories should (almost?) always match. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:06, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Justin is right. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:56, 15 December 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. Kbdank71 20:15, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Smith Island to Category:Smith Island (South Shetland Islands)

Propose renaming Category:Geography of Smith Island to Category:Geography of Smith Island (South Shetland Islands)

Propose renaming Category:Landforms of Smith Island to Category:Landforms of Smith Island (South Shetland Islands)

Nominator's rationale: Rename. I suggest disambiguating to match Smith Island (South Shetland Islands). Smith Island is ambiguous. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:38, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Main article and categories should (almost?) always match. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:06, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom, to avoid ambiguity and to match the head article. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:16, 17 December 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 and recreate as cat redirect. Kbdank71 20:16, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Baathism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: merge to Category:Ba'athism. I created a new paralel category by mistake. However 'Ba'athism' is the spelling used in main articles Ba'ath Party and Ba'athism. Soman (talk) 23:36, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think the current cat is sufficient--Dudeman5685 (talk) 15:47, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. I don't think there is a good reason to not match the article and the category in this case. Category:Baathism can be a category redirect. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 20:43, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename/merge per nom to match head articles Ba'ath Party and Ba'athism, but re-create Category:Baathism as a {{category redirect}} --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:33, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support BHG. Baathism, though incorrect is a likely search term, so that a cat-redirect is desirable. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:53, 18 December 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 there are no objections. Kbdank71 20:17, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Tuamotu to Category:Tuamotus

Nominator's rationale: Rename. I personally would refer to "Tuamotu", but the main article is currently at Tuamotus. I suggest matching the category name to the article name. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:24, 14 December 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: no consensus to merge, but rename to Category:Central-owned enterprises of the People's Republic of China to pluralize it. Kbdank71 20:21, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Central-owned enterprise of the People's Republic of China to Category:Government-owned companies in the People's Republic of China

Nominator's rationale: Merge. Seems like a duplicate category, though there could be some subtlety I'm missing. At minimum, it should be pluralized.--Mike Selinker (talk) 15:27, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In China, state-owned enterprises are a bit different from central-owned enterprises. State-owned enterprises are wholly or partly owned by city or provincial governments. But central-owned enterprises are owned by the central government. Chinese government clearly classified two kinds of enterprises. Link: [1] Of course their operation modes are different. That's why I classified them as two different categories. Ricky@36 (talk) 23:48, 14 December 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. Kbdank71 20:19, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Polonia to Category:Polish diaspora

Nominator's rationale: Rename. As can be seen, all other categories in Category:European diasporas and Category:European diasporas have the same form. Polonia is partway an English word, but I am uncertain why Poles get special treatment among all ethnic groups, many of whom undoubtedly have equally unique words to describe their diaspora. Abductive (reasoning) 11:02, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – as User:Abductive boldly moved Polonia to Polish diaspora today, it verges on recklessness to attempt the corresponding category move without waiting a few days. Occuli (talk) 20:54, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ethnic "exceptionalism" is unhealthy. The template was already called {{Polish diaspora}}. A few days will pass as part of the CFR process. Abductive (reasoning) 21:50, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for now: "Diaspora" itself is an ethnic-specific word for the Jewish people outside of Israel and Judah. And that remains the default meaning unless the word is qualified (e.g. "German diaspora"). Polonia is the loan word with the most specific meaning. If the article rename holds though, the cat should match.RevelationDirect (talk) 01:08, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Look at them: Every ethnic group has an article entitled "Foo diaspora". That shows general consensus far beyond this little discussion. Abductive (reasoning) 10:01, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The term as used here is of diaspora, not "the Diaspora," per diaspora.- choster (talk) 21:37, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• rename per nom I previously noticed this exception to the standard naming of other dispora articles/categories. There is no valid WP reason for this exception to remain. Hmains (talk) 19:17, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom -- While Diaspora strictly refers to the Jewish diaspora, the term is widely used of the dispersion of other ehtnic peoples. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:56, 18 December 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 as nominated. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 16:56, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Child education NGOs to Category:Child education non-governmental organizations

Propose renaming Category:Conservation and environmental NGOs to Category:Conservation and environmental non-governmental organizations

Propose renaming Category:Ethnic and racial NGOs to Category:Ethnic and racial non-governmental organizations

Propose renaming Category:Non-governmental law enforcement organizations in the United States to Category:Law enforcement non-governmental organizations in the United States

Propose renaming Category:Palestinian NGOs to Category:Palestinian non-governmental organizations

Propose renaming Category:Poverty and hunger NGOs to Category:Poverty and hunger non-governmental organizations

Propose renaming Category:Research NGOs to Category:Research non-governmental organizations

Propose renaming Category:Non-governmental space organizations to Category:Space non-governmental organizations

Propose renaming Category:United Nations NGOs to Category:United Nations non-governmental organizations

Propose renaming Category:Women's issues NGOs to Category:Women's issues non-governmental organizations

Propose renaming Category:World War II non-government organizations to Category:World War II non-governmental organizations

Propose deleting Category:NGO reports

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Spelling out and normalizing formatting of "non-governmental organizations." The reports category is a single-item category which doesn't have any reports in it; see also this nomination from March for a dissenting view. Category:Transportation NGOs was nominated in this nomination from the previous day.--Mike Selinker (talk) 01:33, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support countering gratuitous abv.s. The internet has more than enough electrons to cope. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:00, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The s/z spelling option should follow the parent category (Category:Non-governmental organizations) unless another usage is found prominently at the parent article. It would be preferable if parent articles, or sections, could be found for these categories. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:38, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Object (1) the spelling, except in the US case should be "organisation" (2) the abbreviation is a very widely used one to the extent that some people will not know what it stands for. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:59, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good point. I'm okay with "organisations" in all cases except the US one. I think the use of the abbreviation is far less common than you suggest, however.--Mike Selinker (talk) 16:22, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• rename as originally nominated or don't change. There is no WP rule that cross country categories are always to be named using Brtish English. There is no WP preference in the matter. There are no subcats involved with either spelling. And NGO may be better known than anything spelled out. Hmains (talk) 04:56, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think "NGO" has become commonplace with journalists and in the media they create, and perhaps with people who read predominantly the media, but an encyclopedia does better to tend to the more formal and to avoid abbreviations. I would go with "rename as originally nominated". --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:15, 20 December 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.