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: upmerge. Timrollpickering (talk) 16:18, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:American architects of Norwegian descent (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Another triple intersection category, (see below) with the added issue that this category contains only one article. -- Selket ^Talk 23:07, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Upmerge to Category:American people of Norwegian descent and Category:American architects. Occuli (talk) 15:25, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete irrelevant category. If notable as American architect than why would descent matter? --Elekhh (talk) 21:35, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This descent thing has clearly been over used. In many cases it is used when it has virtually no relevance to the person.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:24, 28 June 2011 (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: Upmerge. Timrollpickering (talk) 16:19, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:American mathematicians of Norwegian descent (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: I was under the impression we decided to get rid of the triple intersection categories like this one. WP:OC#EGRS seems to support this, as does WP:EGRS. There are also sourcing and POV issues with some of the articles included in the category. -- Selket ^Talk 23:04, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Upmerge to Category:American people of Norwegian descent and Category:American mathematicians. (Why is Category:American musicians of Norwegian descent exempt? This should be upmerged too.) Occuli (talk) 15:28, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Don't care Thanks for notifying me: I created this category after seeing the two subcategories you listed. If you clean out them all, then that's just fine by me.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 13:14, 21 June 2011 (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 Category:Frederic Edwin Church paintings; delete Category:Frederic Edwin Church. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:24, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Frederic Edwin Church paintings (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Category is completely unneeded, per WP:SMALLCAT. There is already a category to cover everything related to this painter, which at present is only three articles. Gyrobo (talk) 19:55, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete category:Frederic Edwin Church. This is the one that isn't needed. "Cat:Artist-name paintings" is standard, and "Cat:Artist-name" is rare except for the household names. Riggr Mortis (talk) 20:21, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment My apologies if I created these categories incorrectly. If I recall, the Church categories were supposed to emulate the Albert Bierstadt categories, which were discussed at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2011_May_2#Category:Albert_Bierstadt; "Paintings by Albert Bierstadt", iirc, was created and placed in Category:Paintings by artist. But I noticed the majority of categories in "Paintings by artist" were in the format "[NAME] paintings", so Category:Albert Bierstadt paintings and "Category:Frederic Edwin Church paintings" were created. Category:Albert Bierstadt was deleted, and I didn't follow through to delete "Category:Frederic Edwin Church". Most likely, the paintings cat should stay and the name cat should be removed, per Riggr. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 21:26, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify my position, I'm also keep and delete per Riggr, Koavf, Occuli, and Gyrobo (below). – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 00:49, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and delete the eponymous category, as suggested above. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:45, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and delete the eponymous (untagged) category. The artist is manifestly a defining characteristic of a painting. Occuli (talk) 22:03, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Category:Frederic Edwin Church instead, my only issue was that multiple categories were unnecessary. --Gyrobo (talk) 22:32, 13 June 2011 (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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:41, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Sun Ra Orchestra members to Category:Sun Ra Arkestra members

Nominator's rationale: Rename. The orchestra of Sun Ra is called Arkestra http://www.elrarecords.com/. E-Kartoffel (talk) 16:08, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support rename as sub-cat of Category:Musicians by band. - Fayenatic (talk) 21:21, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support rename - surprised it has carried this mis-spelling for so long. AllyD (talk) 21:32, 13 June 2011 (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 rename. Timrollpickering (talk) 16:16, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:African American record producers to Category:African-American record producers

Nominator's rationale: Rename. African-American seems to be the correct spelling here. Matches Category:African-American_people E-Kartoffel (talk) 13:37, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. There is too much potential fighting over dashes. Just leave them out. African American is a perfectly good phrasing. It is easy to type and avoids the dash wars.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:26, 28 June 2011 (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. Timrollpickering (talk) 16:20, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Works of Isambard Kingdom Brunel to Category:Isambard Kingdom Brunel buildings and structures

Propose renaming Category:Bridges of Isambard Kingdom Brunel to Category:Isambard Kingdom Brunel bridges

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Matching other categories of Category:Buildings and structures by English architects, but adding "and structures" since some of these aren't buildings. The "Works" format is generally used for authors, not architects. This is an updated nomination from the failed speedy nomination below.--Mike Selinker (talk) 05:53, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose any rename until such time as there is a clear naming convention in place for such categories. How can we be in such a rush to speedily rename this category (presumably as an "obvious" rename), yet immediately afterwards we then need to rename it to a different name format altogether? Renaming for the sake of it is just make-work.

Secondly, consistency is (in Whitman's famous phrase) 'the hobgoblin of small minds'. Obsessive consistency in naming just doesn't make MediaWiki work any better - it's really not an important issue. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:12, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, at least for now. I tried to follow this tree up and see how works are defined. Well, it seems like the top parent is Category:Intellectual works. Works is ambiguous. Bridges do wind up in Category:Works by type and year, which is also a parent for Category:Buildings and structures by year of completion, which makes its way up to Category:Intellectual works. I think the 'of' construct is inaccurate since these are not like paintings where one person does the entire process. So the proposed name seems logical and reasonable give what these are and the existing category structure. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:55, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, I haven't found any other categories for works by engineer, and this seems the best shot for now. (If agreed, follow up with the Lutyens categories.) - Fayenatic (talk) 21:02, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did find Category:Buildings and structures by architect and following the existing convention there, the first one should probably be named Category:Isambard Kingdom Brunel buildings. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:11, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose – I don't consider ships to be buildings or structures. Therefore, it shouldn't be a subcategory of Category:Buildings and structures by architect. McLerristarr | Mclay1 10:00, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki's categories don't have a strong "is-a" relationship. They're not powerful enough to do this, so WP as an application of MediWiki shouldn't try to make them do so. It's thus not a contradiction to have "by architect" as a supercat of "works including ships and buildings", because the subcat/supercat relationship isn't that strongly defining anyway.

As a better solution, by all means pull out Brunel's ships vs. his buildings & structures. I did this myself recently with his bridges. We might actually find it easier to extract his buildings, as there are relatively few of those and they have a simple and already-known relationship to architects & architecture. This still leaves us with an overall "works" category and that will include several works that just don't categorise by type as they're near-unique (Underfall yard, atmospheric railway, baulk road). We would still need to address the overall naming issue for "works" though, where they're applied to a scope broader than literature or architecture. We might think that a simple category of "Brunel" would be adequate, although recent policy (see Richard Trevithick) is that categories like this are simply (and foolishly) deleted anyway. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:15, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This has nothing to do with MediaWiki. It's just a guideline choice by Wikipedia. From WP:SUBCAT: "When making one category a subcategory of another, ensure that the members of the first really can be expected (with possibly a few exceptions) to belong to the second also. ... If two categories are closely related but are not in a subset relation, then links between them can be included in the text of the category pages." I don't think this counts as an exception to the rule. Although, I would definitely support splitting the category into Category:Isambard Kingdom Brunel buildings and structures and something like Category:Isambard Kingdom Brunel ships. McLerristarr | Mclay1 12:09, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Splitting the ships into a separate category is a good idea. Put it in Category:Boats by designer, and nominate the latter for renaming as "boats and ships". The naming pattern there would suggest Category:Ships designed by Isambard Kingdom Brunel.

There are two current types of head category for multiple types of works: (i) more commonly, an eponymous category e.g. Category:Isambard Kingdom Brunel. In this case, IMHO, it would be sufficiently well populated (unlike Trevithick - see CFD and deletions - as I read it, that one was deleted without prejudice to being re-created once there are more articles to populate it). (ii) Alternatively, Category:Works by Isambard Kingdom Brunel (as originally suggested in the Speedy nom) would fit into Category:Works by artist, which has a small number of other precedents for cross-disciplinary creative people. Perhaps that pattern/category should be greatly expanded to replace many current eponymous categories. - Fayenatic (talk) 13:58, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - why don't you make a new category called Category:Isambard Kingdom Brunel buildings and tie that into your hierarchy? Then all of his buildings, tunnels, bridges, roads, harbours, ships, and book reference (and much more types besides) can be kept here. If you try to tease these items into separate categories it will only be a matter of time before someone re-unifies them under Category:Isambard Kingdom Brunel. Ephebi (talk) 08:59, 16 June 2011 (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. Timrollpickering (talk) 16:16, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Towns in Hunan to Category:Township-level divisions of Hunan

Nominator's rationale: Specifically, the latter category (with 'divisions') should be deleted, then the first ('Towns in') be renamed to the second title, as 'Towns in' currently has more pages than 'divisions of' (42 to 15), yet the latter title is more inclusive, as towns are township-level divisions. —HXL's Roundtable and Record 01:11, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Couldn't we just move all of the articles from the former category to the latter, and then delete the former?--Danaman5 (talk) 22:46, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge (no need for special steps as proposed by the nominator or in the comment above, because merging ends up with the same result, and the actual workload of moving pages will be automated). The target category is consistent with others in Category:Township-level divisions of China. - Fayenatic (talk) 19:23, 27 June 2011 (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. Timrollpickering (talk) 13:12, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming:

Nominator's rationale: Rename. This is a relatively minor point, but it's one that has been stewing for some time. We currently have a mix of categories using "immigrants" and "emigrants". An "emigrant" has reference to migrating from a particular place and an "immigrant" has reference to migrating to a particular place. I propose that "emigrants" is more correct in the context of these category names and that they should all be changed to "emigrants". All of these category names begin with an adjective: "FOOian". An adjective must modify a noun. To be grammatically sound, the adjective and the noun must refer to the same thing or at least have their root in the same idea, without mixing and matching concepts, which in this case is where the person comes from originally. The person is FOOian (adj) and is migrating from FOO (noun); "emigrants" stands in for the noun "FOO" in this phrase, making "FOOian emigrants" correct. The "to GOO" is tacked onto this phrase to further modify the adjective–noun combo of "FOOian emigrants". True, we can (correctly) say "immigrants to GOO", but then once we add an adjective to this phrase—"FOOian immigrants to GOO"—"FOOian" becomes a dreaded "nonconforming adjective" (my way of describing this, hence the quotes), because it is modifying "immigrants", but in so doing the adjective and the noun no longer correspond in indicating where the person is from. In the past, there has been general agreement on this point, but these haven't been changed because there are so many of them. Another option would be to avoid the problem altogether by using "migrants" instead of "immigrants" or "emigrants". Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:39, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support; I came across this usage the other day and found it really odd. Mattlore (talk) 06:02, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom (by the way, you have a couple of "GOO"s in there). --Mais oui! (talk) 07:44, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(The "GOO" is to contrast with "FOO", as in each case there is a "FOOian" nationality and a different country of destination, "GOO".) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:55, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nom. This issue had arisen as a side issue in several earlier discussions, and although there was general agreement that "FOOian emigrants" was the correct terminology, no one, until now, appeared willing to take on the major task of proposing the renaming of so many categories. Well done Good Ol’factory. Davshul (talk) 10:20, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support out of sheer awe and respect. No, you're right anyway. What a labour of love. - Fayenatic (talk) 21:12, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support renames, per nom. Good grammar makes Wiki-Tan happy. Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:16, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose – I'd say that both forms are correct. In the case of Category:Afghan immigrants to the United Kingdom, the people are emigrants from the point of view of Afghanistan but immigrants from the point of view of the UK. We're focusing on the fact that they're immigrating to the UK not emigrating from Afghanistan. McLerristarr | Mclay1 12:20, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • But the adjective "Afghan" is clearly an indication of where the person is emigrating from, not a focus on where they are immigrating to. "Afghan" what? "Afghan emigrants". Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:10, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • They're also Afghan immigrants. If the British Minister for Immigration (or whoever) was talking about them, he'd call them "Afghan immigrants to the UK". McLerristarr | Mclay1 07:52, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • If one were "focusing on the fact that they're immigrating to the UK", the correct terminology would be the (somewhat cumbersome) "British immigrants from Afghanistan". The word "immigrants" is clearly ambiguous in its usage (as, in fact, pointed out by User:Mclay1), and accordingly the word "emigrants", per nom, is both correct and preferable . Davshul (talk) 08:07, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Not objecting (as long as they're made consistent one way or the other, I don't mind), but I don't think there's anything wrong linguistically with the "immigrant" construction. (I'm an immigrant to Poland - What kind of immigrant to Poland are you? - A British one - So you're a British immigrant to Poland.) Not migrant, though, which carries other (generally worse) connotations.--Kotniski (talk) 13:57, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Grammatically, that interpretation requires "immigrant to Poland" to be considered to be a compound noun, rather than a noun with a prepositional phrase added on the end. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:33, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I remain unconvinced by these grammatical assertions (from a British point of view, one can talk quite happily about Japanese imports, Japanese visitors, Japanese immigrants - with or without "to the UK" tacked on the end), but as I say, I don't have any objection to changing all of these categories to "emigrants" to achieve consistency.--Kotniski (talk) 12:05, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, you can talk about "Japanese imports" or "Japanese immigrants" happily without anything tacked onto the end, but once you do tack a prepositional phrase onto the end, then you (grammatically speaking) complicate the situation and risk creating a nonconforming adjective. Nothing says that an English speaker can't use phrases with nonconforming adjectives—people do it all the time in speaking and in writing—but to do so is formally (again, grammatically speaking) a bit of a faux pas, at least traditionally. It's similar to the split infinitive rule—it's broken all the time, and often it can even make sense to do so, but grammarians will still criticise it when it happens. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:16, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Are you sure you're not imagining things? I can find no reference to "nonconforming adjectives" either in Fowler or on the whole of the Internet.--Kotniski (talk) 12:53, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • I may well be imagining that particular name, since I couldn't remember the correct one when I tried to, so I used a descriptive term. But I certainly haven't dreamed up the concept, unless my entire grammar school experience was a bad dream. (Which, all things considered, may in fact be within the realm of possibilities.) I'll try to find the "actual" name for the concept, if it has one. It may not, beyond the general idea of adjective/noun "agreement", for lack of a better word. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:08, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose If one country spells it one way, than it should be left that way. If you are writing a Canadian based article, than the words should be spelled correctly the way Canadians spell it. Each category should be on a case by case basis because changing all of them wouldn't be correct because not all places spell it in the way it's being proposed in this change... Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 05:49, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not a spelling difference. They are different words in all English-speaking countries. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:06, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Emigrant and immigrant are similar in meaning except that with immigrant, people move to another country for permanent residence. So using immigrant is correct in this instance. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 06:09, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, an emigrant is a person who is leaving a country and an immigrant is a person who is arriving in a country. Every emigrant is also an immigrant, unless they just live out at sea. McLerristarr | Mclay1 13:00, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - Although I don't have a huge problem with this I am going to oppose for a couple primary reasons.

1. The sheer scope of the submission and the number of categories and articles it would affect. Your looking at an order of magnitude in the tens or hundreds of thousands at least and likely equal to or more than the number of records in WikiProject Biography.
2. The wording appears to be one of those British English over American English debates.
3. Its mostly a symantic argument and really isn't worth the effort it would take to do the change. Aside from the work of renaming and replacing its also an education factor. It has been like this for years so it would take a long time to get folks used to using the new standard which means a lot of articles either in categories that have been deleted or cateegories that redirect to other categories. --Kumioko (talk) 18:05, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1. is not true. It does not affect tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of articles. Most of the categories have about 2 or 3 articles in it; many have 1 and very few have more than 20.
2. is not true. They are different words in both UK English and in American English, as any dictionary will reveal.
3. is weak, since a bot does the work and any "educational" challenges can easily be remedied simply by creating category redirects. Right now it is far less convenient because some use "immigrants" and some use "emigrants" and there are few category redirects, which means a user basically has to guess which is used. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:16, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nom. GcSwRhIc (talk) 22:35, 24 June 2011 (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. Timrollpickering (talk) 16:14, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:The Decemberists to Category:The Decemberists (band)

Nominator's rationale: Per main article. If this passes, the subcats. can be speedy renamed. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:17, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Question. Is there a reason the main article has the disambiguator, since it's the primary topic for that title? (The revolt has the spelling "Decembrist," without the third "e.") Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:20, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. (The Decemberists is IMO too close to The Decembrists to be primary; indeed both should be disambiguated.) Occuli (talk) 09:37, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This is unnecessary and the simple redirect on each page is enough. There are no other articles with the same name. • Freechildtalk 23:53, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and potentially rename the main article to remove (band). There is no actual ambiguity. Pburka (talk) 18:42, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above. I've started a Requested Move discussion for the article to take (band) off the title, but either way it's unnecessary in the category name. Theoldsparkle (talk) 16:44, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename. Decembrist and Decemberists is far too close. You do not want categories that someone would accedently put something in if they make a minor misspelling.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:29, 28 June 2011 (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.