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. Timrollpickering (talk) 10:08, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:IAC/InterActiveCorp to Category:IAC (company)

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Main article is at IAC (company). I suggest we rename the category to match. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:29, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support to match lead article. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:33, 16 March 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. Timrollpickering (talk) 10:13, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Samlip Group to Category:SPC Group

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Main article is now named SPC Group. Samlip Group redirects there. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:03, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support to match lead article.RevelationDirect (talk) 01:34, 16 March 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) 21:07, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Game researchers to Category:Video game researchers

Nominator's rationale: Rename to avoid all ambiguity with game theory. The individuals currently listed in the category are all researching video games, not games in a larger sense. Perhaps there are scholars who built their career by saying deep things about Monopoly but they would be out of place here. Pichpich (talk) 22:28, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support I would think this should be about game theory. 184.144.160.156 (talk) 03:37, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - Many of them are, in fact, involved in non-digital game research (though not "saying deep things about Monopoly"), and the two fields are pretty much inseparable. Kuguar03 (talk) 21:35, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• What about "Interactive game researchers" as an alternative? Kuguar03 (talk) 23:04, 21 March 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. Timrollpickering (talk) 10:15, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Fraternity and sorority presidents templates to Category:Fraternity and sorority templates

Nominator's rationale: Rename. I suggest broadening this category so that it can include, for example, Category:Phi Kappa Psi templates as a subcategory. It makes sense to have all the fraternity and sorority templates grouped together in one category. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:12, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Why not just create the proposed category and position the nominated category as a sub-cat? Lafe Smith (talk) 04:24, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because I'm not sure if we need the subdivision, seeing as how there is no category for fraternity/sorority presidents. The nominated category just sits in Category:Fraternities and sororities. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:37, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I like the idea of creating the supercategory in between this category and the Fraternities and Sororities category. The presidents grouping seems a natural split off of the supercategory, and then you are right back where you started. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Naraht (talk • contribs) 13:07, 15 March 2011
• Rename per nom. Several of the templates are marginal, as they include only a few figures who would ever even merit articles and could be merged into the parent article; we'll leave that for TfD of course. There seems to be no generalized scheme of chief executive navboxes, so we are not losing much category information, and for what it's worth, there are very few fraternity and sorority templates in general— I found one infobox and one navbox apiece for the three general conferences and the PFA.- choster (talk) 18:30, 15 March 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) 10:15, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:World War II documentary films to Category:Documentary films about World War II

Nominator's rationale: Merge per naming structure for the rest of the contents of Category:Documentary films by war. These categories are not "related," as stated on category hatnotes, as far as I can see. They are duplicates. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:04, 14 March 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. Timrollpickering (talk) 10:16, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Kilkenny to Category:Kilkenny (city)

Nominator's rationale: Rename, to clarify that this category relates to the city of Kilkenny, rather than to the surrounding County Kilkenny. This is the last category in Category:Cities in the Republic of Ireland to be without a disambiguator; other renamings were of Waterford, Galway, Dublin, and Limerick.

In all cases, the same issue applied: the unqualified name can be used to refer to either the county or the city, and since the city is the primary usage of the unqualified term, the article on the city is correctly titled without a disambiguator. However, ambiguous category names can lead to less-easily-detected errors in categorisation, so the category name should be disambiguated. With the other cities, I have recreated the unqualified name as a {{category ambiguous}} (see e.g. Category:Waterford), and I will do the same here if this renaming proceeds. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:33, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support ambiguity per BHG. 184.144.160.156 (talk) 03:30, 16 March 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. Given the large number of categories involved can someone with AWB help in processing? Timrollpickering (talk) 22:03, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming:

Rationalle: Per the main aticles in most of these categories (Any with no comment saying otherwise). עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:47, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nom. Much better title. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:52, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. Much better title. Yoninah (talk) 17:09, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. Great proposal. --WhiteWriter ^speaks 19:50, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose because: 1. the nominator is reading the complex situation superficially by assuming that the "category" = the "main article" alone which it does not. 2. The core question here is how to string together topics relating to Jews & Judaism & Jewish history connected to, but not always within, individual countries, and that is not an easy question! 3. It is also a question of choosing language that is neither too inclusive nor too exclusive. As the creator of most of these categories plus the main parent categories I gave this matter a lot of thought over many years. 4. The naming of these categories is meant to be more general directly based upon the main general parent category here which is Category: Jewish history and its main article Jewish history. 5. While the name "History of the Jews IN ___" refers to THEIR history IN that country, nevertheless there are ALSO many other related topics and sub-categories that are not part of the Jews' history per se yet also impacted them in those countries, for example in Category:Jewish Hungarian history there is Category:Hungarian Nazis, Category:Israeli people of Hungarian origin, Category:Polányi family NONE of which could be strictly speaking interpreted as "the Jews IN Hungary" and there are dozens of examples like this in almost each category here. 6. Another example of a problem, is when the main category Category:Antisemitism has sub-categories and goes down the line --> Category:Antisemitism in Europe --> Category:Antisemitism in France (which then becomes a sub-category of Category:Jewish French history) but also continues --> Category:Crusades while the Crusades, as such, were not about the Jews IN France. 7. Then there is the ongoing history and continuum of those Jews once they have LEFT those countries and settled elsewhere that could not be included in a category devoted to Jews still IN those countries, see for example the huge Category:American Jews by national origin with its own sub-sub-categories such as Category:American Jews of European descent, Category:American Jews of Middle Eastern descent etc etc, that could not, as such, be classified as the "history of the Jews IN" their countries of origin were this proposal to take effect. 8. Because of all these, and other, complex problems that would arise with this proposal, the nominator is requested to withdraw this hasty proposal and take it to a more general forum such as Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism for deeper discussion and input. Bottom line, if it ain't broke, don't fix it, but this should suffice. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 20:23, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per IZAK's reasons. The proposed change would substantially change the content of the categories. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 00:17, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per IZAK's reasons. --Yoavd (talk) 14:41, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename. Despite the issues raised, I think the proposed names are an improvement. The current names are very awkward. As noted, the proposed names would create some awkwardness of fitting the contents in the categories. On balance, I think the current name awkwardness is a more significant problem. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:10, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Good Ol: Having created and perfected these categories over many long years no one has ever complained and all users have seen the logic and beauty of this category-naming system, so there is no need to change it when the alternative is both limited and incorrect. This is a short-sighted and hasty move. To repeat, these categories (that often have different concerns than "main articles") follow the naming style and order of the master parent category Category:Jewish history based on the Jewish history article, that in turn is part of master Category:History, and not Category:History of Italians in Italy etc, but it comes at the topic from the point of view of History per se, not of "fooian people" -- otherwise rename Category:Jewish history to Category:History of the Jews in the world which no one would say is normal. IZAK (talk) 08:04, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just because no one has ever complained doesn't mean there can't be complaints or proposals to change now. I've actually run across them before and had wondered what could be done to make them less ambiguous. The category names are presently problematic in my view because they are ambiguously worded and awkward-sounding. Double-barrelled adjectives of this kind rarely work well, because it's always unclear if the first adjective is acting to adjust the noun, the second adjective, or both. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:28, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Good Ol, the proof of the pudding is in the eating and the fact is that until this moment almost no one has been confused at all because there is absolutely nothing "ambiguous" or "problematic" about perfectly sound category names that have functioned superbly for close on seven years until the nominator bumped into this topic, and he still has to explain himself. All the nominator had in mind was to match up the categories with their so-called main articles -- nothing more and nothing less -- and he made no mention of the problems with "nouns" and "adjectives" at all. These categories are about the Jewish history (of or relating to the Jews) connected to but not necessarily IN those countries as such! So it is therefore logical and rational that the word "Jewish" appear first, and then added to the words "country history" and the very "ambiguity" you refer to is in fact its strength because it can include categories that are not specifically about the Jews in a particular country but can be connected to a wider range of related and connected topics. This is a matter of historiography (i.e. "the study of the history and methodology of the discipline of history") and not about getting exact grammatical words to match article topics which is the worst and shallowest way to categorize in this case. IZAK (talk) 10:59, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • My opinion is just that. You don't have to agree with me, just as I don't agree with you. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:49, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per IZAK. Making this change would have a substantial impact on, and alter, the content of the categories. There is a difference between Jewish History in a certain place and the history of Jews in a certain place. -- nsaum75 ^{!Dígame¡‎} 08:34, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I've been staring at this one for a while. I recognize that the difference is subtle, but the existing category titles more broadly include historical information regarding the Jews and Jewish community in a country while the proposed titles more narrowly limit that in conflict with the way that the current categories have been used. Alansohn (talk) 14:36, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. "History of the Jews in xxx country" is definitely not IDENTICAL to "Jewish xxx-ian History"; so a rename CANNOT be done under a TECHNICAL or GRAMMATICAL rationale, which is all the supporters of rename have been able to come up with so far. Nahum (talk) 17:12, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose: It seems like the proposed system is subject to as many problems as the previous system. I agree that the current nomenclature is slightly clunky. However, I think the proponent of the change needs to give a much more convincing demonstration of which problems they are hoping to solve, and a thorough disclosure of the new problems they are introducing. Obviously, the proposed change will set a large number of articles adrift in category space. We need to know the scope of the impact, and how the situation will be remediated, so we can reasonably assess whether this change is worth doing at all. —Dfass (talk) 20:53, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose: Per Dfass and the other opposers above.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:35, 23 March 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: Delete. Timrollpickering (talk) 10:21, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Coolhawks88 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Incorrect name for user category. Ian Cairns (talk) 12:15, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - per vast & sound precedent against individual-user categories such as these. VegaDark (talk) 07:13, 19 March 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. Timrollpickering (talk) 10:17, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming

• Category:Toll roads of the Philippines to Category:Toll roads in the Philippines
• Category:Indonesia Toll Roads to Category:Toll roads in Indonesia

The usual format for Roads / Toll roads is “Toll roads in Fooland” see Category:Toll roads Hugo999 (talk) 08:57, 14 March 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. Timrollpickering (talk) 10:18, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Religion by city in the United States (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Religion in Indian cities (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Rename to Category:Religion in the United States by city and Category:Religion in India by city respectively. All other "Religion by city by country" categories use the proposed form. Grutness...wha? 08:24, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nom. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:53, 14 March 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) 10:19, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Former RTÉ Radio 1 presenters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge to Category:RTÉ Radio 1 presenters per longstanding CFD consensus against using the category system to separate current from former occupants of the same role or position. Bearcat (talk) 07:43, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Upmerge per nominator and per long-standing consensus. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:35, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge Former/current is not a useful breakdown. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:48, 16 March 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) 10:20, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Former RTÉ 2fm presenters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge to Category:RTÉ 2fm presenters per longstanding CFD consensus against using the category system to separate current from former occupants of the same role or position. Bearcat (talk) 07:42, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Upmerge per nominator and per long-standing consensus. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:36, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge Former/current is not a useful breakdown. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:49, 16 March 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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 03:13, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Culture of the United Kingdom to Category:British culture

Nominator's rationale: Rename. This was Speedied(!) from Category:British culture to Category:Culture of the United Kingdom. This is a socio-cultural topic for which the naming convention is nationality foo and the overwhelming convention of Category:Culture by nationality follows this. Tim! (talk) 07:23, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nom to match almost every other category in the tree. Should never have been speedied. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:56, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. Very bizarre speedy. Occuli (talk) 15:52, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. It was a bizarre speedy, but should not be reversed. The scope of this category clearly covers the whole of the United Kingdom (including Northern Ireland) and not just the island of Great Britain, and the name should reflect that. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:59, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "British" is and always has been the adjective referring to the whole United Kingdom. Differences in Northern Ireland are covered by Category:Irish culture. -- Necrothesp 20:58, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • British is the adjective used in that part of the United Kingdom which is Great Britain. However, the United Kingdom is an abbreviation for the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, where a significant chunk of the population objects strongly to being called "British". As Nobel Laureate Seamus Heaney put it 'Be advised, my passport's green/ No glass of ours was ever raised/ To toast the Queen.'.
      There is no need to use a contested adjective when the core policy of neutrality can be met by simply using "of the United Kingdom". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:19, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Indeed, however the culture of the "significant chunk of the population [which] objects strongly to being called "British"" is actually Irish! Which already has its own category. The remainder of the population of Northern Ireland generally identify themselves as British. Therefore I see no problem with leaving British culture at Category:British culture. We are effectively talking here about the culture of an ethnic group (or collection of ethnic groups), not a nation state. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:59, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • • That reasoning woukd work only if the category excluded those in Northern Ireland who don't identify as British ... but it doesn't. A high proportion of its sub-categories have "United Kingdom" as their scope, and Category:Culture of Northern Ireland is also a sub-cat; that includes those in NI who do not identify as British. If you want the category to be for the culture of an ethnic group rather than of a nation state, then it will need to be radically purged in order to exclude all the geographical sub-categories. Is that what you want? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:19, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename back. Agree that this should not have gone through speedy unchallenged; it doesn't seem to fit any of the criteria, in any case. Unless there's a clear consensus for this change, it should not be made. Despite the issue of "British" having the potential to be interpreted as omitting inclusion of Northern Ireland, I think it's also true that "British" = "of the United Kingdom" in WP categories and in broad general usage. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:16, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. See number of subcategories which are British eg British cuisine, British fashion. Hugo999 (talk) 04:20, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Rename: I'm sympathetic to sticking with United Kingdom for formal legal categories so it includes Northern Ireland. I don't see a problem with (arguably) limiting a cultural category to the island of Great Britain since the Ulster/Scotch Irish culture is distinct.RevelationDirect (talk) 01:54, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per GO etc. Various minority groups, not at all confined to NI, are equally unhappy about being "British" and "of the United Kingdom" and going against the common name won't make them any happier. Johnbod (talk) 12:44, 16 March 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.