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: temporarily lowercasing "concern" and "threatened." There is a valuable goal here to giving animals labels only by who is labeling them. In the case of the IUCN, those classifications should be called what the IUCN calls them, which is Least Concern and other capitalized labels. For these categories, I'm temporarily assuming that we don't know who's labeling the species, and lowercasing the classification. But that doesn't mean these categories should exist. A far better goal would be moving all the classification to IUCN, NatureServe, and other organizations' categorization schemes, and capitalizing them appropriately. A good, if thematically very different, analogue is what we do with terrorists in the subcategories of Category:Organizations designated as terrorist by designator. I'd suggest aiming for moving these all to more specific categories, in the most organized way possible. As a potentially confusing side note, all subcategories of Category:Species by IUCN Red List category do not capitalize the classification type, despite IUCN capitalizing those categories. So maybe all of these will remain uncapitalized.--Mike Selinker (talk) 05:08, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

--Mike Selinker (talk) 04:54, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming

Category:Least concern plants to ???

Category:Least Concern species to ??? (and subcats with similar naming)

Category:Near Threatened species to ??? (and subcats with similar naming)

Category:Near Threatened biota of the United States to ???

Category:Conservation dependent species to ???

Nominator's rationale: There is inconsistency in capitalization in these categories. I don't know enough about conservation to have an opinion either way but it would be nice to be consistent. It seems most use lower case for the second word except those listed here but that need not be the case. I have no idea. Axem Titanium (talk) 17:55, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Critically endangered as a generic conservation status taken up by several status systems, should be lower case. Critically endangered as a specific conservation status defined under a specific status system should follow the capitalization used by that system. So Category:Critically endangered species but Category:IUCN Red List Critically Endangered species. Things get messy when dealing with statuses like "Near Threatened" which may or may not have been used by only one status system. Someone needs to work through the renaming implications of all this, and come back with a more concrete proposal. Hesperian 03:34, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dana boomer (talk) 23:40, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I think we should categorize only according to statuses in specific status systems; using Hesperian's examples, we should (perhaps) have a Category:IUCN Red List Critically Endangered species (for species that are Critically Endangered on the IUCN Red List), but not a Category:Critically endangered species (for species that we, or some random source, considers critically endangered). Ucucha 10:08, 19 May 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) 19:11, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Greek–Italian relations to Category:Greece–Italy relations

Nominator's rationale: To match format of other subcats of Category:Bilateral relations of Italy and most other subcats of Category:Bilateral relations of Greece. LeSnail (talk) 21:20, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support, no problem. Constantine ✍ 21:32, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I changed the two dashes to an endash, if you don't mind. Otherwise, support. Axem Titanium (talk) 21:48, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. The main article is at Greco-Italian relations. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:30, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dana boomer (talk) 23:40, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. Occuli (talk) 10:03, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Greco-Italian relations to match main article. Ucucha 10:09, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note. Is the arbcon ban on moving titles with hyphens and dashes still in effect? Vegaswikian (talk) 19:54, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. The subcategories of Category:Bilateral relations are predominantly of the Category:Country1-Country2 relations format, e.g. Category:China – United Kingdom relations not Category:Sino-British relations, Category:Netherlands–Russia relations not Category:Russo-Dutch relations and so on. This format is less ambiguous and follows CfD's trend away from demonyms. In fact, I would argue this rename is speedy-able.- choster (talk) 20:25, 31 May 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 to rename or to delete. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:47, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Films whose director won the Best Director Academy Award to Category:Best Director Academy Award winning films

Nominator's rationale: Rename. I find the wording of this category name to be very awkward and unwieldly. Under the theory that shorter is better for category names I believe the rename is superior for being three words shorter and is as clear if not clearer. There are other categories for other awards with a similar construction but rather than nominate all of them I would like to offer this one as a starting point "test" nomination to see what people think about the concept. Harley Hudson (talk) 03:47, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've put a note on the Film Project talkpage. Lugnuts (talk) 10:00, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I understand your point about long awkward names, but the reason for the current name is to avoid confusion over whether the film itself won a best director award, which are awarded to the directors. Your proposed rename wrongly implies that the film won the award. postdlf (talk) 14:48, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• That strikes me as a pretty fine hair to split. Harley Hudson (talk) 16:07, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• To expand on this a bit, generally when I see Oscar winning films advertised the copy is something like "Winner of X Academy Awards, including Best Actor, John Doe, Best Director, Jane Smith, and Best Picture." I think people understand that the awards go to the person, and each category like this should be linked to its corresponding category that's actually for the people (in this case Category:Best Director Academy Award winners. Harley Hudson (talk) 17:48, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• That's an interesting point, but advertising motivations are obviously to jack up the numbers, while we're going for maximum precision in our category names, and given our worldwide audience we can't presume what people will understand, nor would that understanding be an excuse for inaccuracy. We still shouldn't tolerate within an article the sentence "Film X won the Best Director Award" even if we're confident that our readers know better. But let's see what others have to say. postdlf (talk) 18:14, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Cmt As no one commented on my !vote yet, I've deleted it rather than struck it though. Here's the deal, for me: I agree with Harley that the name is awkward. What's more, it doesn't even make clear that the director needs to have won the award for this film. And so while Postdlf's comments are well taken, I think leaving the name as is is not advisable. But I'll be darned if I can come up with anything better. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:27, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, I thought about that ambiguity too: The Lost World: Jurassic Park is a "film whose director won the Best Director Academy Award"; it just wasn't won for that film. The only rename I can think of would be even longer, though more clear: "Films for which its director won the Best Director Academy Award." But I see no sign that it's been misused to included every film directed by everyone who won the Best Director Award, and I think that possible ambiguity is even less likely to cause confusion than someone thinking that a film won the award if it's in "Best Director Academy Award winning films," which is just flat-out semantically inaccurate. 19:28, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
    • In fairness, the use of the definite article Films whose director won the Best Director Academy Award vs. Films whose director won a Best Director Academy Award does make it reasonably clear to attentive readers that it's for this particular film, too. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:21, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support for renaming. Postdlf is of course correct to point out that strict grammar should lead one to think that the film won the award. However, readers with an IQ over 15 are unlikely to be fooled and all things considered I still prefer "Best Director Academy Award winning films" over all options discussed above. Pichpich (talk) 20:02, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete if it is the director and not the film winning the award, why group films by this category at all?John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:06, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because the director wins for a particular film, and it's a significant fact about a film that the Academy decided that its directing was the best for that year. Really the only Academy Award that films win is the Best Picture Award, and you could say even that one really goes to the film's producer(s). (which may or may not undercut my point above, but so be it) postdlf (talk) 03:16, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete entirely, confusing. Neutrality^talk 04:49, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Conditional rename—but please keep the category. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 23:04, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dana boomer (talk) 23:15, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – the present title seems much clearer than the suggested one. And I think it is a defining characteristic of a film. (I see that Kramer vs Kramer is in a host of such categories.) Occuli (talk) 09:58, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per both Postdlf and Occuli's reasoning. MarnetteD | Talk 12:07, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Neutrality. This isn't helpful to anyone -- unless they don't know how to click twice on a page -- and just adds another superfluous category to the film articles. Bulldog123 16:53, 19 May 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. It's kinda baffling to start a categorization scheme with the middle status, when "high" and "low" have not been defined.--Mike Selinker (talk) 04:56, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Medium-capacity rail transport system to Category:Medium-capacity rail transport systems

Nominator's rationale: Rename. 119.236.251.39 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) placed the template on the category page without leaving an edit summary or completing the nomination. I'm completing this on their half as I support moving this to the plural title per typical category naming. I am unable to say though if the original nomination was for this reason or not. Thryduulf (talk) 21:11, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete category proposed as vague and unnecessary. The difference between Medium and Heavy is not clear. The category appears to relate mainly to commuter and short distance systems but could also apply to heritage railways and some long distance systems? There are already Category:Passenger rail transport (mainly long distance) and Category:Rapid transit plus subcategories including Category:Regional rail systems. Hence the Paris Metro is in categories Category:Rail transport in France, Category:Rapid transit in France, Category:Underground rapid transit in France and Category:Transport in Paris. But every line of the Beijing Subway, Paris Metro, London Underground, New York Subway etc would need to have the proposed category added, which would be unweildy in size even if broken down by country. Hugo999 (talk) 01:41, 22 May 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. (As suggested by Occuli, I will ensure that the articles are in appropriate subcategories of Category:American broadcasters and an appropriate ethnic descent category.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:35, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:American broadcasters of Italian descent (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:American broadcasters of Irish descent (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Useless WP:OCAT - Dedicated group-subject subcategories should only be created where that combination is itself recognized as a distinct and unique cultural topic in its own right. Bulldog123 16:52, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete both. No relationship between being an American AND of Italian or Irish descent AND being a broadcaster. Harley Hudson (talk) 05:37, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge to Category:American broadcasters and: Category:American people of Italian descent, Category:American people of Irish descent respectively. Occuli (talk) 10:01, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both per wp:ocat.Curb Chain (talk) 11:12, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both. This intersection of ethnicity and occupation is not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:53, 23 May 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.