June 19
Category:Lenzen (Elbe)
- 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. Courcelles ( talk) 23:15, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
-
Category:Lenzen (Elbe) (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
- Nominator's rationale: Delete. One-voiced category for a tiny municipality (2,453 inh. in 2008): By now it sounds completely redundant. -- Dэя- Бøяg 22:32, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
- Delete – its single occupant Nausdorfer Canal makes no mention of Lenzen. Occuli ( talk) 22:55, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
- 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.
Category:Royal or Presidential Yachts
- 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 first two, keep third.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 04:43, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:Royal or Presidential Yachts to Category:Royal and presidential yachts
- Propose renaming Category:Presidential Yachts of the United States to Category:Presidential yachts of the United States
- Propose renaming Category:Royal Yachts of the United Kingdom to Category:Royal yachts of the United Kingdom
- Nominator's rationale: Rename. standard naming conventions. emerson7 19:29, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose while main article is at Royal Yacht, as is the UK list. The term is normally treated as a proper name in the UK at least. Johnbod ( talk) 03:36, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
- but not in this context -- emerson7 20:02, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
- What "context"?
Johnbod (
talk) 20:05, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
- I think the user might have meant in the context of the first category listed, "Royal ... yachts" refers to royal yachts from a variety of countries, not just the UK. Thus, in this generic usage context, it should not be capitalised. But I'm not sure, because this reason doesn't apply to the last category listed, so it's unclear.
Good Ol’factory
(talk) 03:51, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks...i kinda lost track, and you summed it up very well. the secondary cat could be use the proper noun (i.e. remain as is) but presidential yachts should not. -- emerson7 15:53, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
- I think the user might have meant in the context of the first category listed, "Royal ... yachts" refers to royal yachts from a variety of countries, not just the UK. Thus, in this generic usage context, it should not be capitalised. But I'm not sure, because this reason doesn't apply to the last category listed, so it's unclear.
Good Ol’factory
(talk) 03:51, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
- comment should Category:Royal or Presidential Yachts be better named Category:Sovereign state yachts or Category:Official yachts to be more inclusive? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hmains ( talk • contribs)
- Rename at least the first two per nom, to reflect correct capitalization. The third one could be kept if that is the correct capitalization in the UK. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:43, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- 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.
Category:Recipients of the Order of Australia Medal
- 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. Courcelles ( talk) 23:14, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:Recipients of the Order of Australia Medal to Category:Recipients of the Medal of the Order of Australia
- Nominator's rationale: Rename. 'Medal of the Order of Australia' is the actual title of the award. Whilst the postnominal entitlement is 'OAM', the name 'Order of Australia Medal' is inaccurate. Due to the the common misuse of the medal's title, the old category name should be redirected to the proposed new name rather than deleted. AusTerrapin ( talk) 18:21, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
- Support per nom. This official site confirms they are correct - the confusion arises from the order of letters in the postnominal. Orderinchaos 22:24, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
- Support. Agree with Orderinchaos. None of the postnoms reflect the order of the words in the long name: AC is Companion of the Order of Australia, and similar for AK, AD, AO and AM. OAM is a further scrabbling, but necessary because Medal and Member start with the same letter. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 22:36, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
- Support per nom, Orderinchaos and Jack of Oz. There's little more to say, really, other than it's surprising this hasn't been picked up before. Frickeg ( talk) 02:15, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
- No Brainer support the award is Medal of the Order of Australia(OAM). Gnan garra 03:08, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
- Support - makes sense to me. Anotherclown ( talk) 19:08, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
- Support I agree with the nom's rationale. Thanks for keeping the Mil Hist project informed too. Cheers. AustralianRupert ( talk) 22:07, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
- Support - good call! Stalwart111 ( talk) 06:35, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
- 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.
Category:Superior Generals of the Society of Jesus
- 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 (a category redirect will be retained). Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:44, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:Superior Generals of the Society of Jesus to Category:Superiors General of the Society of Jesus
- Nominator's rationale: Rename. The proper plural of " Superior General" is "Superiors General", not "Superior Generals". See for example Category:Attorneys general. Gentgeen ( talk) 17:44, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
- Neutral, but whichever name is adopted, please ensure that the other exists as a {{ category redirect}}. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 16:56, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
- Weak support -- I suspect this is right. Certainly the category redirect is needed. Peterkingiron ( talk) 17:45, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
- Support by analogy with Governors General. -- Kevlar ( talk • contribs) 09:40, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
- 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.
Populated riverside places
- 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 per nom and in the interests of consistency. Per Vegaswikian, I see no bar to subdividing these categories into towns/cities/etc if warranted. -- Xdamr talk 15:06, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:Populated river places to Category:Populated riverside places
- Propose renaming Category:Towns on the Darling River to Category:Populated places on the Darling River
- Propose renaming Category:Cities and towns on the Euphrates River to Category:Populated places on the Euphrates River
- Propose renaming Category:Cities on the James River (Virginia) to Category:Populated places on the James River (Virginia)
- Propose renaming Category:Colombian cities over the Magdalena River to Category:Populated places on the Magdalena River
- Propose renaming Category:Towns on the Murray River to Category:Populated places on the Murray River
- Propose renaming Category:Towns on the Murrumbidgee River to Category:Populated places on the Murrumbidgee River
- Propose renaming Category:Towns on the River Great Ouse to Category:Populated places on the River Great Ouse
- Propose renaming Category:Towns on the River Severn to Category:Populated places on the River Severn
- Propose renaming Category:Towns on the River Tweed to Category:Populated places on the River Tweed
- Propose renaming Category:Cities on the Santa Ana River to Category:Populated places on the Santa Ana River
- Nominator's rationale: Rename. Attempting to bring all of these in line with the consensus on the subcategories of Category:Populated river places, which I would also like to rename to match "-side" in the parent category Category:Populated waterside places. The key element in these categories is that they are on a river, not what types of populated places they are (that is covered in each place's other categories). So, for example, Canberra, a large city, is in Category:Towns on the Murrumbidgee River. There's no reason it shouldn't be in a category about the Murrumbidgee, but it is unnecessarily specific and exclusive to say more than "Populated places" here. The UK ones are also nominated to bring them in line with Category:Populated places on the River Thames. Also, the Magdalena River is entirely in Colombia, so there's no need to specify the country there.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 17:09, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
- oppose usability people dont search for populated places on the foo river, they search for Towns on foo river. I understand the concept behind populated place as a structure to encompass the global variances between definitions on town,cities, villages etc but these subcategories should follow what would the most looked for terminology based on the local language. Gnan garra 03:17, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
- Side observation Category:Colombian cities over the Magdalena River to Category:Populated places on the Magdalena River should be to Colombian PP as its a country specific group rather than a river specific group. Gnan garra 03:20, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
- rename per nom This is in accordance with the naming of such categories to 'populated places'. I reviewed a selection of these categories and most contain a mixture of cities, towns, villages, etc--collectively 'populated places'. Hmains ( talk) 19:52, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose per Gnangarra. This idea that we can create our own terminology, used nowhere else in the real world in natural languages, and our readers (that long suffering group that this encyclopedia is supposed to aid) will automatically be able to understand and use this terminology is one of the more arrogant conceits of this Wikipedia project. Wikipedia should be descriptive and reflect current usage, not prescriptive and set out a preferred usage- this appears lost on those editors involved in the great category renaming project. From places to people to species, the general trend in category names continues down a path from simple and rational to byzantine and opaque to all but those "in the know". Alas, this trend won't be reversed here ... -- Mattinbgn\ talk 03:38, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
- Rename, since the "populated places" compromise seems to have now been widely adopted, and there's no reason for these to be left out. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:07, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose the more used term should be used, the compromise does not have to be accepted, and resistance should be provided whenever possible to inappropriate names. Graeme Bartlett ( talk) 01:29, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose All of these examples (except the very first, which is simply a grammatical correction) are over-extensions. Within Wikipedia, the top levels should be standard, but there is considerable room for diversity below that level, especially at sub-country level such as these examples. There is no *need* to "standardise" these.
Orderinchaos 02:12, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
- Fixed Canberra - it's on the Molonglo River, which is a tributary of the Murrumbidgee, so shouldn't be in this category. Orderinchaos 02:17, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
- Rename per nom, to match parent categories. Anyway, I don't see why villages are excluded. Dimadick ( talk) 07:01, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
- Rename per nom unless it can be shown that the category only contains towns or cities. Simply put, it is wrong to label a town as a city or a city as a town. If there are enough articles, these renamed categories can be split into towns and cities if anyone sees the need. Vegaswikian ( talk) 05:13, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
- 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.
Nobel laureate organizations
- 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:Nobel laureates that are organizations to Category:Organizations awarded Nobel Prizes due to ambiguity, merge Category:American Nobel laureates that are organizations to renamed category. — ξ xplicit 21:23, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:Nobel laureates that are organizations to Category:Nobel laureate organizations (or Category:Organizations awarded Nobel Prizes)
- Propose renaming Category:American Nobel laureates that are organizations to Category:American Nobel laureate organizations (or upmerge)
- Nominator's rationale: Rename. Since "laureate" is an adjective as well as a noun, this tightens up these slightly awkward category names a little.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 15:32, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
- Support rename of
Category:Nobel laureates that are organizations to
Category:Nobel laureate organizations. However, I propose the merger of
Category:American Nobel laureates that are organizations into
Category:Nobel laureate organizations. The category in question contains only one entry and there is no justification for this separate category. 20:23, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
- Not a bad point. Almost every organization that's won has been a multinational, so parallel categories for other countries wouldn't make as much sense.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 20:54, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
- Support rename of Category:Nobel laureates that are organizations to Category:Nobel laureate organizations. and merger of Category:American Nobel laureates that are organizations into Category:Nobel laureate organizations per above comments. AusTerrapin ( talk) 02:30, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose these are not organizations composed of Nobel laureates ( by analogy, MENSA is an organization composed of high IQ people) these are organizations which received Nobel prizes 70.29.212.131 ( talk) 03:58, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose -- The target names are ambiguous: they sound like associations whose members have the nobel prize - which probably should be an empty category. Rename to
Category:Organisations awarded Nobel Prizes. Since most laureates are not from USA & Canada this spelling should be used for the parent. Upmerge American category: a one-member category is not useful.— Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Peterkingiron (
talk •
contribs) 17:52, June 20, 2010
- I'm okay with that name as well (no opinion on UK or US spelling).-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 18:24, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
- I totally agree with Peterkingiron's point - the proposed name is quite ambiguous, and could also be construed as "organizations for Nobel laureates". The correct rename should, however, maintain the US spelling, to wit: Category:Organizations awarded Nobel Prizes. And by all means, merge the US category. Cgingold ( talk) 23:44, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
- Rename to Category:Organizations awarded Nobel Prizes and upmerge the American category per Peterkingiron. This seems like the best option mentioned so far. Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:40, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
June 19
Category:Lenzen (Elbe)
- 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. Courcelles ( talk) 23:15, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
-
Category:Lenzen (Elbe) (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
- Nominator's rationale: Delete. One-voiced category for a tiny municipality (2,453 inh. in 2008): By now it sounds completely redundant. -- Dэя- Бøяg 22:32, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
- Delete – its single occupant Nausdorfer Canal makes no mention of Lenzen. Occuli ( talk) 22:55, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
- 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.
Category:Royal or Presidential Yachts
- 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 first two, keep third.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 04:43, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:Royal or Presidential Yachts to Category:Royal and presidential yachts
- Propose renaming Category:Presidential Yachts of the United States to Category:Presidential yachts of the United States
- Propose renaming Category:Royal Yachts of the United Kingdom to Category:Royal yachts of the United Kingdom
- Nominator's rationale: Rename. standard naming conventions. emerson7 19:29, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose while main article is at Royal Yacht, as is the UK list. The term is normally treated as a proper name in the UK at least. Johnbod ( talk) 03:36, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
- but not in this context -- emerson7 20:02, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
- What "context"?
Johnbod (
talk) 20:05, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
- I think the user might have meant in the context of the first category listed, "Royal ... yachts" refers to royal yachts from a variety of countries, not just the UK. Thus, in this generic usage context, it should not be capitalised. But I'm not sure, because this reason doesn't apply to the last category listed, so it's unclear.
Good Ol’factory
(talk) 03:51, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks...i kinda lost track, and you summed it up very well. the secondary cat could be use the proper noun (i.e. remain as is) but presidential yachts should not. -- emerson7 15:53, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
- I think the user might have meant in the context of the first category listed, "Royal ... yachts" refers to royal yachts from a variety of countries, not just the UK. Thus, in this generic usage context, it should not be capitalised. But I'm not sure, because this reason doesn't apply to the last category listed, so it's unclear.
Good Ol’factory
(talk) 03:51, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
- comment should Category:Royal or Presidential Yachts be better named Category:Sovereign state yachts or Category:Official yachts to be more inclusive? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hmains ( talk • contribs)
- Rename at least the first two per nom, to reflect correct capitalization. The third one could be kept if that is the correct capitalization in the UK. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:43, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- 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.
Category:Recipients of the Order of Australia Medal
- 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. Courcelles ( talk) 23:14, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:Recipients of the Order of Australia Medal to Category:Recipients of the Medal of the Order of Australia
- Nominator's rationale: Rename. 'Medal of the Order of Australia' is the actual title of the award. Whilst the postnominal entitlement is 'OAM', the name 'Order of Australia Medal' is inaccurate. Due to the the common misuse of the medal's title, the old category name should be redirected to the proposed new name rather than deleted. AusTerrapin ( talk) 18:21, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
- Support per nom. This official site confirms they are correct - the confusion arises from the order of letters in the postnominal. Orderinchaos 22:24, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
- Support. Agree with Orderinchaos. None of the postnoms reflect the order of the words in the long name: AC is Companion of the Order of Australia, and similar for AK, AD, AO and AM. OAM is a further scrabbling, but necessary because Medal and Member start with the same letter. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 22:36, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
- Support per nom, Orderinchaos and Jack of Oz. There's little more to say, really, other than it's surprising this hasn't been picked up before. Frickeg ( talk) 02:15, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
- No Brainer support the award is Medal of the Order of Australia(OAM). Gnan garra 03:08, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
- Support - makes sense to me. Anotherclown ( talk) 19:08, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
- Support I agree with the nom's rationale. Thanks for keeping the Mil Hist project informed too. Cheers. AustralianRupert ( talk) 22:07, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
- Support - good call! Stalwart111 ( talk) 06:35, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
- 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.
Category:Superior Generals of the Society of Jesus
- 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 (a category redirect will be retained). Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:44, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:Superior Generals of the Society of Jesus to Category:Superiors General of the Society of Jesus
- Nominator's rationale: Rename. The proper plural of " Superior General" is "Superiors General", not "Superior Generals". See for example Category:Attorneys general. Gentgeen ( talk) 17:44, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
- Neutral, but whichever name is adopted, please ensure that the other exists as a {{ category redirect}}. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 16:56, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
- Weak support -- I suspect this is right. Certainly the category redirect is needed. Peterkingiron ( talk) 17:45, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
- Support by analogy with Governors General. -- Kevlar ( talk • contribs) 09:40, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
- 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.
Populated riverside places
- 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 per nom and in the interests of consistency. Per Vegaswikian, I see no bar to subdividing these categories into towns/cities/etc if warranted. -- Xdamr talk 15:06, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:Populated river places to Category:Populated riverside places
- Propose renaming Category:Towns on the Darling River to Category:Populated places on the Darling River
- Propose renaming Category:Cities and towns on the Euphrates River to Category:Populated places on the Euphrates River
- Propose renaming Category:Cities on the James River (Virginia) to Category:Populated places on the James River (Virginia)
- Propose renaming Category:Colombian cities over the Magdalena River to Category:Populated places on the Magdalena River
- Propose renaming Category:Towns on the Murray River to Category:Populated places on the Murray River
- Propose renaming Category:Towns on the Murrumbidgee River to Category:Populated places on the Murrumbidgee River
- Propose renaming Category:Towns on the River Great Ouse to Category:Populated places on the River Great Ouse
- Propose renaming Category:Towns on the River Severn to Category:Populated places on the River Severn
- Propose renaming Category:Towns on the River Tweed to Category:Populated places on the River Tweed
- Propose renaming Category:Cities on the Santa Ana River to Category:Populated places on the Santa Ana River
- Nominator's rationale: Rename. Attempting to bring all of these in line with the consensus on the subcategories of Category:Populated river places, which I would also like to rename to match "-side" in the parent category Category:Populated waterside places. The key element in these categories is that they are on a river, not what types of populated places they are (that is covered in each place's other categories). So, for example, Canberra, a large city, is in Category:Towns on the Murrumbidgee River. There's no reason it shouldn't be in a category about the Murrumbidgee, but it is unnecessarily specific and exclusive to say more than "Populated places" here. The UK ones are also nominated to bring them in line with Category:Populated places on the River Thames. Also, the Magdalena River is entirely in Colombia, so there's no need to specify the country there.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 17:09, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
- oppose usability people dont search for populated places on the foo river, they search for Towns on foo river. I understand the concept behind populated place as a structure to encompass the global variances between definitions on town,cities, villages etc but these subcategories should follow what would the most looked for terminology based on the local language. Gnan garra 03:17, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
- Side observation Category:Colombian cities over the Magdalena River to Category:Populated places on the Magdalena River should be to Colombian PP as its a country specific group rather than a river specific group. Gnan garra 03:20, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
- rename per nom This is in accordance with the naming of such categories to 'populated places'. I reviewed a selection of these categories and most contain a mixture of cities, towns, villages, etc--collectively 'populated places'. Hmains ( talk) 19:52, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose per Gnangarra. This idea that we can create our own terminology, used nowhere else in the real world in natural languages, and our readers (that long suffering group that this encyclopedia is supposed to aid) will automatically be able to understand and use this terminology is one of the more arrogant conceits of this Wikipedia project. Wikipedia should be descriptive and reflect current usage, not prescriptive and set out a preferred usage- this appears lost on those editors involved in the great category renaming project. From places to people to species, the general trend in category names continues down a path from simple and rational to byzantine and opaque to all but those "in the know". Alas, this trend won't be reversed here ... -- Mattinbgn\ talk 03:38, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
- Rename, since the "populated places" compromise seems to have now been widely adopted, and there's no reason for these to be left out. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:07, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose the more used term should be used, the compromise does not have to be accepted, and resistance should be provided whenever possible to inappropriate names. Graeme Bartlett ( talk) 01:29, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose All of these examples (except the very first, which is simply a grammatical correction) are over-extensions. Within Wikipedia, the top levels should be standard, but there is considerable room for diversity below that level, especially at sub-country level such as these examples. There is no *need* to "standardise" these.
Orderinchaos 02:12, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
- Fixed Canberra - it's on the Molonglo River, which is a tributary of the Murrumbidgee, so shouldn't be in this category. Orderinchaos 02:17, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
- Rename per nom, to match parent categories. Anyway, I don't see why villages are excluded. Dimadick ( talk) 07:01, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
- Rename per nom unless it can be shown that the category only contains towns or cities. Simply put, it is wrong to label a town as a city or a city as a town. If there are enough articles, these renamed categories can be split into towns and cities if anyone sees the need. Vegaswikian ( talk) 05:13, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
- 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.
Nobel laureate organizations
- 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:Nobel laureates that are organizations to Category:Organizations awarded Nobel Prizes due to ambiguity, merge Category:American Nobel laureates that are organizations to renamed category. — ξ xplicit 21:23, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:Nobel laureates that are organizations to Category:Nobel laureate organizations (or Category:Organizations awarded Nobel Prizes)
- Propose renaming Category:American Nobel laureates that are organizations to Category:American Nobel laureate organizations (or upmerge)
- Nominator's rationale: Rename. Since "laureate" is an adjective as well as a noun, this tightens up these slightly awkward category names a little.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 15:32, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
- Support rename of
Category:Nobel laureates that are organizations to
Category:Nobel laureate organizations. However, I propose the merger of
Category:American Nobel laureates that are organizations into
Category:Nobel laureate organizations. The category in question contains only one entry and there is no justification for this separate category. 20:23, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
- Not a bad point. Almost every organization that's won has been a multinational, so parallel categories for other countries wouldn't make as much sense.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 20:54, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
- Support rename of Category:Nobel laureates that are organizations to Category:Nobel laureate organizations. and merger of Category:American Nobel laureates that are organizations into Category:Nobel laureate organizations per above comments. AusTerrapin ( talk) 02:30, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose these are not organizations composed of Nobel laureates ( by analogy, MENSA is an organization composed of high IQ people) these are organizations which received Nobel prizes 70.29.212.131 ( talk) 03:58, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose -- The target names are ambiguous: they sound like associations whose members have the nobel prize - which probably should be an empty category. Rename to
Category:Organisations awarded Nobel Prizes. Since most laureates are not from USA & Canada this spelling should be used for the parent. Upmerge American category: a one-member category is not useful.— Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Peterkingiron (
talk •
contribs) 17:52, June 20, 2010
- I'm okay with that name as well (no opinion on UK or US spelling).-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 18:24, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
- I totally agree with Peterkingiron's point - the proposed name is quite ambiguous, and could also be construed as "organizations for Nobel laureates". The correct rename should, however, maintain the US spelling, to wit: Category:Organizations awarded Nobel Prizes. And by all means, merge the US category. Cgingold ( talk) 23:44, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
- Rename to Category:Organizations awarded Nobel Prizes and upmerge the American category per Peterkingiron. This seems like the best option mentioned so far. Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:40, 29 June 2010 (UTC)