Category:Wikipedians in the Wikipedia Neutrality Project
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 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:Colchester Garrison
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 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:Roman Emperors with Illyrian decent
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.
Delete as a
trivial intersection of unrelated characteristics. The Roman Empire stretched across Europe, the Middle East, and North Africa, and included tens or hundreds of native tribes and peoples. I oppose an upmerge to
Category:Illyrian people because, although these emperors were born in
Illyricum (or
Dalmatia), for all intents and purposes they were Roman, not Illyrian. -- Black Falcon(
talk)19:55, 23 March 2014 (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.
Category:Čačanska banka
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 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:Meadows in Kathmandu Valley
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.
Rename to
Category:Open Spaces in Kathmandu Valley. We have a plain; a field where a religious festival takes place; and a parade ground/sports field. They probably need a category. Some (at least) are categoriesed as meadows. That category should be removed. Whoever categorised them thus does not understand the definition of a meadow.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
18:33, 23 March 2014 (UTC)reply
Although using "open spaces" would solve the problem of accuracy, I think that it would broaden the scope of the category excessively. An "open space" could refer to something as large as the
Great Plains of North America or as small as a public park or town square. -- Black Falcon(
talk)20:15, 23 March 2014 (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.
LGAS
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 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: Indian cinema by state
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.
Oppose It is abstract to classify cinema by state, rather than language. It would be weird to label a Marathi film created say Baroda as Cinema of Gujarat; rather than Marathi cinema. What about pre-1960 (Maharashtra and Gujarat were not formed) Marathi movies? Would they be classified as cinema of Bombay State and pre-Independence Marathi cinema as cinema of Bombay Province? The categories are in line with articles e.g.
Marathi cinema. --
RedtigerxyzTalk13:15, 23 March 2014 (UTC)reply
Hi
Peterkingiron, the main category (
Category:Indian cinema by state) where the above mentioned sub-categories are located is not correct for these sub-categories. Hence, have created a discussion to be decided either for renaming the subcategories or moving the subcategories out of the main category. -
Thaejas (
talk)
06:17, 24 March 2014 (UTC)reply
Oppose as current categories are based on language of the film and that is more important than which state made it. If the nominator thinks that the categories per state should also exist, they are free to create such differently. §§
Dharmadhyaksha§§ {
T/
C}
06:49, 27 March 2014 (UTC)reply
Rename parent to
Category:Cinema by language. In the Tamil case it is not even clearly "Indian". If you look at the articles and sub-cats it is clear what is being categorized is the intersection of a language and filmmaking, not a location and film-making.
Bollywood is centered in Mumbai, but that does not make it Marathi cinema, it is Hindi cinema. Similarly, even if the Armenian population in Hollywood rose to a majority, and the majority of them spoke Armenian in their homes, if the films made in that city remained made in English, they would not be classed as "Armenian cinema".
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
19:51, 29 March 2014 (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.
Category:Xia Dynasty
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 to change "Dynasty" to "dynasty". (Which also appears to be option 2.) No consensus on the rest. Feel free to re-nominate the various proposals at your discretion. - jc3722:54, 22 April 2014 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: A number of recent discussions resulted in the decapitalization of all "Dynasty" articles as to Chinese historical dynasties. (See, for the latest,
Talk:Han dynasty.) There is currently a group of (largely administrative, which I agree with, albeit with some reservations) speedy renaming proposals for moving a few of the largest category trees, and the nominator there has, with good reason, argued that those should be speedy-moved first before further discussions on the merits of renaming some of the categories. However, I do believe that Xia, being the oldest and probably the least complicated of the category trees, should be discussed first and can serve as a template for further discussion — which I believe should be done sequentially rather than all at once, because each of the dynasties may be in a different situation. As I've explained in my arguments in the decapitalization debate, I believe "Category:Foo dynasty people" is awkward, and during the discussion, some people who agreed with me that it would be awkward also believed that for a number of the category trees, the word "dynasty" can simply be omitted due to a lack of ambiguity. "Xia," however, is ambiguous. (See
Xia.) Therefore, I am suggesting that the category be named "Xia (dynasty)" although its subordinate categories may not need the "dynasty" disambiguator. Please discuss. --
Nlu (
talk)
01:32, 23 March 2014 (UTC)reply
Comment that would mismatch the article with the category. As the subsidiary categories are reliant on the same main article, they should share the same primary name. Categories require maintenance, so if the main category is renamed "Xia (dynasty)", then all the subsidiary categories should share in that. In any case, the main article needs to be renamed first. --
70.50.151.11 (
talk)
09:09, 23 March 2014 (UTC)reply
Oppose: There is no rational given for using
Category:Xia (dynasty) rather than
Category:Xia dynasty. The discussion at
Talk:Han dynasty rejected parenthetical disambiguation in favour of natural disambiguation. As for the point of dropping the word dynasty completely on certain categories, it may work in some cases but not in others. I think that is too complex to approve in a blank style. Rather I think we need to separate the issues. Lets get 'Dynasty' changed to 'dynasty' first. Then look at if and where 'dynasty' can be dropped as a separate discussion.
Rincewind42 (
talk)
13:44, 23 March 2014 (UTC)reply
Oppose as nominated. Consistency of titles helps both readers and editors, and there is now a broad consensus in favour using the for "Foo dynasty". The lowercase format was agreed at
this RFC, and endorsed in the group RM discussion at
Talk:Han dynasty#Han_Dynasty_to_Han_dynasty. I accept the sincerity of the nominator's preference for the parenthesised form of disambiguation, but that issue has already been settled. Using CFD to try to reopen that issue simply brings a re-run of a debate whose outcome is already clear, with the risk of inconsistency. I am sure there is no ill-intent, but the effect of this is a form of
WP:FORUMSHOPping.
Support the last two moves, though not the first, as
Category:Xia dynasty clearly and unambiguously corresponds to
Xia dynasty. "Xia dynasty" is awkward (though not ambiguous) when used as modifier, and the correct hyphenated form
Category:Xia-dynasty kings would make some people cringe. Both
Category:Xia kings and
Category:Xia politicians sound fine to me. (Well, not the completely anachronistic "politicians", which should be replaced by "officials" across the board, but I'll keep that for later.) "Xia kings" is succinct, natural, easy to find, and widely used in reliable sources.
[1][2] "Kings of the Xia dynasty" is longer and less easy to find, and in scholarly sources it mostly appears in expressions like "the kings of the Xia and the Shang".
[3][4] Note also that "Xia kings" is not ambiguous, because the rulers of
Xia (Sixteen Kingdoms) fall under
Category:Xia emperors and those of the
Western Xia under
Category:Western Xia emperors. Incidentally, ***these two categories show that the "Foo ba" structure is perfectly clear***, and that we've been using it all along. It's important to keep "Xia" as first word to preserve an identical structure for all the categories that have "kings" or "emperors" in them, otherwise some will become harder to find. Finally, as far as I could determine, all the categories where "ba" is a single word referring to an occupation are titled
Category:Foo dynasty ba. The even simpler "Foo ba" without "dynasty" in it preserves consistency across category names, and it would work equally well for "Xia kings" as for "Tang chancellors", "Song poets", and "Qing viceroys", all of which are natural and widely used in English-language
reliable sources. Succinct, natural, easy to find, unambiguous, consistent across all categories, and supported by RS: what more can we ask for? Nlu: I'm sure if you changed
Category:Xia (dynasty) to
Category:Xia dynasty, your proposal would receive strong support!
Madalibi (
talk)
15:08, 26 March 2014 (UTC)reply
That wasn't quite the consensus during that discussion. The consensus formed there goes to article titles and style, but explicitly, a number of opinions raised during that discussion contemplated omitting "dynasty" altogether with regard to category names. Indeed, a number of the supporters of decapitalization cited that as a reason why they support decapitalization — that the awkwardness in category names can be avoided by omitting "dynasty" altogether. --
Nlu (
talk)
16:03, 23 March 2014 (UTC)reply
@
Nlu: I should have spelt out that I proposed option2 as an implementation of @
Rincewind42:'s proposal to "look at if and where 'dynasty' can be dropped as a separate discussion". That discussion could usefully be a broader one looking at all dynasties. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
16:36, 23 March 2014 (UTC)reply
I understand that, but I think we should actually do this one dynasty at a time; otherwise, it becomes a massive (I'd estimate 500+ categories) discussion that it would soon be impossible to sort out exactly what everyone is talking about. --
Nlu (
talk)
20:51, 23 March 2014 (UTC)reply
Support option 2. The important thing is for these categories to be consistent across all related dynasty articles. I don't get why the need to suddenly rearrange the order of the name now (Option 3)? Just follow the original category's name.--
Balthazarduju (
talk)
07:13, 25 March 2014 (UTC)reply
I gave that option since the nominator and others gave the impression that they do not favor the alternative "X dynasty Y" format and there's little chance that the original nomination format will gain consensus. In regards to option 2, "Dynasty" should be be decapitalized in any case. --
Cold Season (
talk)
14:04, 27 March 2014 (UTC)reply
Comment – I would also support a speedy move of all these categories to the uncapitalized form (in the name of "let's take it step by step"), but I think a sufficient number of editors raised the issue of "awkwardness" for "Foo dynasty" used as modifier to justify a further discussion of all the "Foo dynasty ba" categories. In such a discussion, I would support "Foo ba" (see my "support" for Nlu's original proposal above).
Madalibi (
talk)
23:01, 26 March 2014 (UTC)reply
Support Given the potential for an unruly mess given the number of categories that would be affected by changing the word order and nomenclature of multiple dynasties, let's just stick with dropping the case of Dynasty.
► Philg88 ◄♦
talk09:43, 10 April 2014 (UTC)reply
Rationale. It's natural--with none of the purported awkwardness--and it still maintains the outcome of the
RfC and
RM discussions. I don't think it's an uncommon format, glancing at the sub-category entries of
Category:Kings. --
Cold Season (
talk)
17:36, 23 March 2014 (UTC)reply
Rename to option 2: "Xia dynasty". Why is this even being debated here? Since the article is at
Xia dynasty, the categories naturally follow. To introduce an alternate form in categories only complicates matters and makes the location of the categories unpredictable.
Good Ol’factory(talk)22:59, 23 March 2014 (UTC)reply
See the discussion at
Talk:Han Dynasty that led to the decapitalization. The awkwardness of the form was not something that I dreamed out of the blue; a good number of the people who discussed the issue shared my discomfort and suggested omitting "dynasty" as an alternative. While it would be legitimate to disagree with me, dismissing the idea out of hand would appear to be a form of bait-and-switch. --
Nlu (
talk)
01:10, 24 March 2014 (UTC)reply
What was mentioned was that formats like "Xia dynasty kings" was supposedly awkward, but it's mainly and inconclusively argued by those that opposed the successful move. This has no bearing to this rendering. Considering sub-articles titles often also followed this format (before and after the discussions)--e.g.
History of the Han dynasty,
Kings of the Han dynasty,
Economy of the Han dynasty, etc--and what I said in the rationale, I find it a good option. It's very consistent and applicable to the earlier discussion outcomes. --
Cold Season (
talk)
01:48, 24 March 2014 (UTC)reply
It's not a "bait-and-switch", it's simply an application of long-standing conventions. We don't need endless debate and discussion about the same identical issues over and over again. Once we decide on the article name, the category names follow the same form. That's why the convention exists—to avoid repetitive discussions such as this.
Good Ol’factory(talk)08:33, 24 March 2014 (UTC)reply
While I am in favour of dropping the D to d in dynasty, I see no need for a widespread change for the kings, politicians, etc, etc. Looking through Wikipedia you can see all three ways round. We have
Category:Later Zhou politicians without the dynasty. We have
Category:Military of the Qing Dynasty using 'of the'. Then we also have
Category:Xia Dynasty politicians. I don't think we should go changing hundreds of articles/categories without a strong reason. If it is currently Foo Dynasty ba then change it to Foo dynasty ba If it currently uses Ba of the Foo Dynasty then just change it to Ba of the Foo dynasty. If it currently omits dynasty, then leave it omitted and don't change anything at Ba of Foo. If there is one article/category you think might need a change, the raise it on that talk page. However so far nobody has given a reason to change other than one version sounds nicer to them and that is entirely a matter of personal preference. I would be nice to be consistent, however the whole of wikipedia (not just Chinese articles) is inconsistent on Ba of Foo versus Foo ba. I do note that for categories, Foo dynasty ba is more common while the corresponding article is more often than not titled, Ba of the Foo dynasty or Ba of Foo. So there is some mismatching between article titles and categories that may be cause for change in a few cases.
Rincewind42 (
talk)
05:52, 24 March 2014 (UTC)reply
Rename using option 3 preferably, or option 2. All the category names should follow the article name, as is conventional in cfd discussions.
Oculi (
talk)
11:31, 24 March 2014 (UTC)reply
Category:Wikipedians in the Wikipedia Neutrality Project
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 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:Colchester Garrison
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 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:Roman Emperors with Illyrian decent
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.
Delete as a
trivial intersection of unrelated characteristics. The Roman Empire stretched across Europe, the Middle East, and North Africa, and included tens or hundreds of native tribes and peoples. I oppose an upmerge to
Category:Illyrian people because, although these emperors were born in
Illyricum (or
Dalmatia), for all intents and purposes they were Roman, not Illyrian. -- Black Falcon(
talk)19:55, 23 March 2014 (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.
Category:Čačanska banka
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 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:Meadows in Kathmandu Valley
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.
Rename to
Category:Open Spaces in Kathmandu Valley. We have a plain; a field where a religious festival takes place; and a parade ground/sports field. They probably need a category. Some (at least) are categoriesed as meadows. That category should be removed. Whoever categorised them thus does not understand the definition of a meadow.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
18:33, 23 March 2014 (UTC)reply
Although using "open spaces" would solve the problem of accuracy, I think that it would broaden the scope of the category excessively. An "open space" could refer to something as large as the
Great Plains of North America or as small as a public park or town square. -- Black Falcon(
talk)20:15, 23 March 2014 (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.
LGAS
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 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: Indian cinema by state
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.
Oppose It is abstract to classify cinema by state, rather than language. It would be weird to label a Marathi film created say Baroda as Cinema of Gujarat; rather than Marathi cinema. What about pre-1960 (Maharashtra and Gujarat were not formed) Marathi movies? Would they be classified as cinema of Bombay State and pre-Independence Marathi cinema as cinema of Bombay Province? The categories are in line with articles e.g.
Marathi cinema. --
RedtigerxyzTalk13:15, 23 March 2014 (UTC)reply
Hi
Peterkingiron, the main category (
Category:Indian cinema by state) where the above mentioned sub-categories are located is not correct for these sub-categories. Hence, have created a discussion to be decided either for renaming the subcategories or moving the subcategories out of the main category. -
Thaejas (
talk)
06:17, 24 March 2014 (UTC)reply
Oppose as current categories are based on language of the film and that is more important than which state made it. If the nominator thinks that the categories per state should also exist, they are free to create such differently. §§
Dharmadhyaksha§§ {
T/
C}
06:49, 27 March 2014 (UTC)reply
Rename parent to
Category:Cinema by language. In the Tamil case it is not even clearly "Indian". If you look at the articles and sub-cats it is clear what is being categorized is the intersection of a language and filmmaking, not a location and film-making.
Bollywood is centered in Mumbai, but that does not make it Marathi cinema, it is Hindi cinema. Similarly, even if the Armenian population in Hollywood rose to a majority, and the majority of them spoke Armenian in their homes, if the films made in that city remained made in English, they would not be classed as "Armenian cinema".
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
19:51, 29 March 2014 (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.
Category:Xia Dynasty
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 to change "Dynasty" to "dynasty". (Which also appears to be option 2.) No consensus on the rest. Feel free to re-nominate the various proposals at your discretion. - jc3722:54, 22 April 2014 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: A number of recent discussions resulted in the decapitalization of all "Dynasty" articles as to Chinese historical dynasties. (See, for the latest,
Talk:Han dynasty.) There is currently a group of (largely administrative, which I agree with, albeit with some reservations) speedy renaming proposals for moving a few of the largest category trees, and the nominator there has, with good reason, argued that those should be speedy-moved first before further discussions on the merits of renaming some of the categories. However, I do believe that Xia, being the oldest and probably the least complicated of the category trees, should be discussed first and can serve as a template for further discussion — which I believe should be done sequentially rather than all at once, because each of the dynasties may be in a different situation. As I've explained in my arguments in the decapitalization debate, I believe "Category:Foo dynasty people" is awkward, and during the discussion, some people who agreed with me that it would be awkward also believed that for a number of the category trees, the word "dynasty" can simply be omitted due to a lack of ambiguity. "Xia," however, is ambiguous. (See
Xia.) Therefore, I am suggesting that the category be named "Xia (dynasty)" although its subordinate categories may not need the "dynasty" disambiguator. Please discuss. --
Nlu (
talk)
01:32, 23 March 2014 (UTC)reply
Comment that would mismatch the article with the category. As the subsidiary categories are reliant on the same main article, they should share the same primary name. Categories require maintenance, so if the main category is renamed "Xia (dynasty)", then all the subsidiary categories should share in that. In any case, the main article needs to be renamed first. --
70.50.151.11 (
talk)
09:09, 23 March 2014 (UTC)reply
Oppose: There is no rational given for using
Category:Xia (dynasty) rather than
Category:Xia dynasty. The discussion at
Talk:Han dynasty rejected parenthetical disambiguation in favour of natural disambiguation. As for the point of dropping the word dynasty completely on certain categories, it may work in some cases but not in others. I think that is too complex to approve in a blank style. Rather I think we need to separate the issues. Lets get 'Dynasty' changed to 'dynasty' first. Then look at if and where 'dynasty' can be dropped as a separate discussion.
Rincewind42 (
talk)
13:44, 23 March 2014 (UTC)reply
Oppose as nominated. Consistency of titles helps both readers and editors, and there is now a broad consensus in favour using the for "Foo dynasty". The lowercase format was agreed at
this RFC, and endorsed in the group RM discussion at
Talk:Han dynasty#Han_Dynasty_to_Han_dynasty. I accept the sincerity of the nominator's preference for the parenthesised form of disambiguation, but that issue has already been settled. Using CFD to try to reopen that issue simply brings a re-run of a debate whose outcome is already clear, with the risk of inconsistency. I am sure there is no ill-intent, but the effect of this is a form of
WP:FORUMSHOPping.
Support the last two moves, though not the first, as
Category:Xia dynasty clearly and unambiguously corresponds to
Xia dynasty. "Xia dynasty" is awkward (though not ambiguous) when used as modifier, and the correct hyphenated form
Category:Xia-dynasty kings would make some people cringe. Both
Category:Xia kings and
Category:Xia politicians sound fine to me. (Well, not the completely anachronistic "politicians", which should be replaced by "officials" across the board, but I'll keep that for later.) "Xia kings" is succinct, natural, easy to find, and widely used in reliable sources.
[1][2] "Kings of the Xia dynasty" is longer and less easy to find, and in scholarly sources it mostly appears in expressions like "the kings of the Xia and the Shang".
[3][4] Note also that "Xia kings" is not ambiguous, because the rulers of
Xia (Sixteen Kingdoms) fall under
Category:Xia emperors and those of the
Western Xia under
Category:Western Xia emperors. Incidentally, ***these two categories show that the "Foo ba" structure is perfectly clear***, and that we've been using it all along. It's important to keep "Xia" as first word to preserve an identical structure for all the categories that have "kings" or "emperors" in them, otherwise some will become harder to find. Finally, as far as I could determine, all the categories where "ba" is a single word referring to an occupation are titled
Category:Foo dynasty ba. The even simpler "Foo ba" without "dynasty" in it preserves consistency across category names, and it would work equally well for "Xia kings" as for "Tang chancellors", "Song poets", and "Qing viceroys", all of which are natural and widely used in English-language
reliable sources. Succinct, natural, easy to find, unambiguous, consistent across all categories, and supported by RS: what more can we ask for? Nlu: I'm sure if you changed
Category:Xia (dynasty) to
Category:Xia dynasty, your proposal would receive strong support!
Madalibi (
talk)
15:08, 26 March 2014 (UTC)reply
That wasn't quite the consensus during that discussion. The consensus formed there goes to article titles and style, but explicitly, a number of opinions raised during that discussion contemplated omitting "dynasty" altogether with regard to category names. Indeed, a number of the supporters of decapitalization cited that as a reason why they support decapitalization — that the awkwardness in category names can be avoided by omitting "dynasty" altogether. --
Nlu (
talk)
16:03, 23 March 2014 (UTC)reply
@
Nlu: I should have spelt out that I proposed option2 as an implementation of @
Rincewind42:'s proposal to "look at if and where 'dynasty' can be dropped as a separate discussion". That discussion could usefully be a broader one looking at all dynasties. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
16:36, 23 March 2014 (UTC)reply
I understand that, but I think we should actually do this one dynasty at a time; otherwise, it becomes a massive (I'd estimate 500+ categories) discussion that it would soon be impossible to sort out exactly what everyone is talking about. --
Nlu (
talk)
20:51, 23 March 2014 (UTC)reply
Support option 2. The important thing is for these categories to be consistent across all related dynasty articles. I don't get why the need to suddenly rearrange the order of the name now (Option 3)? Just follow the original category's name.--
Balthazarduju (
talk)
07:13, 25 March 2014 (UTC)reply
I gave that option since the nominator and others gave the impression that they do not favor the alternative "X dynasty Y" format and there's little chance that the original nomination format will gain consensus. In regards to option 2, "Dynasty" should be be decapitalized in any case. --
Cold Season (
talk)
14:04, 27 March 2014 (UTC)reply
Comment – I would also support a speedy move of all these categories to the uncapitalized form (in the name of "let's take it step by step"), but I think a sufficient number of editors raised the issue of "awkwardness" for "Foo dynasty" used as modifier to justify a further discussion of all the "Foo dynasty ba" categories. In such a discussion, I would support "Foo ba" (see my "support" for Nlu's original proposal above).
Madalibi (
talk)
23:01, 26 March 2014 (UTC)reply
Support Given the potential for an unruly mess given the number of categories that would be affected by changing the word order and nomenclature of multiple dynasties, let's just stick with dropping the case of Dynasty.
► Philg88 ◄♦
talk09:43, 10 April 2014 (UTC)reply
Rationale. It's natural--with none of the purported awkwardness--and it still maintains the outcome of the
RfC and
RM discussions. I don't think it's an uncommon format, glancing at the sub-category entries of
Category:Kings. --
Cold Season (
talk)
17:36, 23 March 2014 (UTC)reply
Rename to option 2: "Xia dynasty". Why is this even being debated here? Since the article is at
Xia dynasty, the categories naturally follow. To introduce an alternate form in categories only complicates matters and makes the location of the categories unpredictable.
Good Ol’factory(talk)22:59, 23 March 2014 (UTC)reply
See the discussion at
Talk:Han Dynasty that led to the decapitalization. The awkwardness of the form was not something that I dreamed out of the blue; a good number of the people who discussed the issue shared my discomfort and suggested omitting "dynasty" as an alternative. While it would be legitimate to disagree with me, dismissing the idea out of hand would appear to be a form of bait-and-switch. --
Nlu (
talk)
01:10, 24 March 2014 (UTC)reply
What was mentioned was that formats like "Xia dynasty kings" was supposedly awkward, but it's mainly and inconclusively argued by those that opposed the successful move. This has no bearing to this rendering. Considering sub-articles titles often also followed this format (before and after the discussions)--e.g.
History of the Han dynasty,
Kings of the Han dynasty,
Economy of the Han dynasty, etc--and what I said in the rationale, I find it a good option. It's very consistent and applicable to the earlier discussion outcomes. --
Cold Season (
talk)
01:48, 24 March 2014 (UTC)reply
It's not a "bait-and-switch", it's simply an application of long-standing conventions. We don't need endless debate and discussion about the same identical issues over and over again. Once we decide on the article name, the category names follow the same form. That's why the convention exists—to avoid repetitive discussions such as this.
Good Ol’factory(talk)08:33, 24 March 2014 (UTC)reply
While I am in favour of dropping the D to d in dynasty, I see no need for a widespread change for the kings, politicians, etc, etc. Looking through Wikipedia you can see all three ways round. We have
Category:Later Zhou politicians without the dynasty. We have
Category:Military of the Qing Dynasty using 'of the'. Then we also have
Category:Xia Dynasty politicians. I don't think we should go changing hundreds of articles/categories without a strong reason. If it is currently Foo Dynasty ba then change it to Foo dynasty ba If it currently uses Ba of the Foo Dynasty then just change it to Ba of the Foo dynasty. If it currently omits dynasty, then leave it omitted and don't change anything at Ba of Foo. If there is one article/category you think might need a change, the raise it on that talk page. However so far nobody has given a reason to change other than one version sounds nicer to them and that is entirely a matter of personal preference. I would be nice to be consistent, however the whole of wikipedia (not just Chinese articles) is inconsistent on Ba of Foo versus Foo ba. I do note that for categories, Foo dynasty ba is more common while the corresponding article is more often than not titled, Ba of the Foo dynasty or Ba of Foo. So there is some mismatching between article titles and categories that may be cause for change in a few cases.
Rincewind42 (
talk)
05:52, 24 March 2014 (UTC)reply
Rename using option 3 preferably, or option 2. All the category names should follow the article name, as is conventional in cfd discussions.
Oculi (
talk)
11:31, 24 March 2014 (UTC)reply