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. Dana boomer ( talk) 00:04, 9 November 2011 (UTC) reply

Propose merging Category:German history books into Category:History books about Germany

Nominator's rationale: The category “History books about Germany” is a later created category but is more descriptive, ie it is for books about German history but not (say) to include German (history) books about the history of France or the Middle East. If agreed, I would also propose the merging of the other seven countries in Category:History books by country. PS: should the category for Germany be a subcategory of both Category:History of Germany and Category:Historigraphy of Germany; ref the category Category:Indian history books? PS: most of the country subcategories of Category:Works about countries do not have a link to a category for the particular country as they should. Exceptions include China (to main country category) and the United Kingdom (to British culture subcategory); which option is preferred? Hugo999 ( talk) 23:04, 30 October 2011 (UTC) reply

• Merge per nom, but I don't think the single entry, a Nazi period diary, should be categorized as a "history book" at all - that should be reserved for works by historians, not primary sources, however valuable. Johnbod ( talk) 17:15, 1 November 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: administrative close: deleted by another admin per G7. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:58, 8 November 2011 (UTC) reply

Category:Robot is a newly created near-duplicate of Category:Robotics. Creator has also been busy moving articles from Robotics to Robot. We don't need this and the singular name is against WP:MOS. We already have Category:Robots too, for individually notable robots. Andy Dingley ( talk) 21:43, 30 October 2011 (UTC) reply

• Delete duplication of what should be Category:Robots and Category:Robotics 65.94.77.11 ( talk) 05:09, 1 November 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.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 06:53, 14 November 2011 (UTC) reply

Propose merging Category:Metal Highway Bridges of Fulton County Multiple Property Submission to Category:Bridges in Fulton County, Illinois

Nominator's rationale: Merge. These bridges are not notable for being in the MPS. Upmerge in case any are not currently listed in the county category. Navigation is be better addressed in the main article, Metal Highway Bridges of Fulton County Thematic Resources. Vegaswikian ( talk) 21:42, 30 October 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. Dana boomer ( talk) 00:06, 9 November 2011 (UTC) reply

Category:Houses of Mississippi River Men Thematic Resource ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Guttenberg, Iowa MPS ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Advent & Development of Railroads in Iowa MPS ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Architectural Legacy of Proudfoot & Bird in Iowa MPS ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Public Schools for Iowa: Growth and Change MPS ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:PWA-Era County Courthouses of IA MPS ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. This nomination is for a collection of TRs and MPSs that are small and some larger ones. In the end, previous discussions have failed to establish that being in a TR or an MPS is defining for the property. The buildings are notable on their own and not from being in the broader resource. When the TR or MPS is notable on it's own, it has an article that provides better navigation for the related articles. Vegaswikian ( talk) 21:25, 30 October 2011 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom. Altairisfar ( talk) 03:15, 31 October 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 to first set of proposed names.. Dana boomer ( talk) 00:04, 9 November 2011 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:Words coined in the 21st century to Category:21st-century neologisms

Propose renaming Category:Words coined in the 20th century to Category:20th-century neologisms

Propose renaming Category:Words coined in the 19th century to Category:19th-century neologisms

Nominator's rationale: Rename. This category is not simply words, it is words and phrases which are more correctly neologisms. Another option would be Category:Neologisms introduced in the 21st century which might more correctly identify the purpose and would better identify this as a part of the introductions category tree. In any case, this change would need to be applied to the related categories. Vegaswikian ( talk) 20:48, 30 October 2011 (UTC) reply

• Rename It makes sense to use the wider scope. As for the name of the new category I prefer 21st-century neologisms to the more verbose Neologisms introduced in the 21st century. Pichpich ( talk) 15:49, 31 October 2011 (UTC) reply
  • I suggested the longer version to make clear that it is for introductions during the century. Otherwise, some editors will be inclined to add every century the neologism is used in to the articles. So, verbose, maybe. Clearer about the use, probably. Either would be an improvement over that we have now. Vegaswikian ( talk) 18:25, 31 October 2011 (UTC) reply

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Rename. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 04:09, 7 November 2011 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:Minneapolis – Saint Paul to Category:Minneapolis–Saint Paul

Nominator's rationale: (including some subcategories, which either use a endash with spaces or a simple hyphen) Per main article and MOS. The Evil IP address ( talk) 17:36, 30 October 2011 (UTC) reply

• Rename and also rename Minneapolis – Saint Paul. ( WP:DASH has changed since I last looked at it, when it supported Minneapolis – Saint Paul. Now en-dash is not spaced except in some dates. Can bots not be instructed to make this sort of minor change?) Occuli ( talk) 19:50, 30 October 2011 (UTC) reply
• Additional note: some of the categories still use "St. Paul" instead of "Saint Paul", which was changed in the main article some time ago, too. They should be renamed too. -- The Evil IP address ( talk) 08:18, 31 October 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. Dana boomer ( talk) 00:04, 9 November 2011 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:Works on literature to Category:Works about literature

Propose renaming Category:Books on Dacia to Category:Books about Dacia

Propose renaming Category:Books on historiography to Category:Books about historiography (or Category:Historiography books)

Propose renaming Category:Essays on anarchism to Category:Essays about anarchism

Propose renaming Category:Essays on music to Category:Essays about music

Propose renaming Category:Essays on poetry to Category:Essays about poetry

Propose renaming Category:Essays on literature to Category:Essays about literature

Nominator's rationale: There are no other "Works on" categories. The wide variety of subjects in here suggests the standard "(Formats) about (X)" should be used instead.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 15:20, 30 October 2011 (UTC) reply

Agree As creator of Category:Essays on anarchism, I see no problem in this. That seems a simple conversion. -- Cast ( talk) 16:21, 30 October 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. Vegaswikian ( talk) 22:16, 15 November 2011 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:Journalism-themed television series to Category:Television series about journalism

Nominator's rationale: There aren't very many "-themed" works categories. The emerging standard in Category:Works by topic is "Works about (X)." This is a subcategory of Category:Works about journalism.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 15:01, 30 October 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 Category:Death-related art to Category:Death in art in line with sibling categories within Category:Art by subject. Rename all others as nominated following the "Foo about bar" form. If any works deal with a subject in a non-defining way, they should not be categorised by it. If the coverage of a subject in various works is non-defining but nevertheless notable, then the way to incorporate it in the encyclopedia is instead to create a list or a fuller descriptive article. – Fayenatic (talk) 23:37, 26 November 2011 (UTC) reply

A global nomination for multiple types of (something)-related works. Our primary categorization scheme in Category:Works by topic is "(Type of work)s about (topic)". The following subnominations are broken out by topic, in case people want to debate specifics of the category names.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 18:56, 1 November 2011 (UTC) reply

Category:Death-related art

Propose renaming Category:Death-related art to Category:Works about death (or Category:Art about death if contents are streamlined)

Propose renaming Category:Christian death-related art to Category:Christian art about death

Propose renaming Category:Paintings on the theme of death to Category:Paintings about death

Nominator's rationale: The first category is more properly a "Works" category, because it includes paintings, films, and songs. Most categories of Category:Art by subject are about visual art. The second and third nominations are designed to bring them into the "Works about" format.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 15:50, 30 October 2011 (UTC) reply

• Thank-you for making this nomination and for notifying me as the creator of two of the categories. I don't have any objections to the renaming, but wanted to note here that at the time of creation the 'Death-related art' category only contained paintings (I think), though I know from previous discussions that 'art' can be a bit ambiguous. For the second category, the name of 'Paintings on the theme of death' was chosen to fit the parent category 'Paintings by theme'. Maybe it could be considered whether category names should use the term 'theme' or not? Also, Ithink someone else split off created Category:Paintings depicting death to a subcategory, as not all paintings on this theme actually show death (some are very abstract, with death referred to in the title of the work). I actually prefer the way Commons approaches this, with the category name being 'Death in Art', which is more intuitive in some ways. Carcharoth ( talk) 16:07, 30 October 2011 (UTC) reply
  • I should be clear that I don't have any problem with a category called Category:Art about death as long as it only contains works of visual art. It could be a subcategory to Category:Works about death. The Category:Paintings depicting death probably should be merged into the new Category:Paintings about death, if this nomination passes.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 16:21, 30 October 2011 (UTC) reply
    • Your (just now) proposed merger of Category:Paintings depicting death is a different matter to the renaming issue. Would it be possible to keep those issues separate? Getting back to the naming issue, do you have any opinions on whether the term 'theme' is amenable to categorisation? There are currently 79 categories with 'theme' in the title. Are you sure that "about" is a better way to name these categories? Carcharoth ( talk) 16:36, 30 October 2011 (UTC) reply
      • Yes, that's a separate issue, and I may bring it up if this nomination passes. I definitely think "Works about" is the right call, because it doesn't split hairs about whether something is "related" to the subject or not.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 16:41, 30 October 2011 (UTC) reply
        • Fair enough. On closer examination, I see many of the "by theme" categories are soft redirects to "by topic" categories. Though some aren't, like Category:Literature by theme and Category:Paintings by theme. The parent category appears to be Category:Works by topic, though some subcategories are 'by subject'. Good luck with that. Carcharoth ( talk) 16:51, 30 October 2011 (UTC) reply
• Support I'm in favor of making some consistency to this scheme. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 17:27, 30 October 2011 (UTC) reply
• Support - however I feel that the word ART should be retained, or is the category supposed to include books about death, mausoleums and other "works?" Einar aka Carptrash ( talk) 17:37, 30 October 2011 (UTC) reply
  • I would say it does include such things currently. It doesn't have to, as noted above. Category:Art about death is a fine category for visual art only.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 18:02, 30 October 2011 (UTC) reply
• Oppose. See my replies concerning drug-related works, and adoption-related works. -- Timeshifter ( talk) 17:49, 30 October 2011 (UTC) reply
• Comment. These might work: Death in art or Death-related works. Not Category:Works about death or Category:Art about death. "About" is too restrictive, and implies that death is the main topic of the work. Look at Commons:Category:Death in art. It has subcategories such as Burials in art, Skeletons in art, Skulls in art, etc.. They are not necessarily Works about death. Commons freely uses category prepositions in many ways. That makes the Commons categories nuanced, accurate, and therefore more useful for categorization. Wikipedia is not paper. We do not have a quota on prepositions like "in" or adjectives like "death-related". -- Timeshifter ( talk) 02:14, 2 November 2011 (UTC) reply

(X)-related songs

Propose renaming Category:School-related songs to Category:Songs about school

Propose renaming Category:Cold War-related songs to Category:Songs about the Cold War

Nominator's rationale: Mike Selinker ( talk) 15:41, 30 October 2011 (UTC) reply

Nominator's rationale: There aren't very many "-related" works categories. The emerging standard in Category:Works by topic is "Works about (X)."-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 15:01, 30 October 2011 (UTC) reply

• Oppose. See my replies concerning drug-related works, and adoption-related works. -- Timeshifter ( talk) 17:49, 30 October 2011 (UTC) reply

Race-related works

Propose renaming Category:Race-related films to Category:Films about race

Propose renaming Category:Race-related books to Category:Books about race

Propose renaming Category:Race-related plays to Category:Plays about race

Nominator's rationale: There aren't very many "-related" works categories. The emerging standard in Category:Works by topic is "Works about (X)." I newly created Category:Works about race to hold these.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 15:01, 30 October 2011 (UTC) reply

• Oppose. See my replies concerning drug-related works, and adoption-related works. -- Timeshifter ( talk) 17:45, 30 October 2011 (UTC) reply

Cancer-related works

Propose renaming Category:Cancer-related films to Category:Films about cancer

Propose renaming Category:Cancer-related books to Category:Books about cancer

Nominator's rationale: There aren't very many "-related" works categories. The emerging standard in Category:Works by topic is "Works about (X)." These are subcategories of Category:Works about cancer.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 15:01, 30 October 2011 (UTC) reply

• Oppose. See my replies concerning drug-related works, and adoption-related works. -- Timeshifter ( talk) 17:46, 30 October 2011 (UTC) reply

Category:Drug-related works

Propose renaming Category:Drug-related works to Category:Works about drugs

Propose renaming Category:Drug-related video games to Category:Video games about drugs

Propose renaming Category:Drug-related songs to Category:Songs about drugs

Propose renaming Category:Drug-related poetry to Category:Poetry about drugs

Propose renaming Category:Drug-related literature to Category:Literature about drugs

Propose renaming Category:Drug-related films to Category:Films about drugs

Propose renaming Category:Cannabis-related films to Category:Films about cannabis

Nominator's rationale: There aren't very many "-related" works categories. The emerging standard in Category:Works by topic is "Works about (X)."-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 15:01, 30 October 2011 (UTC) reply

• Oppose. There can be a big difference between cannabis-related films, and films about cannabis. Some of the films in the category 'cannabis-related films' are not about cannabis, but cannabis plays an important part in the films. For example; Dazed and confused. Some of those new category names that are listed could be subcategories. -- Timeshifter ( talk) 15:23, 30 October 2011 (UTC) reply
  • If cannabis plays an important part in a film, then the film is about cannabis. For example, Dazed and confused is definitely about cannabis.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 15:36, 30 October 2011 (UTC) reply
    • I would categorize it as a teenage coming-of-age film, with cannabis as an important topic in it. Grass (1999 film) is a film about cannabis. -- Timeshifter ( talk) 15:56, 30 October 2011 (UTC) reply
      • Comment. If the topic plays an important part in the work but is not what the work is about, I would then question whether the work being "foo-related" is a defining characteristic of the work. -- Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars ( talk) 19:49, 30 October 2011 (UTC) reply

Not quite sure what you mean. Being "foo-related" does not necessarily mean it is the main, defining topic. -- Timeshifter ( talk) 23:31, 30 October 2011 (UTC) reply

This is what we're trying to make clear. Categories should be about things that are defining. If a film is about cannabis, then it's worth categorizing. But if it only has cannabis as a tangential theme, we have no reason to categorize it in relationship to cannabis. The proposed change will set a strong standard for inclusion, and those that don't meet it will likely be removed. That's what categories are about.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 11:45, 31 October 2011 (UTC) reply

You are incorrect. Articles are categorized according to multiple topics, not just the main topic. Deletionism is not a policy of Wikipedia. -- Timeshifter ( talk) 19:30, 31 October 2011 (UTC) reply

I see that I'm not going to convince you. Hopefully others will weigh in.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 01:54, 1 November 2011 (UTC) reply

Cannabis is a defining characteristic of nearly all the movies listed in the category. So the category applies according to WP:DEFINING. Cannabis is not a trivial characteristic of nearly all the movies listed in the category. WP:OC#TRIVIA: "Avoid categorizing topics by characteristics that are wholly peripheral to the topic's notability." Most articles have multiple defining characteristics. This is what you are not acknowledging. "About cannabis" implies that cannabis is the main topic of the film. -- Timeshifter ( talk) 01:50, 2 November 2011 (UTC) reply

• Support per nominator's rationale. The opposing argument is not convincing. --- RepublicanJacobite _TheFortyFive 16:11, 1 November 2011 (UTC) reply

That is not an argument based on Wikipedia guidelines. -- Timeshifter ( talk) 01:37, 2 November 2011 (UTC) reply

Category:Adoption-related works

Propose renaming Category:Adoption-related works to Category:Works about adoption

Nominator's rationale: There aren't very many "-related" works categories. The emerging standard in Category:Works by topic is "Works about (X)."-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 15:01, 30 October 2011 (UTC) reply

• Oppose. There is a difference between adoption-related works, and works about adoption. A.I. Artificial Intelligence is not a film about adoption. The words 'adopt' or 'adoption' are not mentioned in the article. One might call having a child-like android with emotions an adopted child of sorts. Thus the film is an adoption-related film. -- Timeshifter ( talk) 17:41, 30 October 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Then why are we bothering to categorize such films? Does Cast Away belong in Category:Volleyball-related films? I'm now in favor of making all of these rename and purge nominations.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 18:01, 30 October 2011 (UTC) reply
    • Some people like to waste time on works about deletion. But seriously, some topics are of interest to the readers of Wikipedia. -- Timeshifter ( talk) 18:24, 30 October 2011 (UTC) reply
      • I get that. What I'm saying is that if a film is only tangentially about something, such as A.I. only being very tangentially about adoption, why do we categorize it that way? A.I. is clearly about robots, so it belongs in a category about robots. But it doesn't need a category about adoption. Only films that are about adoption need to be categorized in relation to adoption.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 19:29, 30 October 2011 (UTC) reply

Not necessarily. Many topics are approached in a roundabout way, through simile, metaphor, science fiction, etc.. Secondary topics are important for categories. -- Timeshifter ( talk) 23:36, 30 October 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. Dana boomer ( talk) 00:04, 9 November 2011 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:Temples dedicated to Lord Jagannath to Category:Temples dedicated to Jagannath

Nominator's rationale: Removal of honorific. Redtigerxyz ^Talk 13:41, 30 October 2011 (UTC) reply

• Agree, the renaming is in line with WP policy on honorifics. Chiswick Chap ( talk) 19:29, 30 October 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.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 22:15, 14 November 2011 (UTC) reply

Propose merging Category:Compositions by Czech composers to Category:Works by Czech people

Nominator's rationale: Singular case; I can't find any other category "Composions by fooian composers"; on the other hand, Category:Works by nationality is the container of many categories "Compositions by person". See also: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 October 11#Category:Operas by Czech composers. Michael Bednarek ( talk) 10:32, 30 October 2011 (UTC) reply

• Merge – per say Category:Works by English people. Occuli ( talk) 12:59, 30 October 2011 (UTC) reply
• Comment I don't pay too much attention to all this, but if what Michael says is true, then it's a no brainer. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ ( talk) 13:47, 30 October 2011 (UTC) reply
• Keep - there are already 418 subcategories in Category:Compositions by composer. I suggest that this needs refining, which can be done in multiple ways—including ethnicity/country of origin. Beeswaxcandle ( talk) 06:35, 1 November 2011 (UTC) reply

Comment – I suggest that creating such categories is fraught with problems of nationalistic and anachronistic categorisation, and as there is no easy way to reference category membership, they will invite controversial edits. For a start: Benatzky? Handel?, Mahler? Mozart? -- Michael Bednarek ( talk) 08:12, 1 November 2011 (UTC) reply

• Clear Keep - This is a perfectly valid category. It seems to me that the rationale offered for deletion/upmerging is awfully flimsy. First of all, just because there may not at present be any other categories for a future Category:Compositions by nationality of composer doesn't mean this category should be done away with; rather it suggests that additional categories are awaiting creation. Category trees are not expected to be created en masse in their entirety -- they generally grow incrementally, one or two sub-cats at a time. Think of it as a seedling, if you will.

Furthermore, this category is entirely analagous to many others -- for example, Category:Belgian novels by author‎, or Category:Films by Japanese directors. The only difference is that those category trees are further along in their development.

And lastly, the suggestion that categories like this are inherently problematic due to alleged issues regarding nationality is pretty silly. To begin with, that argument (if it were valid) would apply equally to the proposed upmerge target, Category:Works by Czech people -- and all of its counterparts. But to be very clear: it simply isn't an issue. Simply put, all of the composers whose works are included herein are already categorized by their nationality. This is also true for the examples offered by the nominator, some of whom have been categorized under more than one nationality, when that has been deemed appropriate. Ergo, in a Compositions by nationality of composer scheme their compositions would simply be categorized in accord with those nationalities. Cgingold ( talk) 00:37, 2 November 2011 (UTC) reply

• Also, worth noting: I've added a very obvious but missing parent cat: Category:Czech composers (as well as creating a new sub-cat, Category:Compositions by Pavel Haas). Cgingold ( talk) 00:59, 2 November 2011 (UTC) reply

• A difference is that categorising a article about a person by the nationality of the person will follow from the text within the article (and can be challenged at article level). Putting Category:Works by J. R. R. Tolkien into Category:Works by English people includes an assertion that JRRT is English, which doesn't follow from the category itself and won't show up on the JRRT watchlist. I would not myself support the creation of any of these 'boos by fooians' schemes and am certainly opposed to any extension of them. (Neither am I keen on putting compositions into composer ('people') categories.) Occuli ( talk) 09:03, 2 November 2011 (UTC) reply

• Yes, I'd endorse that. Occuli explains this well. -- Klein zach 05:42, 10 November 2011 (UTC) reply

Comment – There is obviously great reluctance (or apathy) to categorise compositions by nationality: the tree under Category:Works by nationality is spectactularly bereft of "compositions" (e.g. zero Italians and Russians, 4 Germans, one of them Handel). This indicates to me that a comprehensive categorisation scheme of compositions by nationality is not going to be established any time soon. Even the opera of the aforementioned Pavel Haas doesn't appear anywhere in that tree. -- Michael Bednarek ( talk) 06:32, 2 November 2011 (UTC) reply

• Merge per nom; doesn't look like it's part of an overall scheme. It could be; but at this stage it is not. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:59, 8 November 2011 (UTC) reply
• Merge per nom and Good Ol’factory. -- Klein zach 05:37, 10 November 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 to Category:Railway stations with vitreous enamel panels. There seems to be very little confidence in this category, and I wouldn't be surprised if it failed its next appearance here.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 22:13, 14 November 2011 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:Stations with enamel panels to Category:Railway stations with enamel panels

Nominator's rationale: Per parent category, Category:Railway stations. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:31, 30 October 2011 (UTC) reply

• Rename as ambiguous Curb Chain ( talk) 14:09, 30 October 2011 (UTC) reply
• Rename. the first thing that came to my mind when I saw the category was art deco gas stations with enamel panels, which I assume should not be included in this category. Einar aka Carptrash ( talk) 17:40, 30 October 2011 (UTC) reply
• Delete. This is not defining for the stations. I fail to see how having a few panels can be considered as defining. If this stays, will we need to create a category like Category:Towns with enamel street signs? If kept, it probably should be renamed to Category:Railway stations with vitreous enamel panels since enamel is ambiguous. Also some have panels which is ambiguous and others have plaques which further confuses the naming. Vegaswikian ( talk) 18:41, 31 October 2011 (UTC) reply
• Rename. I am happy with Vegaswikian's proposal that this should be renamed to Category:Railway stations with vitreous enamel panels since both "station" and "enamel" are potentially ambiguous. But it might be even better to rename it to Category:Railway stations with decorative vitreous enamel panels because my idea when I added this category was not to capture all railway stations where the name of the station is on a vitreous enamel sign (which would include far too many railway stations to be interesting), but to identify all railway stations where vitreous enamel signs are used as a decorative element (which I believe is a useful category because vitreous enamel panels aren't often used decoratively in railway stations). Winstonsmith99 ( talk) 00:17, 1 November 2011 (UTC) reply
  • In which case that would be a quadruple intersection which we generally tend to not categorize. We usually stop at double intersections. And decorative is rather subjective. Vegaswikian ( talk) 05:14, 1 November 2011 (UTC) reply
• Comment Most stations, at least in Europe but I suspect everywhere, use vitreous enamel for their big platform name signs & very often other signage - certainly all London Underground ones. This is clearly not defining, & I'm dubious that additional decorative use is, although I don't share Vegas's view that this is subjective. "Enamel panels" is little help, as it suggests the signage is meant. A rename to Category:Railway stations with decorative vitreous enamel would be best if a category is justified at all. Johnbod ( talk) 17:25, 1 November 2011 (UTC) reply
• keep and rename to Category:Railway stations with vitreous enamel panels per above. With only 30 stations in this category out of the thousands of above and below ground railway/railroad stations that exist, this is distinctive. Hmains ( talk) 20:18, 6 November 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. Dana boomer ( talk) 01:46, 15 November 2011 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:Giedraičiai to Category:Giedraitis family

Nominator's rationale: Using the conventions of the family categories and the head article Giedraitis family.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 02:48, 30 October 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. Dana boomer ( talk) 01:46, 15 November 2011 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:Golitsyns to Category:Galitzine family

Nominator's rationale: Using the conventions of family categories, and the spelling at the head article Galitzine.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 02:47, 30 October 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.